The Death Penalty, a new twist

[Mike_Dye]

I have always thought that the death penalty was a viable option for dealing with violent criminals. Then I changed my mind when DNA evidence cleared inmates on “death row” of wrong doing. Still I think that there has to be proof positive that the criminal has been removed from any situation where he can ever hurt anyone again but enough about that.

One of our local DA’s was on a local newscast a few days ago and put a different spin on the death penalty. He said he was against the death penalty on moral grounds but if we give it up we loose a huge barging chip. If you can guaranty a criminal that he will not face the death penalty if he gives information that will solve other crimes, find bodies for the families, or prevent future crimes, the death penalty can serve as a useful tool for law enforcement.

Any thoughts?

 

[pnewton]

I have always thought that the death penalty was a viable option for dealing with violent criminals. Then I changed my mind when DNA evidence cleared inmates on “death row” of wrong doing. Still I think that there has to be proof positive that the criminal has been removed from any situation where he can ever hurt anyone again but enough about that.

One of our local DA’s was on a local newscast a few days ago and put a different spin on the death penalty. He said he was against the death penalty on moral grounds but if we give it up we loose a huge barging chip. If you can guaranty a criminal that he will not face the death penalty if he gives information that will solve other crimes, find bodies for the families, or prevent future crimes, the death penalty can serve as a useful tool for law enforcement.

Any thoughts?

Yes a bargaining chip is only useful if it is sometimes used. A bluff that is never called quickly loses its effectiveness.

 

[fellicia]

Anything can be used as a bargaining tool, but is it really moral to bargain with a God given life?

 

[Della]

I really wish people would stop trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. And yes, I am very much aware of what the catechism says–more than many it seems who argue that it can never be used instead of should not be used if the convicted person can be kept safely in prison without harm to others. We cannot deny that the state has the right to use the death penalty if it deems it justified.

The fact that people have been wrongfully executed or that they are fellow being human beings doesn’t in the least change the fact that the death penalty is a right of the state under certain circumstances. Those who have committed abominable crimes are not on par with the innocent. The state is within it’s rights to exact justice–that justice ought to be fair and proper, but it still has that right. If we say it doesn’t we are saying the Church has erred in a matter of morals. Please fellow Catholics, bear that firmly in mind instead of trying to deny Church teaching no matter how emotional you may feel about the topic.

By all means let those who are going to be justly executed have the solace of a priest/minister/rabbi, etc. and be treated with due respect as human beings, but let’s not romanticize them into hapless victims when they are no such thing. Let’s remember the forgotten victims and their right to justice who aren’t getting all the publicity–about whom none but their loved ones seem any longer to care.

 

[maddmaxx1200]

Agreed Della–personally I am for the death penalty and feel we need to frame the argument in it’s proper context.

It’s called the “death penalty” and “capital punishment” for a reason–you take someone’s life from them and it’s not in self-defense or the defense of a loved one then your life should be taken from you as “punishment”. The death penalty has never been a deterrent–those who commit heinous crimes are going to do regardless if there’s a death penalty or no.

Here in IL former Gov. George Ryan put a moratorium on death penalty cases which I believe was the right thing to do under the circumstances. Some convictions were tortured out of defendants by a sadistic psychopath of a Chicago Police Department commander (John Burge for those who are wondering) and when a criminal is sentenced to death the state has an obligation to prove the offender is guilty beyond a doubt of the crime for which he/she was convicted and because doubts were raised about the legality of certain convictions the moratorium was put, and is still, in place.

I really wish people would stop trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. And yes, I am very much aware of what the catechism says–more than many it seems who argue that it can never be used instead of should not be used if the convicted person can be kept safely in prison without harm to others. We cannot deny that the state has the right to use the death penalty if it deems it justified.

The fact that people have been wrongfully executed or that they are fellow being human beings doesn’t in the least change the fact that the death penalty is a right of the state under certain circumstances. Those who have committed abominable crimes are not on par with the innocent. The state is within it’s rights to exact justice–that justice ought to be fair and proper, but it still has that right. If we say it doesn’t we are saying the Church has erred in a matter of morals. Please fellow Catholics, bear that firmly in mind instead of trying to deny Church teaching no matter how emotional you may feel about the topic.

By all means let those who are going to be justly executed have the solace of a priest/minister/rabbi, etc. and be treated with due respect as human beings, but let’s not romanticize them into hapless victims when they are no such thing. Let’s remember the forgotten victims and their right to justice who aren’t getting all the publicity–about whom none but their loved ones seem any longer to care.

 

[Mike_Dye]

I really wish people would stop trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. And yes, I am very much aware of what the catechism says–more than many it seems who argue that it can never be used instead of should not be used if the convicted person can be kept safely in prison without harm to others. We cannot deny that the state has the right to use the death penalty if it deems it justified.

The fact that people have been wrongfully executed or that they are fellow being human beings doesn’t in the least change the fact that the death penalty is a right of the state under certain circumstances. Those who have committed abominable crimes are not on par with the innocent. The state is within it’s rights to exact justice–that justice ought to be fair and proper, but it still has that right. If we say it doesn’t we are saying the Church has erred in a matter of morals. Please fellow Catholics, bear that firmly in mind instead of trying to deny Church teaching no matter how emotional you may feel about the topic.

By all means let those who are going to be justly executed have the solace of a priest/minister/rabbi, etc. and be treated with due respect as human beings, but let’s not romanticize them into hapless victims when they are no such thing. Let’s remember the forgotten victims and their right to justice who aren’t getting all the publicity–about whom none but their loved ones seem any longer to care.

Hi and thanks for your post. When I started this link it was to have others think about what a local DA’s thoughts were. He just wanted to be able to nail more bad guys. I don’t care how conservative you think you are I am more conservative than you and always will be.Back when you were a little baby there was an ultra conservative group called the “John Birch Society”. My thoughts made them look like “New Dealers”. This is just to inform you that I am on your side in this deal but there may be ways to catch more bad guys and save more innocent people.

 

[Della]

Hi and thanks for your post. When I started this link it was to have others think about what a local DA’s thoughts were. He just wanted to be able to nail more bad guys. I don’t care how conservative you think you are I am more conservative than you and always will be.Back when you were a little baby there was an ultra conservative group called the “John Birch Society”. My thoughts made them look like “New Dealers”. This is just to inform you that I am on your side in this deal but there may be ways to catch more bad guys and save more innocent people.

I had to laugh at you thinking me a very young person–I’m 60.

If I understand you rightly, I agree. There are many ways to catch and serve justice upon criminals. The death penalty isn’t always warranted nor needed. My main and really only point is that the Church does NOT teach that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong. Those Catholics who are trying to make it seem as though the Church teaches that it is intrinsically wrong are doing neither the Church nor society any favors.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I really wish people would stop trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. And yes, I am very much aware of what the catechism says–more than many it seems who argue that it can never be used instead of should not be used if the convicted person can be kept safely in prison without harm to others. We cannot deny that the state has the right to use the death penalty if it deems it justified.

The fact that people have been wrongfully executed or that they are fellow being human beings doesn’t in the least change the fact that the death penalty is a right of the state under certain circumstances. Those who have committed abominable crimes are not on par with the innocent. The state is within it’s rights to exact justice–that justice ought to be fair and proper, but it still has that right. If we say it doesn’t we are saying the Church has erred in a matter of morals. Please fellow Catholics, bear that firmly in mind instead of trying to deny Church teaching no matter how emotional you may feel about the topic.

By all means let those who are going to be justly executed have the solace of a priest/minister/rabbi, etc. and be treated with due respect as human beings, but let’s not romanticize them into hapless victims when they are no such thing. Let’s remember the forgotten victims and their right to justice who aren’t getting all the publicity–about whom none but their loved ones seem any longer to care.

I agree.The catechism does not rule out the death penalty completely, despite what some Catholics would have you believe.

 

[vz71]

I really wish people would stop trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. And yes, I am very much aware of what the catechism says–more than many it seems who argue that it can never be used instead of should not be used if the convicted person can be kept safely in prison without harm to others. We cannot deny that the state has the right to use the death penalty if it deems it justified.

Wow that was quick.
3 posts into a thread on the death penalty, and we arrive at this.

I have read and re-read the previous 2 posts and the OP a few times and I found no one "trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. "

If I am mistaken on this, please quote the pertinent post…perhaps I missed it.

Else you are simply building a straw man.
And also prompting a few to raise an eyebrow and ask questions of your own motivations in the argument.

 

[Amolibri]

Wow that was quick.
3 posts into a thread on the death penalty, and we arrive at this.

I have read and re-read the previous 2 posts and the OP a few times and I found no one "trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. "

If I am mistaken on this, please quote the pertinent post…perhaps I missed it.

Else you are simply building a straw man.
And also prompting a few to raise an eyebrow and ask questions of your own motivations in the argument.

www.nyadp.org

 

[Della]

Wow that was quick.
3 posts into a thread on the death penalty, and we arrive at this.

At what? Please clarify.

I have read and re-read the previous 2 posts and the OP a few times and I found no one "trying to rationalize our way out of the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. "

If I am mistaken on this, please quote the pertinent post…perhaps I missed it.

Else you are simply building a straw man.

I was not referring to anyone posting in this current thread but to the many who have posted on CAF putting forward the erroneous idea that the Church teaches the death penalty is intrinsically evil. People have done so in the past–just trying to ward off any new statements of error. Please do a quick CAF search on the topic to see what I mean.

And also prompting a few to raise an eyebrow and ask questions of your own motivations in the argument.

I made my motivations quite clear–perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I have no ulterior motivations, if that is what you are hinting at. When I have something to say I come right out and say it in plain English. Besides, discussing other poster’s motivations is off topic.

 

[vz71]

I was not referring to anyone posting in this current thread but to the many who have posted on CAF putting forward the erroneous idea that the Church teaches the death penalty is intrinsically evil. People have done so in the past–just trying to ward off any new statements of error. Please do a quick CAF search on the topic to see what I mean.

I see. So you are pre-emptively painting any opposition there may be towards the death penalty within this thread in response to something you read in an unrelated thread.


In the context of the thread of topic here, you are building a straw man.

I made my motivations quite clear–perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I have no ulterior motivations, if that is what you are hinting at. When I have something to say I come right out and say it in plain English.

Just judging on what I see within the thread, I would agree. You appear to have no difficulty expressing your opinion.
It just appears out of place to be painting opposition to the death penalty in the light that you are given the posts in this thread up to your initial post.
Your reaction in this thread appears disjointed and out of place.

Besides, discussing other poster’s motivations is off topic.

No more off topic then writing in heated responses and reactions to things that were not said in this thread.

 

[Amolibri]

the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong…

Bottom Line: is this, or is it not KILLING. Does the church say killing is instrinsically evil???

 

[Al_Masetti]

Some criminals who are in prison for life for murder, continue to kill from and in prison. They are unstoppable. And the courts have ruled that they cannot be kept in total isolation 24/7.

In cases such as those, in which protecting the innocent from serial killers who cannot be stopped, the death penalty may be warranted.

 

[vz71]

Bottom Line: is this, or is it not KILLING. Does the church say killing is instrinsically evil???

No, it does not.
There are specific acts of killing that are intrinisically evil, but the act of killing is far to general to place such a label upon.

 

[Newbie2]

the Church teaches that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong…

Bottom Line: is this, or is it not KILLING. Does the church say killing is instrinsically evil???

No, it does not.
There are specific acts of killing that are intrinisically evil, but the act of killing is far to general to place such a label upon.

That is true. The case where capital punishment is justified in the eyes of the Church (for a convict who’s threat to society,which includes other inmates and guards at the prison) is one that cannot be managed by incarceration.

Simplified, it is killing, yes, but justified in the same way that killing in self-defense is justified.

Another way to look at it is that the Church objects to Capital punishment, i.e. that death be imposed as the punishment, rather than as a means to protect society from a killer who cannot be managed by incarceration alone.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Another way to look at it is that the Church objects to Capital punishment, i.e. that death be imposed as the punishment, rather than as a means to protect society from a killer who cannot be managed by incarceration alone.

Hi Newbie,

I think I understand the idea here, but the position has some difficulties if not clarified. The problem that arises is that if death is not imposed as punishment first and foremost – above any other collateral effects it might have --then it becomes quite horrible. This is because one would be putting to death someone who didn’t deserve it due to their crimes, but instead because one had no other way to protect society.

A thought experiment might be useful here. Imagine your situation where a government of a small country hasn’t the resources (overcrowding, etc) to safely incarcerate a murderer. You’ve proposed the death penalty above. But now imagine the same situation but the incarcerated is only an attempted murderer. Is the death penalty still an option? Why or why not? Let us assume that in both cases the perpetrator is equally likely to kill someone in the future.

We can see that in the second case the death penalty wouldn’t usually be suggested because attempted murder doesn’t deserve the death penalty, no matter what collateral benefit it provides (i.e. protecting society). Unless the penalty of death is somehow proportional to the crime committed it becomes an injustice.

Furthermore, if punishment isn’t the criteria and motivation for applying the death penalty, then strictly speaking, one could apply it to even lesser crimes if there were a collateral benefit.

In the above I’ve been using the term punishment in the sense I felt you intended it, as retribution (note: not revenge). But classically punishment is a general term which encompasses several ends: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society.So what I am really saying above is that all punishment must be founded upon retribution first in order to be just, whatever the other ends of punishment can be obtained.

What do you think?
VC

 

[Della]

I see. So you are pre-emptively painting any opposition there may be towards the death penalty within this thread in response to something you read in an unrelated thread.

In the context of the thread of topic here, you are building a straw man.
Just judging on what I see within the thread, I would agree. You appear to have no difficulty expressing your opinion.
It just appears out of place to be painting opposition to the death penalty in the light that you are given the posts in this thread up to your initial post.
Your reaction in this thread appears disjointed and out of place.
No more off topic then writing in heated responses and reactions to things that were not said in this thread.

I see. Well, considering the posts that have come after mine I think I was justified. But, this is, once again, waaaaaaay off topic, so I’ll say no more. If you need to have the last word, fine, I won’t respond.

For those who have brought up the dangers of the death penalty being applied unfairly or wrongly, I totally agree. Safeguards must be in place to ensure (as far as it is humanly possible) that the innocent and those who can be kept in prison without harm to others be protected for the sake of their humanity. But, that doesn’t mean that the Church must change its teachings, either. The Church has gone as far as it can go in defining what must be done to protect the rights of the individual, as it is.

And not all killing is wrong–it’s the intent that can be right or wrong. If that were not the case every soldier who ever fought for his country would simply be a murderer. The deliberate killing of the innocent is always wrong–even in warfare, which is why some of the ways in which countries have waged war hasn’t always been right. Still, the fact remains that countries have the right to defend themselves and to seek justice for their citizens who are brutally kidnapped, terrorized, and murdered.

 

[vz71]

In the above I’ve been using the term punishment in the sense I felt you intended it, as retribution (note: not revenge). But classically punishment is a general term which encompasses several ends: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society.So what I am really saying above is that all punishment must be founded upon retribution first in order to be just, whatever the other ends of punishment can be obtained.

What do you think?
VC

I am not so certain.
The Catechism makes it very clear that the primary motivation should be protection.
**

**2267 **

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. **

But looking back at the original post, the DA is apparently against the death penalty but wants to keep it as a bargaining tool.
I doubt this is a morally justifiable position. As soon as the death penalty is introduced as a bargaining chip, the motivation behind the death penalty ceases to be for the protection from an unjust aggressor. And thus the penalty ceases to be just.

 

[Della]

I am not so certain.
The Catechism makes it very clear that the primary motivation should be protection.

---

But looking back at the original post, the DA is apparently against the death penalty but wants to keep it as a bargaining tool.
I doubt this is a morally justifiable position. As soon as the death penalty is introduced as a bargaining chip, the motivation behind the death penalty ceases to be for the protection from an unjust aggressor. And thus the penalty ceases to be just.

And I agree. The Church has stated its case quite carefully and it would be well if our officials would read it and digest it even if they aren’t Catholics. :tiphat: