Support the Death Penalty?

[rpp]

Murdering the convicted is antiquated and barbaric and will only become more so as time goes on.

You are completely correct. Like th example I cited in some previous posts regarding the murder of Jeffery Dahmer, notorious serial killer and cannibal.

But execution is not murder. And while permissible in Catholic teaching, it’s administration and appropriateness is what should be debated. Using inaccurate and pejorative terms is not helpful to a reasoned debate.

 

[sprout]

You are completely correct. Like th example I cited in some previous posts regarding the murder of Jeffery Dahmer, notorious serial killer and cannibal.

But execution is not murder. And while permissible in Catholic teaching, it’s administration and appropriateness is what should be debated. Using inaccurate and pejorative terms is not helpful to a reasoned debate.

neither is sarcasm, taking quotes out of context, or the use of fallacies of logic.

I was explaining my understanding of how the Church has evolved it’s teaching (rather than contradicted) throughout the course of time in response to Ray’s comment:

It is not appropriate to insist on interpreting comments made in a personal capacity in a way that either openly contradicts or implies prior error in the teaching of the Church.

I was also pointing out the difference between supporting as in “promoting, encouraging, defending” and supporting as in “bearing with”.

I find it incredulous that some actually support as in “promoting, encouraging, defending” the use of capital punishment and claim that the Church of Christ does the same.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is misleading to speak of “the Magesterium” suggesting something when the pope is making a judgment about something outside of his designated scope of authority and specific knowledge. That is actual, verifiable, black and white, you quoted it yourself from its formal statement in 1870, Church teaching. A pope or bishop speaking to the current capability of prison infrastructure or suggesting an obligation of the State to use their limited resources to provide cutting edge facilities at the expense of the State’s other obligations to society cannot do so in their roles as the head or members of the Magesterium.

Ray
Outside yourself no one is suggesting the Church runs the state and thus controls the infrastructure. I am attaching a interesting read. It is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia arguing the benefits of the death penalty against the stand of the Church. If the Church supports the death penalty Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia would be a fool!
209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/622344/posts

I’ve worked for the Texas prison system for 11+ years now, and have personally visited well over half of the facilities in the system. The technology is probably pretty close as far as having testable conceptual models, but considering the unit my office is at was built in 1918 (and isn’t going to be retired anytime soon) it is the cost of implementation that is probably the biggest holdup on widespread use, even in new construction. There are some rather recent instances of DR serial killers who helped “coach” their outside “fans” on how to carry out copycat attempts - that in and of itself is a pretty clear sign that there are still problems.

By the church’s own definition, application of the death penalty by a state making a plausible effort to protect the common good is is not murder. For that matter, hanging is still on the books (and may even be used) in some states, and the Church did not speak against use of that particular method as others became available - because those decisions were within the realm of the state…

I’m glad you mention this. I have been wondering. Ray you and your fellow workers do a great service to our country. The issue here is not about money. The appropriate amount should be spent. The two primary issues are (1) the appropriateness of the death penalty when applied to murders, and (2) the culpability of us when an innocence person is executed.

 

[adrift]

It’s not ‘my’ argument, it is the Church’s. The Church does not say that the death penalty is always wrong, but the Magesterium strongly suggests that it is immorally applied here in the US.

Church position

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68

It is that last paragraph that I do not see as being correct. If we didn’t have people such as the ACLU, then we might in deed have the capabilities to prevent crime but that is not the case. We can’t even prevent prisoners from getting dope.

As far as the ‘protect a guard’ theory, it still seems implausible. What about violent felons with 20 year sentences or 50 year sentences? Do you contend that death penalty convictees will spend no time in prison? Wouldn’t they be more desperate and have even less to lose with death imminent?

After they have been executed, there is no chance of them ever killing again. I don’t see that “oh now I am going to be executed so I am going to kill everyone in site” would be the case either. Those who are to be executed are usually separated from the general population cutting down their ability to murder.

 

[rpp]

neither is sarcasm, taking quotes out of context, or the use of fallacies of logic.

There was no sarcasm, nor was anything taken out of context.

Please remain charitable.

I was explaining my understanding of how the Church has evolved it’s teaching (rather than contradicted) throughout the course of time in response to Ray’s comment:

I was also pointing out the difference between supporting as in “promoting, encouraging, defending” and supporting as in “bearing with”.

I find it **incredulous **that some actually support as in “promoting, encouraging, defending” the use of capital punishment and claim that the Church of Christ does the same.

I am not sure what this statement means. “Incredulous” means to refuse to believe. Are you denying that some people promote the death penalty? Or do you realize that no one here has claimed that the Church encourages the death penalty but only permits it?

 

[SoCalRC]

It is that last paragraph that I do not see as being correct. If we didn’t have people such as the ACLU, then we might in deed have the capabilities to prevent crime but that is not the case. We can’t even prevent prisoners from getting dope.

Your disdain for Civil Liberties is noted. However, the key is in your first sentence. The Church’s position stems from Papal authority, and the position appears to be widely supported among the Ordinary. So there is no ambiguity in the Church’s position. You can reject a Church teaching, but that is something no Roman Catholic should do lightly, since it attacks our belief in an apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority.

After they have been executed, there is no chance of them ever killing again. I don’t see that “oh now I am going to be executed so I am going to kill everyone in site” would be the case either. Those who are to be executed are usually separated from the general population cutting down their ability to murder.

Yes, if you are dead there are a lot of things that you cannot do. But let’s be realistic. We know that innocent people get executed. We also know that we pursue the death penalty in only a small number of cases. Of those cases, a significant number receive life sentences, not execution. So executions only alter the risk to guards - the justification for a few innocent lifes, an incredibly tiny amount.

We could say that the amount of risk does not matter, but that is not an argument would accept in regards to abortion or euthanasia.

 

[sprout]

QUOTE=rpp;2696217I am not sure what this statement means. “Incredulous” means to refuse to believe. Are you denying that some people promote the death penalty? Or do you realize that no one here has claimed that the Church encourages the death penalty but only permits it?

It means I have difficulty believing catholics would actually claim that the Church this day “advocates, promotes, upholds, defends” Capital Punishment as valid and right. I realize in the past this may have been true, as the Church, through her ministers, imposed the death penalty through burning at the stake, torture, etc.

I don’t think that view “holds” today from reading John Paul II, the Social Doctrine, etc.

Glad to hear my perception was off and that no one here has claimed that the Church advocates, promotes, upholds, or defends Capital Punishment as valid and right.

By “permits” it do you concur that means it “bears” it?

 

[adrift]

Yes, if you are dead there are a lot of things that you cannot do. But let’s be realistic. We know that innocent people get executed. We also know that we pursue the death penalty in only a small number of cases. Of those cases, a significant number receive life sentences, not execution. So executions only alter the risk to guards - the justification for a few innocent lifes, an incredibly tiny amount.

We could say that the amount of risk does not matter, but that is not an argument would accept in regards to abortion or euthanasia.

Not quite correct. You are equating the amount of executions with the safty to guards. If I am understanding you right, those executed are no longer a threat to the guards? But that is not only the ones the guards are safe from. There is no way of telling how many guards were not killed because the death penalty was a deterent. So you cannot say it is an incredibly tiny amount. In fact, I would say that the execution of innocent life would be smaller than the loss of guards.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not quite correct. You are equating the amount of executions with the safty to guards. If I am understanding you right, those executed are no longer a threat to the guards? But that is not only the ones the guards are safe from. There is no way of telling how many guards were not killed because the death penalty was a deterent. So you cannot say it is an incredibly tiny amount. In fact, I would say that the execution of innocent life would be smaller than the loss of guards.

• If I am understanding you right, those executed are no longer a threat to the guards?* - If the executed were innocent we may be found culpable so we may have Hell to pay. Additionally they were still a substantial threat before they were killed. You may be missing the process from arrest to execution is often 15-20 years, yes years, and statistically the threat is when they are young, so typically the executed spent 70-90% of the danger period under guard supervision, even when they were eventually executed.

There is no way of telling how many guards were not killed because the death penalty was a deterent - As mentioned earlier the number is small, it has to be because the number is small now so any reduction at all is has to be small. The number has to be near zero because the current number is near zero in civilized countries.

So you cannot say it is an incredibly tiny amount. In fact, I would say that the execution of innocent life would be smaller than the loss of guards- This is emotion used as a substitute for reality. If one Guard was saved every 20 years that is a lower death rate than most professions. Current statistics indicate the execution of innocent is already higher than that. 124 people have been removed from death row in the last 34 years because of bad convictions, which means their case was convincing enough to reverse. By no means does that mean all others are guilty. It means other innocent people can not achieve exculpatory proof of their innocents. Odds are you’re looking at 80-100 innocent people dying for each Guard saved. However you are still free to have any opinion you would like

In closing let me tell you for many years I was a proponent of the Capital Punishment, now I realize how poor, expensive, and inefficient the capital punishment system is. Plus I realize criminals, as well as the rest of us, change as we age. Once you separate justice from vengeance, the death penalty no longer makes sense.

 

[adrift]

There is no way of telling how many guards were not killed because the death penalty was a deterent - As mentioned earlier the number is small, it has to be because the number is small now so any reduction at all is has to be small. The number has to be near zero because the current number is near zero in civilized countries.

Your reasoning does not consider that the reason it is small now is because murder did not occur for fear of the death penalty. I know of an instance that prisoners planned a murder but did not execute it. They told the guard they had planned it. That is why your “small” is inaccurate because you cannot know how many would have been killed if they did not fear the punishment. One other thing that is common in reporting deaths in prison to say that they died a natural death. One natural death so reported was a result of being hit over the head by another prisoner with a toilet seat.

I am not for the death penalty. I do believe it needs to remain on the books.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’m glad you mention this. I have been wondering. Ray you and your fellow workers do a great service to our country. The issue here is not about money. The appropriate amount should be spent.

In Church teaching, where do you find the idea that the opinon of the pope about the state of technological capacity to eliminate deaths through execution translates into an obligation of the State to undertake that expense with no regard to the obligation the Church itself teaches the State has to the common good and the right of the State to determine that independently?

The short and obvious answer is that it isn’t there. IMO, the crystal clear sign that there are problems with JPII’s analysis of the technological capability of the prisons in the industrialized world in relation to creating an obligation for discontinuing its use is that even if you come up with enough contortions to take that as a teaching that the Church is effectively reversing itself on whether the state had the independent authority to determine when using the Death Penalty was necessary, it then immediately generates a secondary shift implying that the Church no longer considers the State an appropriate authority to determine how to budget for the common good, which is another major reversal. Anytime you have to stack two shaky / doubtful interpretations in a row in order to accommodate a hypothesis, the hypothesis isn’t tenable as long as there is rather clear Church teaching pointing in a different direction than both of the questioned interpretations…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your reasoning does not consider that the reason it is small now is because murder did not occur for fear of the death penalty…

actually it did, because the numbers are minuscule it is not obvious however it is present

One other thing that is common in reporting deaths in prison to say that they died a natural death. One natural death so reported was a result of being hit over the head by another prisoner with a toilet seat.

I cannot do a lot to help you with mass conspiracies

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In Church teaching, where do you find the idea that the opinon of the pope about the state of technological capacity to eliminate deaths through execution translates into an obligation of the State to undertake that expense with no regard to the obligation the Church itself teaches the State has to the common good and the right of the State to determine that independently?

I would ask you to review Natural Moral Law teachings of the Church. You will find these answers there.

The short and obvious answer is that it isn’t there. IMO, the crystal clear sign that there are problems with JPII’s analysis of the technological capability of the prisons in the industrialized world in relation to creating an obligation for discontinuing its use is that even if you come up with enough contortions to take that as a teaching that the Church is effectively reversing itself on whether the state had the independent authority to determine when using the Death Penalty was necessary, it then immediately generates a secondary shift implying that the Church no longer considers the State an appropriate authority to determine how to budget for the common good, which is another major reversal. Anytime you have to stack two shaky / doubtful interpretations in a row in order to accommodate a hypothesis, the hypothesis isn’t tenable as long as there is rather clear Church teaching pointing in a different direction than both of the questioned interpretations…

Ray
The Church nor JPII have changed position on this issue. The Church is stating that society has advanced past a state of kill or be killed. Thus Christians no longer need to kill to live, thus we are told to work to reduce any existing kill or be killed scenarios. Additionally in cases as Capital Punishment in the USA kill or be killed no longer applies so Catholics are told to work to prevent further killings.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I would ask you to review Natural Moral Law teachings of the Church. You will find these answers there. Ray

I have heard of Natural Law, but not “Natural Moral Law”. Either way, you appear to have totally missed the point. I was referring to conflict of the Church dictating the State budget versus the authority of the State under natural law. You trying to stitch tenuous interpretations together in a daisy chain while arbitrarily excluding from considerations the conflicting parts of Church teaching that is not under debate.

The Church nor JPII have changed position on this issue.

You are correct, neither the Church nor JPII have made any shift whatsoever on the authority of the State to independently determine how to construct their budgets for the greatest common good so long as the State meets its basic obligations to society. There is still special stipulation that perfecting a countries criminal justice system should take precedence over education, public works, and social services. .

The Church is stating that society has advanced past a state of kill or be killed. Thus Christians no longer need to kill to live, thus we are told to work to reduce any existing kill or be killed scenarios.

Keep your attributions straight. That you continue to falsely assign greater authority to those statements than they have is taking on the appearance of an intent on your part to confuse the issue. JP II and some bishops have said that outside of their official capacity. The problem with the way you stated that claim remains that the Church has taught quite clearly that the right to make that determination rests solely with the State.

Additionally in cases as Capital Punishment in the USA kill or be killed no longer applies

And the State - the proper authority to make that decision under Church teaching - has made this determination where?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have heard of Natural Law, but not “Natural Moral Law”.

that is unfortunate, your answers lie there

Either way, you appear to have totally missed the point. I was referring to conflict of the Church dictating the State budget versus the authority of the State under natural law. You trying to stitch tenuous interpretations together in a daisy chain while arbitrarily excluding from considerations the conflicting parts of Church teaching that is not under debate.

it might be helpful to re-read the title of the thread

You are correct, neither the Church nor JPII have made any shift whatsoever on the authority of the State to independently determine how to construct their budgets for the greatest common good so long as the State meets its basic obligations to society. There is still special stipulation that perfecting a countries criminal justice system should take precedence over education, public works, and social services. .

Keep your attributions straight. That you continue to falsely assign greater authority to those statements than they have is taking on the appearance of an intent on your part to confuse the issue. JP II and some bishops have said that outside of their official capacity. The problem with the way you stated that claim remains that the Church has taught quite clearly that the right to make that determination rests solely with the State.

the teaching concerning state authority is within the limits of Natural Moral Law. Let me try to help you here in the slaughter of the innocent lets say it is repeated. You are ordered by the state to kill all the babies of the town. Will you do it? Are you outside of God’s control? (remember you avoided the executioner question)

And the State - the proper authority to make that decision under Church teaching - has made this determination where?

The teaching of the Church requires immediate danger which does not exist in these cases. The issue here is license which is not granted. When you review Natural Moral Law maybe you can review License also?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

that is unfortunate, your answers lie there

In looking a bit, I see that is a subset of Natural Law, in which the Church still endorse the separation of authority between itself (over the care of souls) and the State (temporal matters).

it might be helpful to re-read the title of the thread

I have re-read the title of the thread and the OP and see nothing regarding the Church suspending the authority of the State to determine for itself how to budget for the common good. Can you enlighten me on how you made that connection, or is this your way of signaling that you have no intention of backing up that premise in your statement that the State should simply spend the appropriate amount to in order to eliminate the need for the DP (with no considerations indicated for the other obligations of the State despite repeated questions from me regarding the obvious ripple effects of that declaration)?

the teaching concerning state authority is within the limits of Natural Moral Law. Let me try to help you here in the slaughter of the innocent lets say it is repeated. You are ordered by the state to kill all the babies of the town. Will you do it? Are you outside of God’s control? (remember you avoided the executioner question)

According to the Church itself, abortion is never a legitimate authority of the state, but the Death penalty can be, so the question posed does not correlate.

I’m not quite sure why your are saying I avoided the executioner question, as I did respond once, and directed a question back to you on a premise both your initial question and your follow up was based on that you chose to ignore. If you want to go back and address that question, feel free, but if you choose ot pick that back up keep in mind that just a cursory examination of the section of the catechism dealing with capital punishment, self defense, and just war reveals other instances where someone would not be culpable for taking a life that had no particular “guilt” under the proper authority of the State (e.g. a soldier at war) or even as an unintended consequence of a just action.

However, on the note of things not responded to, is anyone going to come up with a balance point on who to ensure the safe permanent storage of certain DR inmates without violating the still undisputed teaching of the Church about the minimum obligations towards the treatment of inmates while also protecting society from the serial killers with fan clubs or the crime bosses still making decisions from inside through intermediaries? I’m presuming that this wrinkle is being steadfastly avoided for the same reasons JP II and the bishops don’t address it in their criticisms of the continued use of the DP, namely an ignorance of the particular issues involved and the knowledge that making such a decision is out of the scope of their authority anyway…

The teaching of the Church requires immediate danger which does not exist in these cases. The issue here is license which is not granted. When you review Natural Moral Law maybe you can review License also?

Where has the Church officially taught that the application of the death penalty requires immediate danger? It appears that you are again making up things and claiming the authority of the Church as your source when those stipulations and conditions do not exist in the actual teaching of the Church on this matter.

 

[rpp]

{snip}
Let me try to help you here in the slaughter of the innocent lets say it is repeated. You are ordered by the state to kill all the babies of the town. Will you do it? Are you outside of God’s control? (remember you avoided the executioner question) {snip}

It is not valid to compare the murder of an innocent person with the execution of a person found guilty of a very grave crime.

The teaching of the Church requires immediate danger which does not exist in these cases. The issue here is license which is not granted. When you review Natural Moral Law maybe you can review License also?

Can you cite where the Church teaches that execution is only permissible when there is “immediate danger”? I am very interested.

Please note that I am not taking sides here. This is an issue which I am uncertain about. Therefore I can argue, equally poorly, for both sides.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It is not valid to compare the murder of an innocent person with the execution of a person found guilty of a very grave crime.

I guess the definition of fully determined (see below) is the key? I would ask you to revisit the 124 people exonerated from death row

Can you cite where the Church teaches that execution is only permissible when there is “immediate danger”? I am very interested…

2267

*Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68*
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2267

 

[rpp]

I guess the definition of fully determined (see below) is the key? I would ask you to revisit the 124 people exonerated from death row

2267

*Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."68*
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#2267

I see nothing here that talks about “immediate danger”.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I see nothing here that talks about “immediate danger”.

I truly hope you are joking