Support the Death Penalty?

[rlg94086]

I believe that is why a death penalty case has so many chances for appeal. It takes many years for a death penalty to be carried out in the US. It is not as swift as Saddam Hussein’s was in Iraq.

Still, one of the reasons I agree with the Church that the death penalty should be rare is the importance of ensuring that the innocent don’t get put to death. I personally believe the evidence needs to be held to a stricter level of scrutiny than in a non-death penalty case.

I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but no, you don’t want juries holding power over life and death, but that isn’t what I mean. I mean the criminal justice system. I mean prosecutors who conceal exculpatory evidence and joke about it. I mean prosecutors who proudly display plaques on their wall commending them for putting an innocent man in prison. I mean police who admit to stopping people because of their being the “wrong” race for the neighborhood. I mean judges who know darn well what the law provides yet rule the other way in order to ensure a conviction. These each are events I’ve personally witnessed in 16 years as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I don’t expect perfection in any human endeavor but there is no way I’ll agree to these people holding power over life and death.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

How many murders happen in our prison system? How many guards have their lives threatened?

Society is not safe when some of these men are in prison. Society INCLUDES their fellow inmates.

Are you now going to guarantee that they will never, ever murder anyone again?

It is not that difficult, the first consideration is solitary confinement.
The second consideration is exercise. Dangerous persons, in solitary, can exercise in their cells. This does of course require larger cells, and that costs more money. So it is penny pinching by authorities who are culpable for the killing, not the caged animals.

No, it defendes itself from the danger nearby.

It seems that ex-colonials have forgotten the useage of mother tongue. Spelling is also dubious.

Which is exactly what I am claiming!

So what are we arguing about?

Really? The world has changed that much since 2003?

There is a world of difference between nodding through existing policy, and setting out new policy.

No, the Church does not give me that right, in fact, it doesn’t even claim that right for herself.

Very neat side-step. But it shows a failure to take responsibility for your own beliefs. It’s called ‘passing-the-buck’. I call it cowardice.

Rather, the Church, in her Wisdom, leaves the right to make that determination to the Civil Authorities.

You would do well to follow her example.

Are you asking me to indulge in cowardice?

 

[rlg94086]

I believe that is why a death penalty case has so many chances for appeal. It takes many years for a death penalty to be carried out in the US. It is not as swift as Saddam Hussein’s was in Iraq.

Still, one of the reasons I agree with the Church that the death penalty should be rare is the importance of ensuring that the innocent don’t get put to death. I personally believe the evidence needs to be held to a stricter level of scrutiny than in a non-death penalty case.

I’m not sure what you’re thinking of, but no, you don’t want juries holding power over life and death, but that isn’t what I mean. I mean the criminal justice system. I mean prosecutors who conceal exculpatory evidence and joke about it. I mean prosecutors who proudly display plaques on their wall commending them for putting an innocent man in prison. I mean police who admit to stopping people because of their being the “wrong” race for the neighborhood. I mean judges who know darn well what the law provides yet rule the other way in order to ensure a conviction. These each are events I’ve personally witnessed in 16 years as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney. I don’t expect perfection in any human endeavor but there is no way I’ll agree to these people holding power over life and death.

 

[Brendan]

It is not that difficult, the first consideration is solitary confinement.
The second consideration is exercise. Dangerous persons, in solitary, can exercise in their cells. This does of course require larger cells, and that costs more money. So it is penny pinching by authorities who are culpable for the killing, not the caged animals.

There is a problem there, the Church has defined extended solitary confinment to be torture, something that Catholic cannot engage in. Captial Punishment is permissable, torture is not.

It seems that ex-colonials have forgotten the useage of mother tongue. Spelling is also dubious.

So I’m pro life enought to have a large family and type with a baby on my lap. Is that really much of an issue. And Ireland was never a former colony either

So what are we arguing about?

Not too much it seems, I just glad that you recognized that Self Defense can be used to define Capital Punishment.

There is a world of difference between nodding through existing policy, and setting out new policy.

Is it your task or mine to define the Church’s policy on any matter.

Very neat side-step. But it shows a failure to take responsibility for your own beliefs. It’s called ‘passing-the-buck’. I call it cowardice.

Are you asking me to indulge in cowardice?

If you call following the Church’s teaching on any matter to be cowardice, I will admit to that.

The fact is, I DO subscribe to the Church’s teaching on this matter, that the State makes the determination on the effectiveness of the methods.

 

[Ender]

It may help to start with “What is justice?” Most determine justice to be full judication.

This is the right question and is why most discussions of capital punishment are unsatisfactory - they generally don’t address this.

The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (redressing the disorder). It may be imperfectly done by human society but that is still the principle goal. It is justice that requires the state to impose a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime. Safely locking up the criminal (even assuming it can be done) does nothing whatever to address the question of justice. It may prevent the murderer from killing again but it does not resolve the question of the retribution justice demands for the murder he has already committed.

No discussion of capital punishment can be complete without at least the acknowledgement that this is a significant issue. My problem with the catechism is that … it doesn’t even mention justice as a concern.

Ender

 

[sprout]

Pope John Paul II in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae does discuss punishment:

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.

(Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 1995)

 

[sprout]

I believe I’m using the definition the Church employs. Punishment has four purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and defense against the criminal and it is retribution that is primary. This article by Cardinal Dulles is an excellent resource.

catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?id=4099

I just want to thank you for the reference. I agree, it’s an excellent resource and well thought out.

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

There is a problem there, the Church has defined extended solitary confinment to be torture, something that Catholic cannot engage in. Captial Punishment is permissable, torture is not.

Hi Brendan,
JP II said that capital punishment is acceptable only as a last resort, where there exists no practical alternative.
As for torture, so called correctional institutions alread hold humans in conditions that would draw prosecution from animal welfare people, if applied to animals. So called correctional institutions are already torture houses, especially Abu Graib, and your colony on Cuba. Oh, sorry, these are detention centers, for people who have not been convicted of any crime, and thus should be presumed innocent. Thet are in effect internment camps, and thus should have especially humane constitutions. I did before mention so called civilised countries.

So I’m pro life enought to have a large family and type with a baby on my lap. Is that really much of an issue. And Ireland was never a former colony either

Ireland has an excellent tradition of justice and education, rivalling UK on most points. I think your stay across the bigger water has caused you to forget much.

Not too much it seems, I just glad that you recognized that Self Defense can be used to define Capital Punishment.

The defense of self defense ends when the prisoner is bound and incarcerated. Ones the prisoner is securely held, self defense has been completed. I refer you back to the hypothetical question I set you to ask a lawyer, if you did not accept my judgement. Premetitated killing of a securely held prisoner is normally deemed to be murder.

Self defense in this context implies useage of minimum force to secure the offender. In the heat of the moment, that might be lethal force, but once the arrest is secure, the prisoner has the right not to be murdered.

The prisoner has also the right to make atonement by sacrificing his/her life usefully, by that right is commonly with-held.

Is it your task or mine to define the Church’s policy on any matter.

As a heretic, I have the right to judge whether I believe, or otherwise in any particular teaching. I also have the right to judge whether that teaching exists by inertia, or by deliberate design in response to a new order. I accept that the teaching of infallibility has a strong pressure for inertia, so I thus judge such decissions less harshly.

If you call following the Church’s teaching on any matter to be cowardice, I will admit to that.

ALL teachings should be concienciousl examined. Failure so to do is in fact the cowardice I accuse. It was that failure which caused the German people to follow Hitler, and the Japanese to follow Hiro Hito ito war.
It was also that failure which allowed an incompetant son of a wiser father to take your adopted people into a disasterous mire.

The fact is, I DO subscribe to the Church’s teaching on this matter, that the State makes the determination on the effectiveness of the methods.

So you concientiosly accept that teaching?
Then you are party to the teaching, so it is in fact, your teaching, and if it is in error, it is thus your error.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

Prisons existed in other nations when God gave Israel His criminal code which included execution of murderers, adulterers, kidnappers and rapists.

So, with God NOT BEING IGNORANT of the existence of prisons and Israel fully having the finances and materials needed to build prisons to put prisoners in WHY did God command that each murderer, adulterer, kidnapper and rapist SURELY be put to death? Why did God not give another option (using “bloodless means”) for punishing capital criminals?

ALSO…

Is prison a “just punishment” for any crime? And does prison work?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

This is the right question and is why most discussions of capital punishment are unsatisfactory - they generally don’t address this.

The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (redressing the disorder). It may be imperfectly done by human society but that is still the principle goal. It is justice that requires the state to impose a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime. Safely locking up the criminal (even assuming it can be done) does nothing whatever to address the question of justice. It may prevent the murderer from killing again but it does not resolve the question of the retribution justice demands for the murder he has already committed.

No discussion of capital punishment can be complete without at least the acknowledgement that this is a significant issue. My problem with the catechism is that … it doesn’t even mention justice as a concern.

Ender

I am guessing we are not in full communication here?

Justice = the judication of the charge, whether guilty or not, punished or not, the charge is assessed to full extent by the predetermined standards(laws).

Injustice= the absence of judication of a charge, any case in which no, or an incomplete assessment is made.

Retribution ( my understanding) = an action by God known also as final judgment, in which the actions of the individual are properly rewarded.

Retribution ( human form, my understanding) = assessing a reasonably severe punishment upon a convicted person.

So I believe a person charged with a crime, prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether found guilty or freed, has received justice. Now concerning the serial murder or similar type; I do not believe humans can or should attempt a punishment equally severe to the actions. Such a punishment if found by definition would render the public equally responsible for horrendous acts against humanity. Yet the imprisonment of the person takes away great value that being liberty ( freedom to control your life). So I do believe the confinement of the criminal for appropriate lengths of time does meet the catechism standards for human retribution.

 

[TheOpenTheist]

This is the right question and is why most discussions of capital punishment are unsatisfactory - they generally don’t address this.

The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (redressing the disorder). It may be imperfectly done by human society but that is still the principle goal. It is justice that requires the state to impose a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime. Safely locking up the criminal (even assuming it can be done) does nothing whatever to address the question of justice. It may prevent the murderer from killing again but it does not resolve the question of the retribution justice demands for the murder he has already committed.

No discussion of capital punishment can be complete without at least the acknowledgement that this is a significant issue. My problem with the catechism is that … it doesn’t even mention justice as a concern.

Ender

Bravo! The question of whether “justice” has been brought about is often never mentioned. The concrete meaning and example of “justice” is often far from concern in Catholic thought.

Where does God mention the death penalty and justice in the same thought? In other words, what does God say about it? What is His opinion?

Here is one example that I believe shows what God thinks about the use of the death penalty as it generally relates to justice being brought about even though he doesn’t use the specific Hebrew word for justice, but talks of atonement being made.

Numbers 35:30-33 'Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not [sufficient] testimony against a person for the death [penalty.] 31 'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who [is] guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. 32 'And you shall take no ransom for him who has fled to his city of refuge, that he may return to dwell in the land before the death of the priest. 33 'So you shall not pollute the land where you [are;] for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

This is the right question and is why most discussions of capital punishment are unsatisfactory - they generally don’t address this.

The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (redressing the disorder).

Hi Ender,
What we have here is a continuation of the failure, not just by you, but by many others, to understand the meaning of words.
Here we have ‘retribution’ being used where atonement would have been better. It is a common error, and is indeed derived from an ambiguity in Latin.
In the Latin, ‘retribution’ can be used for atonement, when, and only when, it is istituted by the offender, to make good the loss caused by the offense, that is, the repayment of the debt,
(sin).
More commonly, the word was used to mean the payment , in evil, to be given to the offender, for the evil of the offense.
That is in fact vengeance.
So in the Latin, the word can mean both atonement and vengeance. I am inclined to believe that Mother Church is not calling for vengeance, so must be using the word, inadvisedly, in place of ‘atonement’

retribuo, -uere, -ui,–utum vt to restore, repay.

It may be imperfectly done by human society but that is still the principle goal. It is justice that requires the state to impose a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime.

So the state is to repay evil with evil: that is vengeance.

Safely locking up the criminal (even assuming it can be done) does nothing whatever to address the question of justice. It may prevent the murderer from killing again but it does not resolve the question of the retribution justice demands for the murder he has already committed.

Again you are tying justice to retribution, without thought to what this word means. You seem inclined to want vengeance, I believe that Mother Church requires atonement. The word can be read both ways, but mother Church makes much of condemning vengeance.

No discussion of capital punishment can be complete without at least the acknowledgement that this is a significant issue. My problem with the catechism is that … it doesn’t even mention justice as a concern.

Ender

As I aid, Ender, you confuse justice with retribution, and retribution, you see as vengeance.
Justice and retribution can mean the same thing, but only if the context is correctly applied.
It is right, and it is Christian, that we should attempt to repay our debts, but Our Lord said:
‘Forgive is our debts, for we have forgiven those indebted to us.’
(My translation of the Latin.)

 

[rciadan]

The death penalty is valid. It is a remedy given by God for certain crimes in certain circunstances.
When we consider Church teaching, we must think globaly. This is not a question that can be considered within the confines of the US justice system.
Within the US, we have a prison system that is flawed in many ways; but, we do have the capablility to (name removed by moderator)rison people for life even if,because of the flaws in the system, people who shoiuld not be are released.
There are places in this world where violent crime is common and, at the same time, there is no reliable way to keep society safe from these violent criminals other than to kill them. In this case, capital punishment may be an option. I refer to those circumstances when the purpose is to keep society safe: not when the motive is revenge or even deterence. Like it or not, the world can be mean and nasty and places like this exist, and the teachings of the Church are for these areas as well.
Take into consideration as well that capital punishment is also the foundation upon which the concept of a just war is built. A just war is one that is being fought to keep society, local of global, safe from violent criminals who have managed to put themselves in positions where they can’t just be “arrested” and “put in jail”.
The Church’s teaching on capital punishment is not in any way flawed. The use of the death penalty is often unwarranted and the criminal justice system in the US is so flawed that many honestly believe that the only way to keep society save from violent criminals is to kill them. The justice system in the US as it is gives them valid points to argue with the way they seem to give more rights to the perpetrator thatn to the victom, let violent criminals go free after serving a tenth of their sentences, etc an so forth. Fix the system and you will see less demand for such extreme measures as capital punishment.
But even if there is never a need for it in this country, thre is and always will be occasions that warrant it that need to be decided on a case by case basis.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Sorry for the typos: I will redo

Originally Posted by Ender
This is the right question and is why most discussions of capital punishment are unsatisfactory - they generally don’t address this.

The primary purpose of punishment is retribution (redressing the disorder).

Hi Ender,
What we have here is a continuation of the failure, not just by you, but by many others, to understand the meaning of words.
Here we have ‘retribution’ being used where atonement would have been better. It is a common error, and is indeed derived from an ambiguity in Latin.
In the Latin, ‘retribution’ can be used for atonement, when, and only when, it is instituted by the offender, to make good the loss caused by the offense, that is, the repayment of the debt,
(sin).
More commonly, the word was used to mean the payment , in evil, to be given to the offender, for the evil of the offense.
That is in fact vengeance.
So in the Latin, the word can mean both atonement and vengeance. I am inclined to believe that Mother Church is not calling for vengeance, so must be using the word, inadvisedly, in place of ‘atonement’

retribuo, -uere, -ui, --utum* vt *to restore, repay.

It may be imperfectly done by human society but that is still the principle goal. It is justice that requires the state to impose a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime.

So the state is to repay evil with evil: that is vengeance.

Safely locking up the criminal (even assuming it can be done) does nothing whatever to address the question of justice. It may prevent the murderer from killing again but it does not resolve the question of the retribution justice demands for the murder he has already committed.

Again you are tying justice to retribution, without thought to what this word means. You seem inclined to want vengeance, I believe that Mother Church requires atonement. The word can be read both ways, but mother Church makes much of condemning vengeance.

No discussion of capital punishment can be complete without at least the acknowledgement that this is a significant issue. My problem with the catechism is that … it doesn’t even mention justice as a concern.

Ender

As I said, Ender, you confuse justice with retribution, and retribution, you see as vengeance.
Justice and retribution can mean the same thing, but only if the context is correctly applied.
It is right, and it is Christian, that we should attempt to repay our debts, but Our Lord said:
‘Forgive us our debts, for we have forgiven those indebted to us.’
(My translation of the Latin.)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Prisons existed in other nations when God gave Israel His criminal code which included execution of murderers, adulterers, kidnappers and rapists.

So, with God NOT BEING IGNORANT of the existence of prisons and Israel fully having the finances and materials needed to build prisons to put prisoners in WHY did God command that each murderer, adulterer, kidnapper and rapist SURELY be put to death? Why did God not give another option (using “bloodless means”) for punishing capital criminals?

ALSO…

Is prison a “just punishment” for any crime? And does prison work?

In the order you asked 1) Am not sure God directly ordered such death, even if that is the case please read #2 2) He did! Jesus refused to stone the girl and said only those free of sin should be free to cast stones. I think this may be deeper than it appears. In your first question people were not supposed to be sinners (as the criminals are), in the stoning Jesus allowed stoning by those who were free of sin. So if we were a sin free society we may be allowed to stone. But we are not a sin free society so Jesus forbids us. 3) Yes, prison is just punishment see my post to Ender on that subject. 4) Yes prison does work. Millions have been through the penal system successfully. The biggest issue has been funding enough penal systems to allow a full sentence to be serviced.

 

[Nino]

I abhor the use of the death penalty. I know that the Church allows for its use when it is the only way to be assured of stopping a monster from continuing to hurt society, but I don’t think our country, at least, needs this option. As KathleenElise said, the death penalty is often the only way to ensure that some of the most horrific criminals are kept behind bars and I totally agree with that - up to the point of actually putting them to death. The very thought that one human being can cause the death of another - whether it is a criminal on the street or the legal executioner at the jail - I just can’t imagine how anyone could ever!

“Why is it okay to kill someone to punish them for killing someone?”

On another site, this: “Doesn’t the Bible also say: Thou shalt not kill? That’s what always amazes me about the religious people: they live with the Bible in their hand, but also are in favor of the death penalty. That’s like being a vegetarian butcher!”

 

[Nino]

no no no boys and girls…the commandment reads: thou shalt not commit murder! To use this ole worn out deftintion is to be one of those who like to feed,cloth and house murderers for years in conditons that some 17% of the world wish they had! Capital punishment is a lesson…to allow a chunck of human garbage to stay alive while the person or persons he killed is dead is an insult to that person or persons he murdered…you are saying,their lives are not as good as his or theirs…what a cruel and unfeeling response! Jesus on the cross forgave the so called good thief…then did Jesus yell down to the state executioners."he fellas, I forgave Charly here…so that means he is innocent…let him down…feed him and give him a new suit of clothes …$20 bucks and a fond fare thee well…hardly…Jesus allowed the 'good’thief to be executed…this brain washing of the masses…drop the M as Karl Marx used to smirk…check the movies going back some 60 years…prison flicks…always the cons were portrayed better then the warden and guards…all a part of the plan…and satan has won…a neutered populace with no back bone is more upset over some outdated curse words then allowing child molestors and murderers out on bail…sad…Neptune here I come…Nino

 

[SoCalRC]

Exactly, that is why the Catechism correctly notes that the guilt of the party must be first thouroughly established before Captial Punishment is applied.

Which, of course, is my point. There are really two questions. First, is Capital Punishment permissable at all under our faith. Second, if yes, does its typical application meet our standards.

But, in such cases as guilt has been firmly established, Pope Pius’s word remain 100% true.

Again, I think this raises a couple of questions. First, what constitutes “firmly established”? Again, going to the Archdiocese of Denver’s opinion piece. They profiled a man who was tried and convicted. Argued successfully for a new trial, was again convicted, then was released in 1993 because of DNA evidence. There is at least one similiar case now, in which even the eye witnesses have now recanted, where an appeal has been denied because of a missed filing date. If, as it seems, that an inevitable aspect of our application of capitol punishment is that some innocent people are executed, do we still meet the criteria of Canon Law?

Second, are Pope Pius’s words in contradiction with Pope John Paul’s? I would say not. JPII did not assert that a sentence of death is inherently unjust. In the GOSPEL OF LIFE he appeared to only argue that, because of our other moral obligations, it should be a last resort. In other writings it does appear that he also had grave concerns about shortcomings in secular justice systems, which would again raise the last question.

I liken it to John 8:3-11. Jesus did not say that a death penalty is inherently unjust, but he did question the suitability of the would be executioners (who seemed to be more interested in tricking Jesus than justice for the crime at hand). He then set an example of forgiveness, instructing the accused to sin no more.

 

[Gamera]

Prisons existed in other nations when God gave Israel His criminal code which included execution of murderers, adulterers, kidnappers and rapists.

And adulterers (Lev. 20:10-21).
And fornicators (Deut 22:20, 21).
And blasphemers (Lev. 24:11-14).
And people who curse their parents (Lev. 20:9)

You support execution of people for these crimes too, right? Because after all, if God intended the criminal code of ancient Israel’s theocracy to apply to modern nations, then it ALL must apply, right?

So which method of execution do you support for fornicators? Lethal injection? Gas chamber? Or should we stick to stoning?

 

[rpp]

And adulterers (Lev. 20:10-21).
And fornicators (Deut 22:20, 21).
And blasphemers (Lev. 24:11-14).
And people who curse their parents (Lev. 20:9)

You support execution of people for these crimes too, right? Because after all, if God intended the criminal code of ancient Israel’s theocracy to apply to modern nations, then it ALL must apply, right?

So which method of execution do you support for fornicators? Lethal injection? Gas chamber? Or should we stick to stoning?

I have always admired the English for drawing and quartering.