The Death Penalty, Catholicism, And Super-Max

[vern_humphrey]

I perused this post, looking for the most relevant information on the subject, but unfortunately did not find it.

The only authoritative answer as to whether we can really protect ourselves from further murders by individuals convicted of pre-meditated murder is… the real data.

What is the number of actual murders committed by persons already convicted of first degree murder? If the answer is zero, then the proof is there. We can protect all persons (including convicts), and capital punishment is an immoral sentence in the U.S.

What you have there is a circular argument – “if it works, that proves we don’t need it.”

In point of fact, prisons are not static, they are dynamic institutions. They change just as any other segment of society changes – but because they house the worst segment of society, they change for the worse.

Therefore, we must hold in reserve the most drastic measures to be used when they are needed.

 

[jc-servant]

I read this entire thread and what I see is a lot of “right fighting” that does not really address what the real problem has been. We in the US have not actually utilized all of the means at our disposal to totally render prisoners harmless to others in most prisons. We generally leave some loophole through which contact can be made through either a guard or someone else.

I read several years ago of a prisoner in a military facility who is allowed absolutely no physical contact with another human being including guards and he is allowed no mail or any other means of contact with the outside world because he cannot even bribe a guard. I wish that I could remember the crime and the name of the prisoner.

Until we really construct the truely secure facilities (that are within our capabilities) to keep potential death penalty prisoners isolated/harmless, then we will have these arguments over whether or not the death penalty is OK and under what conditions. I do think that the discernment about whether or not we are following church teaching on this issue is different in different countries. I believe JPII specifically made a statement regarding our use of the death penalty in the US and said that we have the actual means to make it unnecessary. Perhaps someone more techno savvy than me can find it and post a link to his actual statement.

 

[Caveman]

Getting back to the initial question I posed — “can I, as a faithful Catholic, adhere to the implimentation of the DP as The Church defines such, without me having the stain of sin on my immortal soul?”

I think this my end the discussion ----

Vatican on the Death Penalty, Not Inherently Evil, but "difficult to justify today"
By John-Henry Westen

VATICAN CITY, February 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A declaration of the Holy See regarding the death penalty was released today. It was delivered at a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris, France from February 1 to 3.

Rather than condemning the practice outright, the Vatican used nuanced language to indicate that while it found the practice “an affront to human dignity”,** it could in some circumstances be necessitated**. The language is starkly different from that used to condemn abortion, euthanasia and same-sex marriage which can never be justified.

“The Catholic Church continues to maintain that the legitimate authorities of State have the duty to protect society from aggressors,” says the document on the death penalty. “Some States traditionally include the death penalty among the means used to achieve this end,” an option **“that is difficult to justify today.” **

“Difficult” to justify… but not impossible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I read this entire thread and what I see is a lot of “right fighting” that does not really address what the real problem has been. We in the US have not actually utilized all of the means at our disposal to totally render prisoners harmless to others in most prisons. We generally leave some loophole through which contact can be made through either a guard or someone else.

How do you propose to do that?

What court will allow a total no-contact prison?

How will you feed, provide medical care, clean clothes, and other necessities of life without human contact?

I read several years ago of a prisoner in a military facility who is allowed absolutely no physical contact with another human being including guards and he is allowed no mail or any other means of contact with the outside world because he cannot even bribe a guard. I wish that I could remember the crime and the name of the prisoner.

It’s definitely not a US military prison!

Until we really construct the truely secure facilities (that are within our capabilities) to keep potential death penalty prisoners isolated/harmless, then we will have these arguments over whether or not the death penalty is OK and under what conditions. I do think that the discernment about whether or not we are following church teaching on this issue is different in different countries. I believe JPII specifically made a statement regarding our use of the death penalty in the US and said that we have the actual means to make it unnecessary. Perhaps someone more techno savvy than me can find it and post a link to his actual statement.

Unfortunately, no person I know with actual, hands-on experience in penology says that.

 

[Ender]

Getting back to the initial question I posed — “can I, as a faithful Catholic, adhere to the implimentation of the DP as The Church defines such, without me having the stain of sin on my immortal soul?”

Of course you can, that much has been made clear by Cardinal Ratzinger, the USCCB, and Cardinal Avery Dulles in writings that specifically address this point: the teaching is prudential and is not binding. We are called to give it serious consideration but we are not required to accept it.

In fact I think this entire discussion has centered on the wrong subject. The use of the death penalty should not be determined by the state of a country’s prison system; it should be understood in respect to the concept of justice and the nature and function of punishment.

I know what 2267 says and it needs to be understood that it cannot be justified with what is said in 2266.

• *Punishment has the **primary *aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.

If the primary aim of punishment is “redressing the disorder” (justice) why is the death penalty based on punishment’s tertiary function of protecting society?

• Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Note that meting out proportionate punishment is a duty, not an option, and for some crimes the only proportionate punishment is the death penalty.

Ender

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

What you have there is a circular argument – “if it works, that proves we don’t need it.”

In point of fact, prisons are not static, they are dynamic institutions. They change just as any other segment of society changes – but because they house the worst segment of society, they change for the worse.

Therefore, we must hold in reserve the most drastic measures to be used when they are needed.

Vern,

I don’t think I disagree with anything that you said except my statement being a ‘circular argument’. Perhaps clarifying, what I am attempting to point out is that reality can be tested. If it is stated (not theorized) that we can protect inmates and guards from first degree convicts, then the proof is in the pudding, i.e. the results will be there. I believe that some may be confusing what could be done in ideal (i.e. unreal) circumstances, versus what is real. It appears that what is real is that we have not yet cracked this nut, that given our current situation (assuming the intent to protect guards and other prisoners is there), we have not been able to devise a system that delivers the intended benefit.

Dan

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern,

I don’t think I disagree with anything that you said except my statement being a ‘circular argument’. Perhaps clarifying, what I am attempting to point out is that reality can be tested. If it is stated (not theorized) that we can protect inmates and guards from first degree convicts, then the proof is in the pudding, i.e. the results will be there. I believe that some may be confusing what could be done in ideal (i.e. unreal) circumstances, versus what is real. It appears that what is real is that we have not yet cracked this nut, that given our current situation (assuming the intent to protect guards and other prisoners is there), we have not been able to devise a system that delivers the intended benefit.

Dan

Here’s the problem – to demonstrate your proposition, we must have prisons with the dealth penalty in reserve, and equally dangerous prisons without the dealth penalty in reserve.

That experiment has already been run – when the Supreme Court struck down all death penalty laws. And the result was a drive to reinstitute the death penalty, especially for those who kill police, judges, and Corrections Officers.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Here’s the problem – to demonstrate your proposition, we must have prisons with the dealth penalty in reserve, and equally dangerous prisons without the dealth penalty in reserve.

That experiment has already been run – when the Supreme Court struck down all death penalty laws. And the result was a drive to reinstitute the death penalty, especially for those who kill police, judges, and Corrections Officers.

No, I don’t believe that is necessary, and here’s why.

If the proposition is that even with the death penalty, we have a significant number of persons (guards and fellow convicts, generally) killed by first-degree convicts, there is no further proof necessary to demonstrate that we are not yet really capable of protecting innocents without the death penalty. Unless you make the assertion that the death penalty is the direct or indirect cause of further killing by first degree convicts who have not been sentenced to death. On the surface, that assertion appears absurd, which is why I did not consider it.

If the proposition is that there is currently no reasonable danger to life from imprisoned first degree convicts, then whether the death penalty is legal or not, the data in the real world of today will show if we are right.

What is your assertion? That we have succeeded in creating a system that protects others’ lives from first degree murderers? Or that we have not? Or perhaps that we have not yet, but may someday in the future?

Dan

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I don’t believe that is necessary, and here’s why.

If the proposition is that even with the death penalty, we have a significant number of persons (guards and fellow convicts, generally) killed by first-degree convicts, there is no further proof necessary to demonstrate that we are not yet really capable of protecting innocents without the death penalty. Unless you make the assertion that the death penalty is the direct or indirect cause of further killing by first degree convicts who have not been sentenced to death. On the surface, that assertion appears absurd, which is why I did not consider it.

If the proposition is that there is currently no reasonable danger to life from imprisoned first degree convicts, then whether the death penalty is legal or not, the data in the real world of today will show if we are right.

What is your assertion? That we have succeeded in creating a system that protects others’ lives from first degree murderers? Or that we have not? Or perhaps that we have not yet, but may someday in the future?

Dan

That’s not a valid research design. The people who know most about running prisons are adament they need the death penalty in reserve. My own experience, working projects for the Bureau, indicates they are correct.

As I said, we had a period with no death penalty, and now we have the death penalty – that gives us a good baseline, and it favors the Corrections Officers’ position.

 

[pnewton]

Let me jump in. I would like to look at two earlier quotes.

He was given the shank by a fellow prisoner, Randy Gometz, moments before he stabbed Clutts

In the US, prisoners like this are the reason you have Super Max prisons. To isolate those prisoners who are too dangerous to leave in the general population. I guy who spends 23 hours a day alone in his cell, and never has a chance to interact with the other prisoners and only limited contact with the staff are not likely to be a threat to others.

The question at hand is a good on. Can we safely house the worst of or the worst murderers? It is this question upon which the Church’s teaching hinges. Pope John Paul II believed it could be done. I do not. Especially in America.

We will never be able to safely house these offenders bent on the killing of others under the current Constitution, specifically, the court interpretation of the Constitution.

Those that spend 23 hours a day locked up are one hour short of what they need. Yet courts have ruled that it is “cruel” not to give them an hour a day outside their cell. Other areas of security that would need to be addressed that courts have blocked are access to media, mail , phone; all contact with the outside world. There is one more thing that is very unacceptable in today’s society. If all privileges are removed that cause security problems, the only means of control left would be punishment. This will always be viewed as cruel and sadistic. Even as I write this, I do not think I would trust most of the correctional officers I have known. Only the most stable and moral people could work in such an environment without becoming cruel.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Prisons are far more complex, dynamic and dangerous than most people can imagine. Making pronouncements about how “safe” we can make them is simply talk, nothing more.

 

[pnewton]

I wonder how many people who offer opinions have had much knowledge in this environment. I have twenty years and I noticed someone else said the used to work in it. Prisoners have a lot of time to think. Only by thinking ahead and maintaining a strict discipline can safety exist. Yet if you cross over the line of discipline just a little too much, you end up in court and a dangerous man may be given enough freedom to kill again.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I would like to suggest that although there is reasonable debate as to whether the death penalty ‘could’ be morally applied in America today, it is not currently applied morally. Juries in almost all cases are asked to determine if the death peanalty is warranted, for reasons of retribution, not for self-defense. Cathy Henderson, the woman scheduled to be executed in Texas is an example. I suggest that it is not reasonable to assume that she would be a mortal threat to fellow inmates or guards.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I wonder how many people who offer opinions have had much knowledge in this environment. I have twenty years and I noticed someone else said the used to work in it. Prisoners have a lot of time to think. Only by thinking ahead and maintaining a strict discipline can safety exist. Yet if you cross over the line of discipline just a little too much, you end up in court and a dangerous man may be given enough freedom to kill again.

You might also point that Corrections Officers have wives and children. They have paperwork to do, lawns to cut, and all the other things to which ordinary people must devote time.

The prisoners have nothing to distract them. They can spend every waking moment planning their next move.

 

[adrift]

Super-Max may sound impressive but it doesn’t live up to its name.

Inmates can and have killed each other there.

This is when the death penalty should be used.

I know many guards and I know that why the inmates did not kill them, by their own testimony, was they were afraid of the death penalty.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Super-Max may sound impressive but it doesn’t live up to its name.

Inmates can and have killed each other there.

This is when the death penalty should be used.

I know many guards and I know that why the inmates did not kill them, by their own testimony, was they were afraid of the death penalty.

Amen.

And we should also extend that protection to police officers, prosecutors and judges.

 

[adrift]

Amen.

And we should also extend that protection to police officers, prosecutors and judges.

 

[Ender]

Juries in almost all cases are asked to determine if the death peanalty is warranted, for reasons of retribution, not for self-defense.

This is in fact the moral question to be resolved: is execution the appropriate punishment for the crime? This has nothing to do with whether society can be protected from the criminal; that question is not relevant to the issue of justice. We tend to shy away from the concept of retribution, incorrectly linking it to revenge, but it is the primary purpose of punishment and should be the primary focus in determining the penalty to be applied.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Cathy Henderson, the woman scheduled to be executed in Texas is an example. I suggest that it is not reasonable to assume that she would be a mortal threat to fellow inmates or guards.

I know nothing of this case, but the criteria that is supposed to be used in deciding whether one receives the death penalty or life (with parole) is whether the criminal would pose a continuing threat to society. That is the argument the state must prove.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

This is in fact the moral question to be resolved: is execution the appropriate punishment for the crime? This has nothing to do with whether society can be protected from the criminal; that question is not relevant to the issue of justice. We tend to shy away from the concept of retribution, incorrectly linking it to revenge, but it is the primary purpose of punishment and should be the primary focus in determining the penalty to be applied.

Ender

I think that the Catholic Church’s teaching is pretty clear concerning capital punishment. Intentionally killing persons in any way is only justified by defense of human life. Killing, including the application of the death penalty, is not moral for punishment purposes. Capital punishment, for the purpose of retribution, is Old Testament justice, and was perfected by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

However, the state tends to apply the thinking you describe.

Dan