Support the Death Penalty?

[SoCalRC]

What the then Saul of Tarsus did was not a crime at the time.

I think you read more into my point than intended. By our current secular law, Saul was party to a hate crime and eligible to be executed. By the laws at the time, he committed no crime.

Conversely, he was legally executed under secular law at the time, but his execution would be considered persecution and a human rights violation under international law today.

The main point was that it can sometimes be dangerous to treat execution of secular law (pun intended) and enacting God’s law as a synomym. This is something that several Doctors of the Church have noted and something that Jesus seemingly warned us about.

My other point, which you do seem to object to, is that, unlike God, we cannot peer into another person’s heart, nor forsee their future. Regardless of secular law, Saul believed he had grievously sinned, yet still accomplished great things and, we believe, ultimately achieved salvation.

 

[rpp]

I think you read more into my point than intended. By our current secular law, Saul was party to a hate crime and eligible to be executed. By the laws at the time, he committed no crime.

Conversely, he was legally executed under secular law at the time, but his execution would be considered persecution and a human rights violation under international law today.

The main point was that it can sometimes be dangerous to treat execution of secular law (pun intended) and enacting God’s law as a synomym. This is something that several Doctors of the Church have noted and something that Jesus seemingly warned us about.

My other point, which you do seem to object to, is that, unlike God, we cannot peer into another person’s heart, nor forsee their future. Regardless of secular law, Saul believed he had grievously sinned, yet still accomplished great things and, we believe, ultimately achieved salvation.

Actually, I did not object to your points. What made me uncomfortable about your post was the speculation regarding premature death of an Apostle.

As for looking into the heart of a another, I think there has been only one person who was ever able to do that very well, but then He was also the Creator of the Universe.

And for the main topic of this thread, I can see both sides very easily and have been internally conflicted about it for quite a long time.

 

[Amolibri]

Same thought here. But I would add that if the prisons were places that punished and those sentenced to LIFE actually stayed in them for the rest of their lives, then there would be little if any need for the death penalty.
Sometimes I think that the “death penalty” sentence is the only sure way to keep a very very evil person in jail.

There IS life without parole…and it’s given as an alternative in “capital” cases. There is no need for a civilized society to condone state killing.

 

[rpp]

There IS life without parole…and it’s given as an alternative in “capital” cases. There is no need for a civilized society to condone state killing.

The problem is that there have been numerous cases of inmates who have been sentenced to “big life” violently attacking other inmates and guards, and even killing some. When you are serving life without parole, and you are a violent person, what do you really have to loose? What more stern punishment can be meted out? Solitary confinement?

 

[SoCalRC]

Actually, I did not object to your points. What made me uncomfortable about your post was the speculation regarding premature death of an Apostle.

That is a point well taken. I often teach and mentor professionals and I find it is helpful to take examples they are familiar with to make a point. But in this case I can see how my invention to make a point could offend.

Paul’s work was great, but the death of a man would not thwart God’s will with regards to His Church.

I’m sorry to have even given such an implication.

Best Regards

 

[SoCalRC]

The problem is that there have been numerous cases of inmates who have been sentenced to “big life” violently attacking other inmates and guards, and even killing some. When you are serving life without parole, and you are a violent person, what do you really have to loose? What more stern punishment can be meted out? Solitary confinement?

But having the death penalty does not elliminate that risk either. Even when we pursue the death penalty, jury’s do not award it a significant percentage of the time. Since they are not judged as deserving of death by their peers, it seems that very long prison sentences are inevitable. Once those sentences exist, the ‘nothing more to loose’ scenario is going to exist as well.

Also, not all in prison violence stems from convicted violent offenders. We do have cases where previously non violent offenders become involved. That is why there is such a push towards alternate sentencing for certain types of crimes. So that violence is not learned in a very dangerous, hostile environment.

Best Regards

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano:
What we have here is a continuation of the failure, not just by you, but by many others, to understand the meaning of words.

I too have come to that conclusion. I am happy with the Latin, but I find that even excellent Catholic Latin scholars do make some errors of interpretation, for instance, there are many cases in the Douay Gospels, where the Latin word ‘at’ is translated as ‘but’ when it should have been interpreted as ‘thereupon’. In English, ‘but’ has never had this meaning.

Here we have ‘retribution’ being used where atonement would have been better. … 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).

This is partially true: (CCC 2266) “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” The offender doesn’t have to institute the punishment, he only has to accept it, but retribution is required even if it is not voluntarily accepted and even though there is no atonement.

This is merely real politic. The true aim is first stated, followed by the imperfect situation which might be achieved by a civil power. This is not a desired solution, but an acceptance of imperfection.

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.

The first sentence is correct, the second is not. It is true that the word means the payment, in evil, to be given to the offender for the evil of the offense but the evils are of two different kinds.

Consult your dictionaries. I find vengeance defined as revenge, which in turn refers to retaliation for wrong done.
Retaliation is obviously response in kind, in other words, evil for evil.
Thus the definition fits the word, and the word is vengeance.
Remember also that Our Lord specificly forbade us from repaying evil with evil.

Aquinas directly addressed this point and explains the difference (I’m on a borrowed computer and don’t have access to my notes). This is most assuredly not vengeance - it is justice.

As I said before, you confuse justice with vengeance.
Latin Iustitia -ae* f* justice, uprightness, fairness.
In Latin, the langage of Mother Church, this word means so much more than your blinkered view.

I am inclined to believe that Mother Church is not calling for vengeance, so must be using the word, inadvisedly, in place of ‘atonement’

I am equally sure she isn’t calling for vengeance, and also that she perfectly understands the meanings of the words, and is using them correctly.

In Latin, yes, but some of the translations might be questionable.

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.

What I am doing is quoting Church sources; I am using the words in the same context in which I see them used. Here is Cardinal Dulles explaining the meaning of retribution: “Retribution. In principle, guilt calls for punishment.” You define this as vengeance,

My dictionary so defines it.

the Church does not. Whether or not there is atonement - which requires the participation of the sinner - there must be punishment, or, as the catechism says: “Punishment … has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.” Note the “as far as possible” - rehabilitation is desirable but is not required to justify punishment.

Again, the real politic is prepared to accept imperfection from the civil power, but it is plain from the text what the true aim is.

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.’

This is a different argument. If you want to incorporate the concept of mercy into the discussion, go for it. Just remember that even forgiveness does not eliminate the need for punishment.

Ender

That is a perverse argument. Forgiveness cancels the debt. Punishment is the price of the debt. If the debt it cancelled, then the price is set to zero.

 

[Ender]

At the cost of innocent lives? I am sorry to sound like a broken record, but at what point does the need to punish ‘severely enough’ get overshadowed by associated costs to society?

Innocent people will die no matter which choice is made on implementing the death penalty. With the death penalty there will inevitably be a few innocent people executed and although this number will be quite low it is a concern that needs to be addressed. Without the death penalty there will just as inevitably be a number of innocent people killed by felons who served time for killing before and were released from prison - and this number is one or two orders of magnitude higher. If your concern is for the loss of innocent life, at what ratio do you draw the line between preferring the execution of the innocent to the murder of the innocent?

End

 

[SoCalRC]

Innocent people will die no matter which choice is made on implementing the death penalty. With the death penalty there will inevitably be a few innocent people executed and although this number will be quite low it is a concern that needs to be addressed. Without the death penalty there will just as inevitably be a number of innocent people killed by felons who served time for killing before and were released from prison - and this number is one or two orders of magnitude higher. If your concern is for the loss of innocent life, at what ratio do you draw the line between preferring the execution of the innocent to the murder of the innocent?

I’m not sure I follow this. We know that just from 1979, over 120 people have been exonerated and released. At least 66 more have been exonerated post execution. As a percentage, that is quite high. So high that the GOP Gov. of Illinois commuted 170+ death sentances to life without parole.

On the flip side, life without release does not especially endanger the public. The only people at risk are guards and fellow inmates. But that risk exists either way, since prisoners facing death will spend considerable time incarcerated in any event.

Violent felons serve prison sentences and return to society now, so I’m not sure how executing a handful effects that risk - unless you are not only saying that you support capitol punishment, but want to see it on a dramatically larger scale. That would not seem to be even economically feasible, unless we dramatically lowered our standards again in capitol cases. Given that the number of seemingly unjust sentences is already statistically high, that would seem to imply that you are willing to accept a very high toll in innocent lives for this policy.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Consult your dictionaries. I find vengeance defined as revenge, which in turn refers to retaliation for wrong done.
Retaliation is obviously response in kind, in other words, evil for evil.
Thus the definition fits the word, and the word is vengeance.
Remember also that Our Lord specificly forbade us from repaying evil with evil.

This is a textbook case of the errors that pop up when arguing by extended synonym. In your usage, a prison sentence is also retaliation for wrong done, but we know that use of incarceration for criminal elements is not considered “evil” as defined by the Church, from which we can conclude that there is a significant error in how you have applied the extended synonyms.

But having the death penalty does not elliminate that risk either.

It does for those who have had it carried out on them.

One of the questions I’ve raised (but never got an answer to) in previous versions of this thread was for those in opposition of any use of the death penalty to come up with a way of storing those inmates who remain either a direct threat (by murdering staff or other inmates) or indirect (running a gang from inside) in a way that does not violate Catholic teachings on the treatment of prisoners (specifically, allowing interaction with others while stored), especially since the teachings on the treatment of prisoners has are consistently much longer and more directly defensible from the teaching documents of the church.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’m not sure I follow this. We know that just from 1979, over 120 people have been exonerated and released.

~It seems rather disingenuous to include all of the cases where the the death penalty was overturned as part of the appeals built into the system as evidence that the system is faulty, since in most of of those cases the checks and balances worked entirely as designed.

At least 66 more have been exonerated post execution. As a percentage, that is quite high.

Define exonerated, and what time frame are we talking about. The lists I’ve seen for 1979 on are closer to 8-10 people where significant doubts about guilt were raised after execution.

So high that the GOP Gov. of Illinois commuted 170+ death sentances to life without parole.

A proper response to a situation where some serious issues with that state’s system has been pointed out by the courts. Again, one of the checks built into the system worked, this is also not clear-cut evidence that the system is as flawed as you seem to be making it out to be.

On the flip side, life without release does not especially endanger the public. The only people at risk are guards and fellow inmates. But that risk exists either way, since prisoners facing death will spend considerable time incarcerated in any event.

I’m now confused. Up until this point it seemed you were trying to suggest that the appeals process was not yet thorough enough, and now it seems you are criticizing it for taking too long.

 

[barbfromtucson]

If you ever get to hear Sr. Helen Prejean speak, you will have your eyes opened regarding the death penalty.

–Barbara

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Innocent people will die no matter which choice is made on implementing the death penalty. With the death penalty there will inevitably be a few innocent people executed and although this number will be quite low it is a concern that needs to be addressed.

Some of us use this as our guide that either the death penalty should be not used or rarely used. The standard should be much higher. Currently financing a defense, race, and eyewitness testimony play an over rated role. These come up again and again in wrongful convictions.

Without the death penalty there will just as inevitably be a number of innocent people killed by felons who served time for killing before and were released from prison - and this number is one or two orders of magnitude higher.

I do not feel responsible for an former convict committing a crime. His crime is his crime. This is true in both crimes. If he servived his time ( human retribution) then it is his issue not mine. We certainly can not kill anyone we think my someday commit a crime

If your concern is for the loss of innocent life, at what ratio do you draw the line between preferring the execution of the innocent to the murder of the innocent?

End

We do not support either. The sentence is designed to address the crime and detour future offenses. When that fails we would consider rising the sentence time. We can never take responsibility for anyone else’s decision/action.

 

[melensdad]

I do not feel responsible for an former convict committing a crime. His crime is his crime. This is true in both crimes. If he servived his time ( human retribution) then it is his issue not mine . . .

The sentence is designed to address the crime and detour future offenses. When that fails we would consider rising the sentence time. We can never take responsibility for anyone else’s decision/action.

How do we address the problem of “life sentences” that are reduced for any of a multitude of reasons (over crowding, etc) that allow a killer to be released without actually serving his full sentence? You address a situation where someone is released AFTER he fullfilled his sentence. But many criminals do not fullfill their full sentence and are released anyway. Is society to blame? Should we as Catholics work to keep them in prison to fullfill their sentence?

Seems to me that if we don’t put murderers to death, then we must maintain them in prison until they die. We don’t do that. That alone is fuel for the pro-death penalty argument.

We know that just from 1979, over 120 people have been exonerated and released.

This to me, seems like proof that the appeals process actually works.

At least 66 more have been exonerated post execution. As a percentage, that is quite high. So high that the GOP Gov. of Illinois commuted 170+ death sentances to life without parole.

I’ve never seen a number as high as 66. Like Ray Scheel posted above, I too have seen numbers in and about 10. That is a pretty low % in real terms.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

~It seems rather disingenuous to include all of the cases where the the death penalty was overturned as part of the appeals built into the system as evidence that the system is faulty, since in most of of those cases the checks and balances worked entirely as designed.

What! Is the system designed to wrongfully convict? Appeals are only based on procedure not evidence. If convicted on little or no evidence the appeal is not to consider that issue. Only if the trial did not ran by the rules is the appeal allowed to overule the conviction.

It may interest you to know Louise Pelter was proven not to have shot the FBI agent, however, he is still in jail for it. The court ruled that to be an evidence issue not a procedural issue, so they find it irrelevant on the appeals issue.

 

[melensdad]

Appeals are only based on procedure not evidence.

This varies by state statutes. What you say may be true in some states and not in others. I believe that most states allow appeals on evidence, especially true if DNA evidence can be used to exonerate someone who was convicted of a crime prior to the common use of DNA as evidence. Appeals based on newly entered DNA evidence are becoming very common.

 

[SoCalRC]

~It seems rather disingenuous to include all of the cases where the the death penalty was overturned as part of the appeals built into the system as evidence that the system is faulty, since in most of of those cases the checks and balances worked entirely as designed.

Those are just what are referred to as ‘extraordinary releases’.

Define exonerated, and what time frame are we talking about. The lists I’ve seen for 1979 on are closer to 8-10 people where significant doubts about guilt were raised after execution.

Irrelevant, we could argue about every proposition from every source, or just take your numbers and say, OK, 1% of all people executed are innocent.

I’m now confused. Up until this point it seemed you were trying to suggest that the appeals process was not yet thorough enough, and now it seems you are criticizing it for taking too long.

It isn’t very complicated. The argument was presented that life inmates offer a serious threat to guards and fellow inmates. Supposedly because they have nothing to lose. But, as the system stands, they spend years in prison now - with nothing to lose. If you look at it statistically, number of incarcerated death sentence prisoners vs. number of executions, the actual executions would seem to do virtually nothing to mitigate the risk.

I’m not saying appeals should be longer or shorter. I’m pointing out a) that innocent people get executed, a grave moral disorder in my faith and b) the only way execution would lower prison related risks is if you have police simply execute criminals on the spot, because at any one point in time the bulk of the death sentence prisoner population is, in fact, sitting in prison waiting out some part of the legal process.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

What! Is the system designed to wrongfully convict? Appeals are only based on procedure not evidence. If convicted on little or no evidence the appeal is not to consider that issue. Only if the trial did not ran by the rules is the appeal allowed to overule the conviction.

~ No human institution is perfect, though the safeguards for capital cases are significantly higher than other criminal proceedings to compensate for the fact that the penalty is irreversible once carried out. The combination of the appeals process and the pardons and parole review does serve to significantly compensate for errors of procedure or evidence at the trial level for both “regular” and capital convictions.

As far as the case of Leonard Peltier, that seems to be much more complicated than simple ballistics evidence considering his previous history of leading armed protests.

 

[Amolibri]

The problem is that there have been numerous cases of inmates who have been sentenced to “big life” violently attacking other inmates and guards, and even killing some. When you are serving life without parole, and you are a violent person, what do you really have to loose? What more stern punishment can be meted out? Solitary confinement?

YES… and in my personal knowledge of the prison system through my work, this is a common punishment for all sorts of offenses.
I repeat:*** There is no need for a civilized society to condone state killing.***

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Irrelevant, we could argue about every proposition from every source, or just take your numbers and say, OK, 1% of all people executed are innocent.

Considering the numbers I cited came from what one of the most reputable and best know organization involved in pointing out the errors made in capital punishment cases, that the numbers you claimed were nearly 10x higher and un-sourced suggests to me that they were simply made up.

Further, considering that the number of executions since 1976 is 1096, the instance of cases where significant doubts were raised after execution is only .7%, which is again a 10x difference between what you implied versus what has actually happened.

This not a matter of arguing sources, but whether all parties are wanting a discussion that is relevant to what the actual situation is. There are serious credibility issues raised by repeatedly using significantly exaggerated figures.

It isn’t very complicated. The argument was presented that life inmates offer a serious threat to guards and fellow inmates. Supposedly because they have nothing to lose. But, as the system stands, they spend years in prison now - with nothing to lose. If you look at it statistically, number of incarcerated death sentence prisoners vs. number of executions, the actual executions would seem to do virtually nothing to mitigate the risk.

As inmates awaiting the death sentence, they are subject to a much tighter level of control that would be acceptable for general population inmates. Also, the number of years on death row is dropping quickly as the backlog is finally clearing following the reimplementation of the death penalty after it had been suspended by the courts. In inmate spending 6-10 years on death row is significantly less risk to those exposed to that inmate than one spending 40-60 years in confinement.