Support the Death Penalty?

[redbird444]

I am not attempting to lash out at you. There appears a general reoccurring concept in this thread of killing prisoners is a good thing for prison guards and other prisoners. This of course is based on several strange things as 1) if you were falsely convicted and given the death penalty would you keep your current attitude, or want to be allowed to live until you could prove your innocents 2) The guard does not have to work there!, he could simply work some where else 3) When you kill prisoners the prison is only safer for those not killed! So if you kill 10% of the prisoner, BTW you would need to kill about 50% in California just to return the prison to designed capacity. The death rate in prison is increased not decreased. So you actually increased killing to reduce killing?

1. Most of the men in OKLA state prisons are on death row for 20 years or so until all the appeals are run through the system. This is in place so no innocent person is “wrongfully” put to death.
2. And a Roofer does not have to work as a roofer either. He can lay carpet, flip burgers. Most correctional officers are very aware of the fact that they do not have to work there. But thanks for the tip.
   Sarcasm aside, this is not pertinent to whether the death penalty is moral. The discussion is whether or not a Life sentence can prevent the offender from reoffending *killing again. The motto in DOC is Protect the Public, Protect the Employee, Protect the Offender.

The prison system is in place to protect all three. Many maximum security inmates are locked down 23 hours/day, but 1000’s of men serving Life or LWOP for Murder First Degree are not.
QUOTE:

There appears a general reoccurring concept in this thread of killing prisoners is a good thing for prison guards and other prisoners<<

I have never been in favor of eye for an eye (revenge) killing. I believe the DA has the option of seeking the death penalty if the crime fits certain criteria. *and to repeat myself, this is the point where an individual can plea bargain, meaning cop a guilty plea to guarantee a Life sentence. The DA often uses this tactic to get a victory in court without taking the case to a jury trial.

My point from prior post was once a person is serving a Life sentence, he/she can very often continue to break the law including Murder while incarcerated. And most crimes, including murder, within prison are never publicized. I know of 2 murders in recent months that never made it to the newspapers.
But it is well known amongst DOC staff and inmates.

Personally, I enjoyed working as a correctional officer and as a correctinal case manager. My best inmates are always Lifers.

Just to let everyone know, I am not a “cafeteria catholic”. I follow whatever the church teaches. Even if I don’t understand it or don’t agree with it.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

Both Ratzinger and the USCCB plainly said that rejecting the Church’s teaching on the death penalty was not sinful;

Actually neither stated such, those comments came from Ender. Ender is misrepresenting the quotes and adding meaning did not exist.

Here is Ratzinger’s statement:
“*3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” *

This is from the USCCB:
"The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us."

And finally, this is from Cardinal Dulles:
*“Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. … The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked…”

*You have charged me not merely with misunderstanding what the pope and bishops have said but with misrepresenting their comments. I have said nothing more than Cardinal Dulles has said so perhaps you can give us your own interpretation of the comments of Ratzinger and the USCCB and explain in what way Dulles is misrepresenting their views.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You have charged me not merely with misunderstanding what the pope and bishops have said but with misrepresenting their comments. I have said nothing more than Cardinal Dulles has said so perhaps you can give us your own interpretation of the comments of Ratzinger and the USCCB and explain in what way Dulles is misrepresenting their views.

I am very interested in hearing both his explanation of those quotations in a way that actually addresses their points and his basis for the personal accusation he had directed at you considering that does match what you’ve clearly been saying all along…

 

[rpp]

Actually neither stated such, those comments came from Ender. Ender is misrepresenting the quotes and adding meaning did not exist.

Not only is this factually incorrect, but is a serious distortion. Ender neither misrepresented the quotes nor added anything to them. In fact, he went to great lengths to present the quotes in their complete context.

If you want to insist on this position, please give us a detailed explanation complete with citations. If you are unable to do this, at least be charitable enough to admit that perhaps you were hasty in your response.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

To Ender & rpp

An individual’s lack of knowledge is not the determining factor, and that is the best we can hope for here. The Catholic teachings do not uniformly ban the use of capital punishment, as is being referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger that in no way is a rejection of Church teachings. Any poster representing other is at best ignorant on the subject.

The USCCB statement echoes the same as the Church does not uniformly ban the use of capital punishment it would be improper for the USCCB to reject Catholic teaching an call for such a ban. Their statement embedded in a document calling for stopping the use of Capital Punishment through volunteer means (not Church mandates) is in no way a rejection of Church teaching. In fact the call is to follow church teachings. Again I hope your ignorant as the alternative is really ugly.

 

[rpp]

Texas Roofer,

I think I understand what you mean now. You objected to Ender’s statement which read “rejecting church teachings on the death penalty is not sinful.”. The reason you objected to was that the Church does not teach that using the Death Penalty is wrong but rather it is permitted. Is that right?

If that is the case, I do not think that Ender was distorting or mis-stating Church teaching. He was summarizing statements previously posted on this thread.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Texas Roofer,

I think I understand what you mean now. You objected to Ender’s statement which read “rejecting church teachings on the death penalty is not sinful.”. The reason you objected to was that the Church does not teach that using the Death Penalty is wrong but rather it is permitted. Is that right?

If that is the case, I do not think that Ender was distorting or mis-stating Church teaching. He was summarizing statements previously posted on this thread.

Hi Friends,
As I see it, Mother Church condones, rather than permits, the use of the Death Penalty, in exceptional circumstances, but does not specify what those circumstances are.

She certainly does not demand it as ‘an eye for an eye’, as some people seem to think. So does not give justification that other seem to quote, clinging to Old Testament Judgement.

JPII considered that in the US in particular, as I read between the lines, technology is sufficiently advanced, that other means of dealing with persons deemed to be worethy of death exist there, and indeed, some states have those other means in place.

It was I think a back-handed compliment to the US civilization which was seen only as a condemnation.

There are, I believe, only three reasons for the DP, they are:
1/ Blood revenge, which is difinitely condemned by Mother Church,
2/ Euthanasia, as in the killing of a mad beast which is dangerous, and cannot be confined humanely and safely. Mother Church also forbids euthanasia of human beings.
and,
3/ ‘Self Defence’. This last is difficult to justify, for the prisoner, once bound and helpless, is no longer an immediate threat. Indeed in the DP states, the process of appeals can last over twenty years, in which time, some prisoners die a natural death.
There is of course the argument, that the DP serves ‘pour encourir les autres’, in other words as a deterrant, but penal psychologist have long concluded that unless the process is swift and certain, then this fails.
Because Mother Church condemns the first two reasons, everyone jumps onto bandwagon number three, even though it is the weakest argument.

I think JPII was aware of this. This is I believe the teaching written between the lines.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic teachings do not uniformly ban the use of capital punishment, as is being referred to by then Cardinal Ratzinger that in no way is a rejection of Church teachings.

The USCCB statement echoes the same as the Church does not uniformly ban the use of capital punishment it would be improper for the USCCB to reject Catholic teaching an call for such a ban. Their statement embedded in a document calling for stopping the use of Capital Punishment through volunteer means (not Church mandates) is in no way a rejection of Church teaching.

You still don’t seem to have grasped what Ratzinger and the USCCB were saying. They were in no way rejecting the comments in the catechism on the use of the death penalty, they were simply saying that a Catholic is not morally compelled to accept them. We have a moral obligation to accept the teachings on abortion but no such obligation to accept the teaching on the death penalty.

Yes, the USCCB document was an argument for the abolishment of the death penalty, but even while making that argument they were compelled to point out that their position is not binding. They agreed with the catechism nor have I ever implied otherwise.

I disagree with the catechism and my point is that my position, while it may be mistaken, is neither immoral nor improper.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You still don’t seem to have grasped what Ratzinger and the USCCB were saying. They were in no way rejecting the comments in the catechism on the use of the death penalty, they were simply saying that a Catholic is not morally compelled to accept them. We have a moral obligation to accept the teachings on abortion but no such obligation to accept the teaching on the death penalty.

Yes, the USCCB document was an argument for the abolishment of the death penalty, but even while making that argument they were compelled to point out that their position is not binding. They agreed with the catechism nor have I ever implied otherwise.

I disagree with the catechism and my point is that my position, while it may be mistaken, is neither immoral nor improper.

Ender

You need to go back and reread post 231 and 235 (and 413) you have yet to post anything by Ratzinger or the USCCB which clear calls the catechism to be “prudential” or support your statement " Both Ratzinger and the USCCB plainly said that rejecting the Church’s teaching on the death penalty was not sinful;" In Post # 413 I explained to you what I and others know. So far this theory of yours is just that; your theory.

Would it not be easy to quote the Pope in a statement that the catechism can be rejected?

Where is your document that the Church divided the catechism into rejectable and nonrejectable teachings?

Where is the Church’s list on which teachings are rejectable and which are not?

Post their words, as you claim they said such. So far you posted their statements confirming the catechism, only you have interpreted these statements as rejection of the catechism

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You need to go back and reread post 231 and 235 (and 413)

I have, and in each case your approach seems to be a combination of deliberately misunderstanding the parts of what others have said that you did not totally ignore, while flatly refusing to address challenges made to your various claims.

you have yet to post anything by Ratzinger or the USCCB which clear calls the catechism to be “prudential” or support your statement "

This claim of yours is clearly and intentionally false. A formal retraction and apology to Ender is in order.

Both Ratzinger and the USCCB plainly said that rejecting the Church’s teaching on the death penalty was not sinful;" In Post # 413 I explained to you what I and others know. So far this theory of yours is just that; your theory.

A theory to which he has provided multiple and varied direct citations directly supporting his position as he stated it, while you have rested solely on your personal expansion of what was said by JP II in EV that was paraphrased in the CCC, with no other citations of your own that directly addressed the claims you were making.

Would it not be easy to quote the Pope in a statement that the catechism can be rejected?

No one has claimed that the Catechism is entirely prudential, thus this is a strawman challenge, one that has already been identified as such in your previous attempts to raise it.

Where is your document that the Church divided the catechism into rejectable and nonrejectable teachings?

Again, no one has claimed there is any such general document, suggesting that anyone needs to produces something that addresses issues beyond the section on the application of capital punishment is both outside of the scope of the thread and yet another obvious straw man

Where is the Church’s list on which teachings are rejectable and which are not?

Again, a strawman, and again, one that has already been pointed out to you as such the previous times you introduced it.

Post their words, as you claim they said such. So far you posted their statements confirming the catechism, only you have interpreted these statements as rejection of the catechism

He has posted the words for what he claimed they said, more than once, and the meaning is quite clear if starting one’s interpretation from the rest of the existing body of Church Teaching about where the authority to exercise capital punishment rests.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have, and in each case your …

Pontification, accusation, high use of pronons, NO CONTENT. Document or whin it is your choice.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You still don’t seem to have grasped what Ratzinger and the USCCB were saying. They were in no way rejecting the comments in the catechism on the use of the death penalty, they were simply saying that a Catholic is not morally compelled to accept them. We have a moral obligation to accept the teachings on abortion but no such obligation to accept the teaching on the death penalty.

Yes, the USCCB document was an argument for the abolishment of the death penalty, but even while making that argument they were compelled to point out that their position is not binding. They agreed with the catechism nor have I ever implied otherwise.

I disagree with the catechism and my point is that my position, while it may be mistaken, is neither immoral nor improper.

Ender

Hi Ender,
Can I summarize my thoughts here on what I believe the item in the catechism says?

I believe that JPII was saying that the DP is undesirable, and not required by Catholic Doctrine.

But that in some circumstances might be necessary - circumstances not specified -

But further, as technology and resources in most civilized countries enable the safe confinement of a wrong-doer, then he could not foresee any circumstances, which might in those civilized countries, make it necessary.

Is that anywhere close to your understanding thereof?

 

[Ender]

you have yet to post anything by Ratzinger or the USCCB which clear calls the catechism to be “prudential” or support your statement " Both Ratzinger and the USCCB plainly said that rejecting the Church’s teaching on the death penalty was not sinful;" In Post # 413 I explained to you what I and others know. So far this theory of yours is just that; your theory.

You are correct in claiming that neither Ratzinger nor the USCCB used the word prudential but since they both said that the teaching on the death penalty may be rejected I was simply using the word that explains their position.

If you say the house is due west of the barn and I say that you are claiming that the barn is due east of the house, am I in any way distorting what you have said? That I don’t use the same words doesn’t mean that I can’t express the same thing. That’s what I’ve done with the comments by Ratzinger and the USCCB - just as this is exactly the same thing that Cardinal Dulles has done who explicitly used the word prudential.

A prudential teaching is one that does not have to be followed by Catholics; a teaching that does not have to be followed is prudential. Ratzinger used one form, I used the other but the meaning is exactly the same.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Pontification, accusation, high use of pronons, NO CONTENT. Document or whin it is your choice.

From a perspective of a logical discussion where all parties are interested in a pursuit of Truth or alt least mutual understanding, pointing out that someone’s opposition did not say things one claims they did and where they have said things (and provided citations) it was claimed they did not is the sum total of the documentation required to counter the such allegations.

Likewise, proper spelling and mastery of the English language do not constitute logical flaws in an argument; such is a corollary of the principle that intentionally misunderstanding one’s opponents does constitute a serious logical error (or rather, an intent to undermine a discussion).

My use of high-sounding terms such as “intentional misstatement of fact” and similar phrasing is due to direct instruction by a moderator when I was issued an infraction for utilizing a one word synonym to in a prior thread to describe a pack of such statements. Playing by the local rules of engagement mandating especially charitable behavior also does not constitute a logical flaw on the part of (or an excuse for personal criticisms directed towards) those who can make their position while remaining accurate and restraining themselves to the mandated level of charity even when the other party does not…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The facts have been explained clearly. To represent the USCCB 22 page paper calling for stopping the death penalty as other ( insert your personal choices prudential, rejection of catechism, opposition to JPII, etc, etc) is clearly to misrepresent the facts. Same is true for Ratzinger’s writing. Repeatedly the request is to show Church writing to back the past statements. To date the poor references posted are woefully insufficient.

The sin of Pride appears to me to be running rapid, that is my opinion.

 

[Ender]

The facts have been explained clearly.

Apparently they have not been presented clearly enough as you still misunderstand them. And you have explained nothing at all, all you’ve said is no, no, no.

To represent the USCCB 22 page paper calling for stopping the death penalty as other ( insert your personal choices prudential, rejection of catechism, opposition to JPII, etc, etc) is clearly to misrepresent the facts.

Do you contend that Cardinal Dulles is misrepresenting the facts? I have simply presented - and accepted - his position.

Same is true for Ratzinger’s writing. Repeatedly the request is to show Church writing to back the past statements. To date the poor references posted are woefully insufficient.

Insufficient? What do you require, a post on this thread from BXVI? If you think I am misrepresenting those documents then give me your interpretation. Don’t tell me what the overall documents are about, explain those specific comments; stop disregarding the sections I have cited that speak directly to the issue. I have no great expectation that you will finally address them but I’m really looking for more than “it’s not so.” That ought to seem pretty inadequate even to you.

Ender

The sin of Pride appears to me to be running rapid, that is my opinion.

Tell it to Cardinal Dulles.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Apparently…

spin, spin, spin

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

NOTICE: As a reminder to all involved, charity is essential to fruitful dialog. Please self-edit for tone / content prior to hitting the submit button.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[catharina]

If ‘Life Imprisonment’ truly mean Life Imprisonment in a secure setting, then there’d be little use for the death penalty - or so is my understanding of the Church’s position. If the public, the common good, can be protected in that way, it should be sufficient. That too would alow for a longer life for any criminal who was guilty of such maximum (deadly) crimes and with that would (could) come a greater opportunity for repentance.

 

[UncleMilt]

Yes I do listen to the news.

The fact is that Ted Bundy would of never gotten out of jail thus was no threat to society.

Bundy is not the best example to use for someone that will never get out of jail and thus no threat.

He escaped twice from Colorado jails, and after the second escape he ended up in Florida where he ended up killing two women at Florida State and a 12 year old girl.