Support the Death Penalty?

[Ray_Scheel]

Yes, but in many trials the death penalty is sought, but not granted. Instead, those prisoners are given life in prison. My understanding is that these convicted persons are not treated as ‘death row’ inmates, but simply like any other long-sentence, violent felon.

That is because the judicial system as a whole (rather than just the prosecutors who asked for a sentence often in response to public pressure to be “tough” on crime) has made a determination that they should not be presumed to be as dangerous, and those inmates to still have something to lose that a DR inmate cannot presume to retain (thier lives). There are a growing number of supermax facilities that are nearly as restrictive as the common death row accomodations, with nearly equivalent expenses

 

[Ray_Scheel]

exactly, however justice is not the death penalty the error is actually outside of many definitions of justice.

So the Church was wrong all these years that it supported the use of the DP when its application was dramatically more flawed than it is today (and continues to more directly endorse its use where criminal justice systems are not as advanced as they are in the West? This is a very peculiar approach, if perfection in its application was a requirement for just use, they the Church should be teaching against its use in all but the countries with the most advanced in criminal justice systems, but instead it is doing the opposite. Since the Church continues to teach that the state has the just authority to impose capital punishment when the systems of the state are known to have the very flaws of ours and more, we cannot simply start an argument with a presumption that the death penalty is unjust on its face because of those flaws.

I am not following; please restate or reference the post #. I cannot imagine anyone would believe zero innocent people were executed, so how culpable are we?

This would be relating to the question you posed to me in post 123, where you asked if I really believed that zero innocents had been executed as a response to me directly stating that I knew the system was/is flawed. This was not in the distant past, and my post 127 very specifically questioned the belief you implied I held. What was the point of asking me if I believed zero people had been executed as if I did when I had made several clear statements to the contrary?

Think about this if you were the executioner and the jury recommended capital punishment, you however did not believe the person’s guilty was reasonable established maybe they are guilty but maybe not. Would perform the job? why not? Would the conviction render you free of culpablity?

The (non)culpability of the executioner is covered within the set of documents in the new Catechism dealing with the authority of the state to enact the death penalty. I’d strongly suggest you spend some time reviewing the actual teaching documents of the Church on this before running too far with some recent statements made in a personal capacity that can too easily be interpreted in a way that cannot be reconciled to existing Church teaching on this subject.

 

[sprout]

I think it may be possilbe that the Church may have defended the death penalty (as in to endure bravely - bear) at times in the past, but supported as in “to advocate, promote, uphold or defend as valid or right”? highly doubt it. It certainly doesn’t support it in this day and age.

• to endure bravely or quietly, syn BEAR
• to promote the interests or cause of; to uphold or defend as valid or right ADVOCATE
• to argue or vote for

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I think it may be possilbe that the Church may have defended the death penalty (as in to endure bravely - bear) at times in the past, but supported as in “to advocate, promote, uphold or defend as valid or right”? highly doubt it. It certainly doesn’t support it in this day and age.

The teaching of the Church about the death penalty - and that the authority to exact it as well as the decision to use it belongs exclusively to the state - has been stable and consistent to the point that teaching is very much a part of the deposit of the faith. There has been no change in the teaching documents of the Church on this subject, even in “this day and age”. 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.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Yes, the Pope stopped short of declaring comments in EVANGELIUM VITAE infallible. But it was still a papal encyclical, one containing three infallible teachings (via the Ordinary Magisterium). Age of an interpretation does not have anything to do with it. Do you reject the infallible teaching on abortion as an absolute ban just because the Church allowed direct abortions to save the life of the mother up until 1889?

I respect that people disagree on this subject. And the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has acknowledged that you can disagree on this teaching and still be a good Catholic. But to say that Pope John Paul II, in correcting our application of a Church teaching by putting it in the context of our other moral obligations was just ‘speaking as an individual’ is a rejection of our belief in an apostolic Church.

The Church’s position, from the papacy to the princes of the Church here in the US, is clear. You can say you believe that the Church is wrong, but it is heretical to argue that the Church’s position is something other than what is interpretted and stated by the Magesterium. Until, that is, you are selected as pope.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So the Church was wrong all these years that it supported the use of the DP when its application was dramatically more flawed than it is today (and continues to more directly endorse its use where criminal justice systems are not as advanced as they are in the West?

those are your words, remember when danger is present and other means are not available CP becomes reasonable. When Cain slue Abel was prison available? Yet God saved Cain, no CP for Cain

This is a very peculiar approach, if perfection in its application was a requirement for just use, they the Church should be teaching against its use in all but the countries with the most advanced in criminal justice systems, but instead it is doing the opposite. Since the Church continues to teach that the state has the just authority to impose capital punishment when the systems of the state are known to have the very flaws of ours and more, we cannot simply start an argument with a presumption that the death penalty is unjust on its face because of those flaws.

Are you implying the Church gave complete license for the state to kill both just and unjust? I think not. The authority comes with responsibility.

This would be relating to the question you posed to me in post 123, where you asked if I really believed that zero innocents had been executed as a response to me directly stating that I knew the system was/is flawed. This was not in the distant past, and my post 127 very specifically questioned the belief you implied I held. What was the point of asking me if I believed zero people had been executed as if I did when I had made several clear statements to the contrary?

It was a reciprocal question. Only if you want to stand on the belief no innocent person was executed would you need to answer. If you agree some innocent people are executed the issue of culpability is introduced

The (non)culpability of the executioner is covered within the set of documents in the new Catechism dealing with the authority of the state to enact the death penalty.

if you would cite the # I would gladly review the paragraph, i strong doubt it would cover the question asked. If the execution had doubt should he execute? ( Is he culpable as he knows doubt exists?)

I’d strongly suggest you spend some time reviewing the actual teaching documents of the Church on this before running too far with some recent statements made in a personal capacity that can too easily be interpreted in a way that cannot be reconciled to existing Church teaching on this subject.

“Interpreted” that is the word. It would be easy to read (Interpret) from these posts that the Church whole heartedly supports executions in the USA. However that would be a false interpretation. The Bishops clearly ( but not uniformly) call for ending the CP in the USA and practically every where else.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Yes? Where are you going with this considering that the Church has consistently taught that the application of the death penalty is solely within the authority of the state to determine and exact? *Edit: This is actually the section I refer to later - the important thing to note here is that his governmental authority is limited to that of the Church itself, though absolute therein, and matters pertaining specifically to faith and morals in the universal sphere. *

Yes, the Pope stopped short of declaring comments in EVANGELIUM VITAE infallible. But it was still a papal encyclical, one containing three infallible teachings (via the Ordinary Magisterium). Age of an interpretation does not have anything to do with it.

The quote, for the record:Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.
This is a statement about the technical capability of the state to “render criinals harmless” - a matter wholly unrelated to faith and morals. The Church has already taught that determinations of this sort are outside of its authority. The pontiff can offer guidance, but does not have the authority to make an infallible statement about the current capabilities of the science of Criminal Justice even if he wanted to. Saying he stopped short of declaring his comments infalliable is essentially a nonsense sentence, as he was prevented from doing so by a solid and undeniable limit that the Church itself drew between the authority of the State and itself.

Do you reject the infallible teaching on abortion as an absolute ban just because the Church allowed direct abortions to save the life of the mother up until 1889?

?!?

I respect that people disagree on this subject. And the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has acknowledged that you can disagree on this teaching and still be a good Catholic. But to say that Pope John Paul II, in correcting our application of a Church teaching by putting it in the context of our other moral obligations was just ‘speaking as an individual’ is a rejection of our belief in an apostolic Church.

I’m going by the limits Vatican I (which was convened as a teaching council) placed on papal infallibility in matters unrelated to faith and morals. A good example of such an unrelated topic would be things like the current capabilities of prison infrastructure.

The Church’s position, from the papacy to the princes of the Church here in the US, is clear. You can say you believe that the Church is wrong, but it is heretical to argue that the Church’s position is something other than what is interpretted and stated by the Magesterium. Until, that is, you are selected as pope.

Again, the union of bishops with the pope taught in Vatican I that papal authority did not extend to matters unrelated to faith and morals. The pope does not and never will have the authority to make a determination about the technical capabilities of prison infrastructure in order to overrule the state on matters the Church teaches the state has both responsibility and full authority (e.g. protecting as a whole the society under its care). That is not a limit which can be wiggled around, as the ordinary magisterium has already taught clearly as to what the limit is.

 

[SoCalRC]

Again, the union of bishops with the pope taught in Vatican I that papal authority did not extend to matters unrelated to faith and morals.

So a practice that claims the lives of innocent human beings is not related to faith or morals?

Look, I get it, you really like CP. I’m not saying you have to change your mind (in fact, I doubt that anything, anyone here could say would change your mind). But don’t argue that the Church’s position is not clear, or worse, that the Vicar of Christ has no authority on the matter!

If it were the position of ALL Bishops, the teaching would be infallible via the Ordinary Magisterium. But not being infallible does not change the Gift of Authority. In addition to the comment in the Gospel of Life, JPII wrote fairly extensively on not just CP, but the frequent injustice in secular legal systems. Pope Benedict has reaffirmed many of those principles both in speech and in writing. And here, in the US, the Church authority for applying Church teachings to our specific circumstances has written extensively on the matter.

This is not some theological hair splitting. Our Pope just saw fit to reinforce the importance of primacy and the implications of an apostolic Church. We are not protestants, we reaffirm this principle each week in our Profession of Faith.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

those are your words, remember when danger is present and other means are not available CP becomes reasonable. When Cain slue Abel was prison available? Yet God saved Cain, no CP for Cain

Even now it is not unheard of for someone to be convicted of manslaughter and not serve a day beyond the end of trial. God deciding an alternate punishment was appropriate in that case really does not prove anything as far as what you and I have been discussing…

Are you implying the Church gave complete license for the state to kill both just and unjust? I think not. The authority comes with responsibility.

Here is another rhetorical question that you use to suggest I’ve implied something I’ve never come close to.

It was a reciprocal question. Only if you want to stand on the belief no innocent person was executed would you need to answer. If you agree some innocent people are executed the issue of culpability is introduced

I’ll just drop this as rhetorical questions with false implications are an apparent bad habit of yours, though though now I am suspecting that you did so just to raise the issue in hopes of getting me to go do the homework on the presumption you were raising that question on:

if you would cite the # I would gladly review the paragraph, i strong doubt it would cover the question asked. If the execution had doubt should he execute? (Is he culpable as he knows doubt exists?)

To address the premise your question raises, what is your basis for thinking the personal judgment of the executioner is greater than that of end result of what the State has determined to be for the common good according to a process generally regarded as just?

“Interpreted” that is the word. It would be easy to read (Interpret) from these posts that the Church whole heartedly supports executions in the USA. However that would be a false interpretation. The Bishops clearly ( but not uniformly) call for ending the CP in the USA and practically every where else.

As I mentioned to SoCalRC, the Church simply does not have the authority to make the technical determination about the capability of existing prison infrastructure to render certain criminals harmless, and likewise does not have the authority to order the various States to build such facilities as a priority over the State’s other ordained responsibilities to the society under its care.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So a practice that claims the lives of innocent human beings is not related to faith or morals?

Again, this revolves about the presupposition JPII made about the technical capabilities of the current prison infrastructure. That is that part that is wholly outside of his authority to determine. And yes, as a decade+ employee of a state prison system I strongly disagree with his assessment of the capability of prisons in modern society to permanently render certain criminal elements harmless. When we actually get to the point where we can effectively store them without further risk of harm, then I’d agree the use of the DP should fall off to almost nothing, but we are not there yet, and reaching that point with sufficient investment in prison technology is a time line at the sole discretion of the State to work out against its other obligations to the society under its care…

 

[Scarecrow]

I support the DP. In fact I think the only thing that prevents it from being a major deterrent is that we dont use it often enough.

 

[SoCalRC]

When we actually get to the point where we can effectively store them without further risk of harm, then I’d agree the use of the DP should fall off to almost nothing, but we are not there yet, and reaching that point with sufficient investment in prison technology is a time line at the sole discretion of the State to work out against its other obligations to the society under its care…

Interesting, we had no problem ‘storing them’ for decades and other industrialized nations appear to have no problem storing them either. And virtually everyone agrees that the DP in the US is more costly than life in prison now. Somehow we can muster billions of dollars each week for two seemingly endless wars, but we can’t keep the handful of people we execute each year in secure facilities?

I am also very suspicious of arguments that someone would not accept in any other context. In South America there are several small ethnic groups that are overwhelmingly Catholic, but still quietly persue a long standing local custom of burying live newborns with certain deformaties. Would it be your contention that the Pope has overstepped his authority in condemning the practice, since he cannot assess the local health care infrastructure of the societies in question?

 

[adrift]

I am also very suspicious of arguments that someone would not accept in any other context. In South America there are several small ethnic groups that are overwhelmingly Catholic, but still quietly persue a long standing local custom of burying live newborns with certain deformaties. Would it be your contention that the Pope has overstepped his authority in condemning the practice, since he cannot assess the local health care infrastructure of the societies in question?

Murder is intrinsically wrong. The death penalty is not. That is where your argument fails. I would prefer not to have the death penalty but I know that it prevents murders in prison. A guard was told what are they going to do to me? I already have three life sentences.

 

[SoCalRC]

Murder is intrinsically wrong. The death penalty is not. That is where your argument fails. I would prefer not to have the death penalty but I know that it prevents murders in prison. A guard was told what are they going to do to me? I already have three life sentences.

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.

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?

 

[rpp]

{snip}
In South America there are several small ethnic groups that are overwhelmingly Catholic, but still quietly persue a long standing local custom of burying live newborns with certain deformaties. {snip}

This is horrible! I would like to know more. Is there something that can be done for these children? Cite a source please. Not enough info here to google with.

 

[rpp]

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. {snip}

Can you cite where the **Magisterium **has made an observation about how the DP is carried out in the USA?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

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.

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.

 

[sprout]

The teaching of the Church about the death penalty - and that the authority to exact it as well as the decision to use it belongs exclusively to the state - has been stable and consistent to the point that teaching is very much a part of the deposit of the faith. There has been no change in the teaching documents of the Church on this subject, even in “this day and age”. 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.

Ray,

Didn’t mean to “imply” prior error in the teaching of the Church.

I view the Church & the Magesterium as a living, breathing, organism not a dead tree or stone that once something has been carved into it can never be further illuminated or expanded. It wouldn’t make sense to have a “living” Pope who holds the “keys” to Christ’s Church if that were the case. God did not make us rocks & stones, he made us living breathing rational beings. Our Church is also a living, breathing, and developing over time. It’s a matter of development, rather than contradiction.

My understanding of “this day and age” is that we have evolved our technology and skill to a point such that killing a human being is no longer necessary to protect the innocent or punish the wicked and therefore should be abolished.

Murdering the convicted is antiquated and barbaric and will only become more so as time goes on. It will someday be seen as barbaric as public hangings, burning at the stake, and torture were in the middle ages.

 

[rpp]

{snip}It will someday be seen as barbaric as public hangings, burning at the stake, and torture were in the middle ages.

Those are barbaric? Really. Says who?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

My understanding of “this day and age” is that we have evolved our technology and skill to a point such that killing a human being is no longer necessary to protect the innocent or punish the wicked and therefore should be abolished.

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.

Murdering the convicted is antiquated and barbaric and will only become more so as time goes on. It will someday be seen as barbaric as public hangings, burning at the stake, and torture were in the middle ages.

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…