Support the Death Penalty?

[redbird444]

What is “Just" and "humane” in allowing watching galleries to see somebody put to death like a defective animal, when such a person could be rehibilitatted or kept away from the community?
.

What is just and humane to an individual having an academic discussion online may be different from what is just and humane to a family member of someone who was murdered in a way as to warrant a death sentence being adjudicated.

Rehabilitated? Come on now. I work in the prison system. And I havve worked in all security levels of prison from halfway house to maximum security.

Rehabilitation is society’s idyllic hope which has little hope of ever being realized in any more of a fraction of the inmate populace. Not saying it is impossible. Just saying the majority of the inmate population is not in prison for singing too loud in church.

A life sentence may keep the offender away from society, but it also allows the offender to enjoy life, which is not what the offender allowed the victim.

I won’t add to the academic (criminal justice statistics) or theological discussions (church teachings) here, but I can tell you one thing for sure…

The legislators who decide matters are just as far removed from the reality of prison life and the prison culture, and from the reality of the individual circumstances of the crimes as the average citizen.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Prudential teachings *are *wholly optional. The quote below is from a FirstThings article by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus that was specifically about prudential judgment.

“But the main question at hand is prudential judgment as it relates to episcopal competence and responsibility. … Although both wisdom and prudence are highly desirable in a bishop, neither is guaranteed by the “charism” of episcopal office. At the ordination of a bishop, we pray that he may be endowed with such graces, but it is no article of faith that such prayer is demonstrably answered.”

This next section goes directly to the point Ray Scheel has been making: the understanding and management of prisons is outside the competence of popes and bishops.

“And, of course, the sex abuse crisis that broke open in January 2002 took its toll on the bishops’ credibility and self-confidence in issuing pronunciamentos on subjects beyond their self-evident competence. Catholics and others adopted a large and understandable measure of skepticism about what bishops had to say. If they had so gravely bungled the tasks that are unquestionably theirs—to teach, sanctify, and govern—why should people pay attention to what they say about matters beyond their ostensible competence?”

There is no guarantee of correctness when the clergy speaks on matters other than faith and morals and except in specific instances not even then.

Ender

I am not sure you are taking these statements in proper context. For the Father to say the Bishop’s authority was questioned in regard to the sex scandals is a long way from saying the Bishop is generally incompetent. If the two posters feel a loss of faith in the Catholic Church that may be a personal issue, which would clearly disqualify them from speaking on behalf of the Church. Was this the issue all along?

BTW I do not see that as the issue Ray wrote of earlier, in fact it would be somewhat contradictory. Earlier it argued the Church had no authority concerning the death penalty, thus to argue the decision is made by an incompetent Bishop is foolish. To argue the Bishop’s decision is to confirm the Bishop’s authority, you simply cannot have it both ways.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Two things I have to say at this point:

1. Just for the record, I’m pretty much done with responding claim I’ve argued things that include someone’s pet equivocations and/or imply I adhere to details I’ve pointedly denied, especially when it looks like they are using those misstatements to build strawmen.
2. In the context Ender used the word, speaking of bishops “competence” is not an antonym of “incompetent”. Using the antonym to try to construct a counterpoint is a clear tip-off that the actual point was missed.

 

[Ender]

I am not sure you are taking these statements in proper context. For the Father to say the Bishop’s authority was questioned in regard to the sex scandals is a long way from saying the Bishop is generally incompetent.

That was not at all the point Neuhaus was making. He was stating that the bishops have way too often made pronouncements on subjects outside of their competence. That is, most of their letters have been prudential and American Catholics rightly question their conclusions and suggestions, especially since they showed such little competence in an area that was clearly their responsibility.

BTW I do not see that as the issue Ray wrote of earlier, in fact it would be somewhat contradictory. Earlier it argued the Church had no authority concerning the death penalty, thus to argue the decision is made by an incompetent Bishop is foolish. To argue the Bishop’s decision is to confirm the Bishop’s authority, you simply cannot have it both ways.

I always understood Ray’s point to be that bishops (and popes) are outside of their area of expertise when they make judgments about the security conditions of modern prisons. It was not that they couldn’t talk about the death penalty, clearly that is an area containing moral issues, but making statements about prison safety crosses the line between moral judgment and prudential opinion. There is no justification for assuming that JPII was correct in his statement that prisons can safely and appropriately warehouse prisoners for life simply because he was pope.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

That was not at all the point Neuhaus was making. He was stating that the bishops have way too often made pronouncements on subjects outside of their competence. That is, most of their letters have been prudential and American Catholics rightly question their conclusions and suggestions, especially since they showed such little competence in an area that was clearly their responsibility.

Whether you feel Catholics participating in the killing of a convicted criminal is outside of the Bishops competence in one issue. However to deny such authority really is to oppose the Church. The catechism is not the personal work of the local Bishop.

I always understood Ray’s point to be that bishops (and popes) are outside of their area of expertise when they make judgments about the security conditions of modern prisons. It was not that they couldn’t talk about the death penalty, clearly that is an area containing moral issues, but making statements about prison safety crosses the line between moral judgment and prudential opinion. There is no justification for assuming that JPII was correct in his statement that prisons can safely and appropriately warehouse prisoners for life simply because he was pope.

Ender

Really
I notice you, Ray, and redbird444 combined cannot provide a shread, not a shread, of evidience against the teaching. Where are your crime statistics? How many guards were killed last year? Last decade?

Wow maybe we should consider killing speeders and cab riders to increase job safety of police and cabbies?

*The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey found these occupations to be most at risk for workplace violence during the years 1993 to 1999. They’re listed with the annual average of incidents per 1,000 workers:

Law enforcement officers 260.8; correction officers 155.7; taxicab drivers 128.8; bartenders 81.6; mental health custodians (attendants, etc.) 69.0; special education teachers 68.4; gas station attendants 68.3; mental health professionals (doctors, nurses, etc.) 68.2; junior high school teachers 54.2; convenience store workers 53.9; bus drivers 38.2; high school teachers 38.1; nurses 21.9; physicians 16.2.* %between%

 

[rpp]

I never thought this thread would last so long or have so many posts.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I notice you, Ray, and redbird444 combined cannot provide a shread, not a shread, of evidience against the teaching. Where are your crime statistics? How many guards were killed last year? Last decade?

Trying to modify my point in order to weaken the argument is a non-starter. Unless you care to construct a chain of relevance that is more substantial than a simple “because I said so”, I don’t see how the crime statistics themselves have any significance to a discussion of whether the theological protections held by the See of Peter and the bishops speaking as one apply to having the authority to effectively declare such factual investigations irrelevant to the Authority of the States to decide for themselves…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Trying to modify my point in order to weaken the argument is a non-starter. Unless you care to construct a chain of relevance that is more substantial than a simple “because** I **said so”, I don’t see how the crime statistics themselves have any significance to a discussion of whether the theological protections held by the See of Peter and the bishops speaking as one apply to having the authority to effectively declare such factual investigations irrelevant to the Authority of the States to decide for themselves…

It never was about you and thus the problem. The issue is when is it morally acceptable to kill a human.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It never was about you and thus the problem.

You referenced me by name as failing to provide evidence on demand that did not seem relevant to the issue I had been approaching. Since you apparently don’t care to construct a chain of relevance as far as why the proof you are demanding, the presumption now is that it has been settled that the crime statistics themselves have little to no significance in a discussion of whether the theological protections held by the See of Peter and/or the bishops speaking as one apply to having the authority to effectively declare what the facts are when States are making determinations on issues under their authority.

The issue is when is it morally acceptable to kill a human.

~ Then that would be a distinct point from the one I have been working on, and is in fact an issue which is secondary to the argument I have been making, as the limits of the protections of the Magisterium are central to establishing who has the final Authority to make that decision. This issue you are working on is the “cart”, but the nature of the “horse” must be determined before we can hitch up and go somewhere.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You referenced me by name as failing to provide evidence on demand that did not seem relevant to the issue I had been approaching. Since you apparently don’t care to construct a chain of relevance as far as why the proof you are demanding, the presumption now is that it has been settled that the crime statistics themselves have little to no significance in a discussion of whether the theological protections held by the See of Peter and/or the bishops speaking as one apply to having the authority to effectively declare what the facts are when States are making determinations on issues under their authority.

~ Then that would be a distinct point from the one I have been working on, and is in fact an issue which is secondary to the argument I have been making, as the limits of the protections of the Magisterium are central to establishing who has the final Authority to make that decision. This issue you are working on is the “cart”, but the nature of the “horse” must be determined before we can hitch up and go somewhere.

:yawn: :yawn:
Is this another way to say someone did not read Natural Moral Law

 

[Ender]

Is this another way to say someone did not read Natural Moral Law

No, it has to do with staying on topic.

JPII made a statement about the ability of modern prisons to safely and appropriately incarcerate prisoners. That statement, as a matter of fact, is either correct or incorrect. Ray’s point is that there is nothing in the charism of bishops and popes that guarantees that such statements are necessarily true. This statement is an opinion and a lot of people who have expertise in this are (apparently including Ray) disagree with it.

My point has been that opinions (prudential statements) carry no moral obligation to be accepted.

Don’t go into whether the death penalty is unjustified; the particular point at issue here is strictly about the nature and correctness of JPII’s comment on prisons.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, it has to do with staying on topic.

The thread is “Support the Death Penalty?” not evaluation of the catechism or evaluation of Ray’s statement.

JPII made a statement about the ability of modern prisons to safely and appropriately incarcerate prisoners. That statement, as a matter of fact, is either correct or incorrect. Ray’s point is that there is nothing in the charism of bishops and popes that guarantees that such statements are necessarily true. This statement is an opinion and a lot of people who have expertise in this are (apparently including Ray) disagree with it.

yet that remains personal opinions only. My understanding is the death rate among prison guards fails to support their contention. If you review the base for their posts, it fails to support your read of their post. It claims the deccision is out side the church which is incorrect because the decission involves the killing of a human which is a moral issue.

My point has been that opinions (prudential statements) carry no moral obligation to be accepted.

The catechism is not JPII personal writtings the catechism is clear on the subject

Don’t go into whether the death penalty is unjustified; the particular point at issue here is strictly about the nature and correctness of JPII’s comment on prisons.

Ender

Actually no, the church teaching is clear, JPII’s comments support the church teaching.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It claims the deccision is out side the church which is incorrect because the decission involves the killing of a human which is a moral issue.

~ An analysis of the technical capabilities of “modern” prisons to effectively protect society simply does not involve the killing of a human being. QED

 

[Ender]

The catechism is not JPII personal writtings the catechism is clear on the subject
Actually no, the church teaching is clear, JPII’s comments support the church teaching.

Section 2267 in the catechism is taken from JPII’s encyclical Evangelium vitae; this is what the “Church teaching” is based on and it is this that has been called prudential (opinion) by BXVI, the USCCB and others.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Section 2267 in the catechism is taken from JPII’s encyclical Evangelium vitae; this is what the “Church teaching” is based on and it is this that has been called prudential (opinion) by BXVI, the USCCB and others.

Ender

Popes do not write the catechism the Magisterium does. Outside of yourself, I have seen no one second your point of view. The earlier posting concerning BXVI was a long way from affirming such a stand, it dealt with people who do not fully agree with the Church’s teaching.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

~ An analysis of the technical capabilities of “modern” prisons to effectively protect society simply does not involve the killing of a human being. QED

Actually it does, so does the ability to adquately protect the guards. If the analysis shows reasonable protection then systematic killing of the convicted is unjustified. If the public or a guard is in iminate danger of death the killing becomes justified

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Actually it does, so does the ability to adquately protect the guards. If the analysis shows reasonable protection then systematic killing of the convicted is unjustified. If the public or a guard is in iminate danger of death the killing becomes justified

You are attempting to equivocate the morality of various decisions made based on the analysis with the technical analysis used as part of making those later determinations; in a great example of putting the cart before the horse… The analysis of the technical capabilities of “modern” prisons simply does not involve a decision to kill a human being.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You are attempting to equivocate the morality of various decisions made based on the analysis with the technical analysis used as part of making those later determinations; in a great example of putting the cart before the horse… The analysis of the technical capabilities of “modern” prisons simply does not involve a decision to kill a human being.

And your twisting everything and anything to deny the Church has authority. You do not have to surrender any of your authority to the Church. However the consequance can be sever.

 

[rpp]

You are attempting to equivocate the morality of various decisions made based on the analysis with the technical analysis used as part of making those later determinations; in a great example of putting the cart before the horse… The analysis of the technical capabilities of “modern” prisons simply does not involve a decision to kill a human being.

In analyzing the death penalty, one must analyze how effective prisons are holding the convicted people and protecting inmates from one another as well as protecting guards. In addition, one must also analyze the possibility of escape by inmates.

The ability of a prison system to incarcerate someone without violating their dignity, while at the same time protect inmates from one another can be an important factor to consider when determining whether the death penalty may be made available.

A prison system which cannot reasonably ensure that inmates are protected from one another, that guards are protected from the inmates, that the inmates are housed humanely, and that the chance of escape is very small is one where some would say the death penalty may be avoided in all cases.

A prison system which does not meet all the above criteria cannot, therefore, guarantee that the society can be protected from violent killers. The conclusion about the death penalty in that case may be different.

My comments here and the criteria were inspired by John Paul II’s writings.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In analyzing the death penalty, one must analyze how effective prisons are holding the convicted people and protecting inmates from one another as well as protecting guards. In addition, one must also analyze the possibility of escape by inmates.

One might consider this question:
Think of a prisoner facing whole life detention in humane and dignified conditions, and another facing death.
Which one is liable to take desperate measures to escape?

The ability of a prison system to incarcerate someone without violating their dignity, while at the same time protect inmates from one another can be an important factor to consider when determining whether the death penalty may be made available.

A prison system which cannot reasonably ensure that inmates are protected from one another, that guards are protected from the inmates, that the inmates are housed humanely, and that the chance of escape is very small is one where some would say the death penalty may be avoided in all cases.

I think you confused yourself in the above paragraph. I believe you meant ‘can’ where you wrote ‘cannot’.

A prison system which does not meet all the above criteria cannot, therefore, guarantee that the society can be protected from violent killers. The conclusion about the death penalty in that case may be different.

My comments here and the criteria were inspired by John Paul II’s writings.

As are mine.