The Death Penalty from a different angle

[ManRay]

That’s not actually true. Cardinal Dulles saw a different ethic at work:Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith.

I would argue just the opposite. It’s funny that religious people talk about sinning with such doublespeak. Wrath is one of the big sins - the seven deadly. Justice is a concept that doesn’t have an objective and stone cold reality. Justice is very subjective. If putting people to death is essential to the catholic faith - then I guess that makes sense. I want no part of it, I can logically destroy it.

The problem with this argument is that one can reply with even greater certainty that murderers who were not executed have killed again and all the evidence points to a significantly larger number of innocent people being murdered by repeat killers than being executed for crimes they did not commit.

There is no problem with the argument.
Your defense is tantamount to saying that it’s ok to kill some innocent people as long as no one guilty every eludes justice. That my friend - is insanity.

All killing is not murder any more than the infliction of all pain is torture. You cannot discuss the morality of most actions by ignoring the intent behind them.

If you didn’t kill someone on accident, in self defense, or from reckless negligence - then under the law you have committed murder. The purposeful killing of another human being with the forethought of ending their life (malice) - except if you just happen to be the guy who flips the switch - then you’re totally cool. Whatever.

Your opinion differs from that of every state that has ever existed so either you are wrong or everyone else is. I don’t think you understand the nature and objectives of punishment. Read the comments of starshiptrooper and deal with the point he made.

I completely understand the nature and objectives of punishment. Ten idiots in a room won’t produce an intelligent idea. It used to be legal in every state of America to own another person. Are you serious? Numbers don’t make you right - that’s a fallacy of logic my friend. If you wanted to get medieval I would argue that laying on a table and having a lethal injection is pretty tame as far as punishment goes. Take a serial killer, hang him by his thumbs, and let me come into the room every day and give him kidney shots for an hour for the rest of his life…He will be BEGGING for me to put the needle in him. You can deprive someone of their life by keeping him in isolation 23 hours a day. No need to cut em out the easy way…that also gives them PLENTY of time to walk the endless passages of their mind in reflection. The death penalty is savage idiocy. Let’s get real savage and torture a fool. Seriously though - if I know for a fact that someone killed someone I can’t just go out, and exact retribution by killing them. The legal system is basically saying that they have this special power to do just that. We’re killing you because you killed someone - nada on the logic. That’s weak.

 

[Ender]

Justice is a concept that doesn’t have an objective and stone cold reality. Justice is very subjective.

Justice is not all that complicated even though there surely is some subjectivity in determining it. It is nothing more than treating people as they deserve to be treated based on their actions.

If putting people to death is essential to the catholic faith - then I guess that makes sense. I want no part of it, I can logically destroy it.

One can only wonder how Catholicism lasted as long as it has.

Your defense is tantamount to saying that it’s ok to kill some innocent people as long as no one guilty every eludes justice. That my friend - is insanity.

No, it’s a failure to understand what I wrote. In fact my comment had nothing to do with guilt or innocence inasmuch as that section of the Catechism doesn’t address those subjects either.

If you didn’t kill someone on accident, in self defense, or from reckless negligence - then under the law you have committed murder. The purposeful killing of another human being with the forethought of ending their life (malice) - except if you just happen to be the guy who flips the switch - then you’re totally cool. Whatever.

Words have specific meanings and you really don’t get to invent your own. The word murder has never been (appropriately) applied as you used it. Nor is it accurate to assume that malice is involved in the meting out of justice.

I completely understand the nature and objectives of punishment.

This assertion would be more meaningful if you identified what those objectives are.

Are you serious? Numbers don’t make you right - that’s a fallacy of logic my friend.

You need to read more carefully. If you make the argument that we should never execute anyone because an innocent person might be executed then you have to deal with the problem of what happens if you choose not to execute anyone, and in that case a lot more innocent people will die.

Seriously though - if I know for a fact that someone killed someone I can’t just go out, and exact retribution by killing them. The legal system is basically saying that they have this special power to do just that.

Finally something we agree on: yes, the legal system does have that special power. It is in fact not just the right of a state to punish the guilty but its obligation to do so and that is a right that is denied the individual.

We’re killing you because you killed someone - nada on the logic. That’s weak.

We touched on the issue of justice at the beginning and here is where it plays out. For a punishment to be just it must be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime and it is very reasonable to argue that the only punishment with a severity commensurate with the crime of murder is death.

Ender

 

[JimG]

Most convicts who are in prison for life do NOT spend life in prison, not even those who have been given life sentences. They are eligible for parole, and they are often paroled, even from a life sentence.

That sort of vitiates the argument that we protect society by locking them up. Whether they get out of prison legally through parole, or through escape, they can kill again.

And it is extraordinarily difficult and time consuming and expensive to obtain a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.

Currently, the average inmate sentenced to death, spends an average of 15 years on death row before being executed. Some have been on death row for 20 years.

That said, I oppose the death penalty, mainly because of cost. It costs more to prosecute, to empanel a jury, to respond to appeals, to obtain a conviction, to obtain a death sentence. It is a great deal more costly than if a conviction is sought on 1st degree murder rather than capital murder. The cost is prohibitive and the result is a lengthy prison term anyway. I say forget the death penalty, it’s not worth the time and expense.

 

[Tingo]

It is probably worth pointing out two other things:

1. The death penalty is extremely politicized in this country now, along with the criminal justice system. Being on the wrong end of a popularity contest, pulling a lazy jury, etc, can all be militating factors against a convict. Unless the process was reasonably free of any error, it seems too extreme.
2. We have the luxury currently of maintaining an expensive and effective prison system. In a time and place without the ability to do this, the equation would probably change to much wider use of the death penalty. IIRC, at the time of his conviction, Alfred Packer was sentenced to 40 years, which was a record prison sentence in America at the time (1877?). Robbers in the Middle Ages, for example, were routinely executed or mutilated when caught, simply because it was impossible and unreasonable to keep them jailed for any length of time and people recognized that letting them go would just invite the same thing to happen. We think of driving through the “bad part of town” and worry about that, while ignoring that even a short journey in the Middle Ages invited an attack from bandits on the road.

So the death penalty was ineffective even when applied to virtually all crime?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

So logically we cannot say that we know for certain that every person we murder is guilty.

I don’t know about other countries, but in the United States a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. At that point the person is presumed to be guilty and the justice system proceeds accordingly.

Now, if a jury were to say “Yes, he’s guilty Judge, but let’s not execute him because he might be innocent” the judge would immediately throw out the conviction because obviously reasonable doubt does in fact exist.

 

[Dranu]

That said, I oppose the death penalty, mainly because of cost. It costs more to prosecute, to empanel a jury, to respond to appeals, to obtain a conviction, to obtain a death sentence. It is a great deal more costly than if a conviction is sought on 1st degree murder rather than capital murder. The cost is prohibitive and the result is a lengthy prison term anyway. I say forget the death penalty, it’s not worth the time and expense.

I tend to agree, but question what it does to the morals well-being of our society when they see the most henious of crimes only resulting in a lock-up where the person does not have to be committed to intense manual labor, etc. I sadly look upon some of the European countries for instance, though correlation may not be direct causation there. Their current state might actually be more the cause of the death penalty going away, rather than vice-versa.

I also tend to think legitimate execution, if it were more certain, would better facilitate rehabilitation, but yes, costs are rediculous in our country with our over obsession with the individual.

Balancing between the goods of saving money and making the society better certianly seems difficult.

 

[JimG]

I tend to agree, but question what it does to the morals well-being of our society when they see the most henious of crimes only resulting in a lock-up where the person does not have to be committed to intense manual labor, etc. I sadly look upon some of the European countries for instance, though correlation may not be direct causation there. Their current state might actually be more the cause of the death penalty going away, rather than vice-versa.

I also tend to think legitimate execution, if it were more certain, would better facilitate rehabilitation, but yes, costs are rediculous in our country with our over obsession with the individual.

Balancing between the goods of saving money and making the society better certianly seems difficult.

Well it’s true that due process and rules of evidence and appellate rights can be expensive and delay convictions and executions. But I also worry about wrongful convictions.

I’m guessing that most likely well over 95% of those convicted of crimes are guilty. But there have been and will continue to be egregious instances of innocent persons being sent to prison. Look up the Norfolk Four, about four men convicted based upon false confessions. Why would somebody confess to a crime they didn’t commit? If you’ve been in an interrogation room for nine or 12 or 24 hours with relentless detectives pressing for confession, believe me, people will confess, even falsely, just to make it stop.

Or read the book “No Crueler Tyrranies,” in which preschool teachers were convicted of child molestations and sent to prison for crimes which simply never happened. We need to protect ourself from vicious criminals but we also need to protect ourselves against overzealous prosecutors who will not take innocent for an answer.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

That said, I oppose the death penalty, mainly because of cost. It costs more to prosecute, to empanel a jury, to respond to appeals, to obtain a conviction, to obtain a death sentence. It is a great deal more costly than if a conviction is sought on 1st degree murder rather than capital murder. The cost is prohibitive and the result is a lengthy prison term anyway. I say forget the death penalty, it’s not worth the time and expense.

That’s because we are doing it all wrong.

In the good old days, a person was convicted of a capital crime and the next day he had a date with the gallows. Problem solved with minimal cost to society.

 

[JimG]

That’s because we are doing it all wrong.

In the good old days, a person was convicted of a capital crime and the next day he had a date with the gallows. Problem solved with minimal cost to society.

That’s true, but as I noted in my previous post, the way that police and courts work now, we would surely hang some innocent people.

 

[Ender]

That’s true, but as I noted in my previous post, the way that police and courts work now, we would surely hang some innocent people.

The possibility that an innocent person will be executed surely exists but the probability is quite low based on the experience of the last 30 years. It is also true that innocent people will be murdered because murderers who have not been executed kill again and the probability of that happening is a good bit higher than the probability of an improper execution.

There is no perfect solution; some number of innocent people will die regardless of whether we execute more murderers or none at all. It should at least be understood which option leads to more innocent deaths.

Ender

 

[Lost_Sheep]

The possibility that an innocent person will be executed surely exists but the probability is quite low based on the experience of the last 30 years. It is also true that innocent people will be murdered because murderers who have not been executed kill again and the probability of that happening is a good bit higher than the probability of an improper execution.

There is no perfect solution; some number of innocent people will die regardless of whether we execute more murderers or none at all. It should at least be understood which option leads to more innocent deaths.

Ender

I also think that timing is a factor. The Death Penalty isn’t just punishment; it is also (supposed to be) a deterrent to others. But these days, if a person is sentenced to death, it may take decades for the wheels of “justice” to turn before the execution is carried out. So the direct association between the crime and the punishment is diluted as time goes on.

If criminals could be executed soon enough after conviction while the crime is still fresh in everyone’s mind people would better recognize the cause and effect. “Wow! That guy killed someone and now he is getting executed for the crime! Gee, that could be me. I should think twice about committing such a serious crime.”

They should also bring back public executions. If the public could see justice in action, the DP would further serve as a deterrent.

 

[JimG]

The possibility that an innocent person will be executed surely exists but the probability is quite low based on the experience of the last 30 years. It is also true that innocent people will be murdered because murderers who have not been executed kill again and the probability of that happening is a good bit higher than the probability of an improper execution.

There is no perfect solution; some number of innocent people will die regardless of whether we execute more murderers or none at all. It should at least be understood which option leads to more innocent deaths.

Ender

I am not opposed in principle to the death penalty, and neither is Catholic doctrine. I just don’t think that it is an effective deterrent, given the amount of time that passes between coviction and execution–at least a decade, more likely two. I don’t know how common unjust convictions are, but I have been appalled at the ones I have read about. Despite what they may say, a police interrogator is not looking for the truth, he is looking for a confession or a conviction. Detectives who have sent innocent people to jail most often continue to deny what has become apparent. The accused may not lie to police with impunity, but detectives are allowed to lie to the accused, even about evidence, or about the results of lie detector tests.

I’ve been on a few juries, but I would do my best not to do so now, because I believe that the general public gets more information than jurors do. I was on a jury once in which we convicted the accused of attempted rape, after a great deal of discussion over what was really a pretty simple case. After the case was over, the prosecutor visited with us awhile and mentioned the numerous prior convictions and history which he had not been allowed to introduce. If I’m going to judge someone, I would like to have the whole story, not just pieces of it. In fact, I would like to be able to ask questions.

 

[Ender]

The Death Penalty isn’t just punishment; it is also (supposed to be) a deterrent to others. But these days, if a person is sentenced to death, it may take decades for the wheels of “justice” to turn before the execution is carried out. So the direct association between the crime and the punishment is diluted as time goes on.

This is pretty much what JimG said and, regarding deterrence, there is certainly truth in the assertion that the length of time between the crime and the execution of punishment diminishes its effect. It’s important to remember however that deterrence, while it is a valid objective, is not the primary objective so even if no one was deterred (which seems extremely unlikely) the reason to maintain the death penalty is to satisfy the primary objective which is retributive justice.

Ender

 

[jwinch2]

I am not opposed in principle to the death penalty, and neither is Catholic doctrine. I just don’t think that it is an effective deterrent, given the amount of time that passes between conviction and execution–at least a decade, more likely two.

Agreed. I don’t feel that it is all that effective as a deterrent either. However, it is effective in the sense of justice, which the Church has repeatedly taught, and it is effective at keeping the person from harming others, which the Church also teaches.

I don’t know how common unjust convictions are, but I have been appalled at the ones I have read about. Despite what they may say, a police interrogator is not looking for the truth, he is looking for a confession or a conviction. Detectives who have sent innocent people to jail most often continue to deny what has become apparent. The accused may not lie to police with impunity, but detectives are allowed to lie to the accused, even about evidence, or about the results of lie detector tests.

Agreed, 100%. This is why I support very limited use of the Death Penalty. I would require require strong physical evidence (DNA or otherwise) or a confession. Either way, I would mandate a three judge panel for judicial review which would allow expert testimony and would run something like the supreme court does where the judges were the ones asking the questions, before anyone was actually put to death. If we are talking about crimes which happen within prison, which might necessitate the death penalty, then the standards could be a bit different.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Despite the fact that the catechism claims that modern prisons can adequately protect society that is a prudential opinion with which we are free to disagree. The case you cite, and others like it where civilians, guards, or other inmates are murdered, makes one wonder what “effectively repress crime” really means.

The other side of the coin on this issue is that, in claiming that society is justified in executing someone to prevent future crimes, it would not be unreasonable to argue that we should execute not fewer but more as society is completely protected from the dead but only mostly protected from the living.

Ender

So you’re saying we are free to disagree with something that authoritatively explains Catholic doctrine?

---

Anyway, to the OP:

The death penalty can be justified because it isn’t intrinsically evil and can actually help society. See CCC 2266-2267.

 

[starshiptrooper]

So you’re saying we are free to disagree with something that authoritatively explains Catholic doctrine?

I thought the Church’s authoritative teaching only applies to faith and morals. If I want to know whether or not the prison system adequately protects us, I don’t go to the Church. Instead, I will go to prison guards, the Bureau of Justice, and whoever studies the statistics on prison systems. They are the experts in this area, not the Church.

 

[jwinch2]

So you’re saying we are free to disagree with something that authoritatively explains Catholic doctrine?

---

Anyway, to the OP:

The death penalty can be justified because it isn’t intrinsically evil and can actually help society. See CCC 2266-2267.

Catholics are not bound to accept the changes on the teaching of the death penalty from the Catechism of the Council of Trent to the CCC. Pope Benedict has stated as much on more than one occasion. There at least a dozen threads here on CAF which lay out all of this.

Having said that, I do agree with the current teaching and believe it is what we should strive for.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I thought the Church’s authoritative teaching only applies to faith and morals. If I want to know whether or not the prison system adequately protects us, I don’t go to the Church. Instead, I will go to prison guards, the Bureau of Justice, and whoever studies the statistics on prison systems. They are the experts in this area, not the Church.

Pope John Paul II said that it was a sure norm for teaching the faith and was offered for anyone who wanted to know what the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Catholics are not bound to accept the changes on the teaching of the death penalty from the Catechism of the Council of Trent to the CCC. Pope Benedict has stated as much on more than one occasion. There at least a dozen threads here on CAF which lay out all of this.

Having said that, I do agree with the current teaching and believe it is what we should strive for.

By changes I’m assuming you mean when it should be applied, not an actual change in teaching. But I’m still skeptical. I know he said “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” But that doesn’t mean the Catechism’s teaching on the death penalty doesn’t count anymore because it still accepts the death penalty if it is absolutely necessary.

Same, especially since the last two popes have spoken out against it.

 

[jwinch2]

By changes I’m assuming you mean when it should be applied, not an actual change in teaching.

I don’t see any other way to look at it. The CCC not only changes when it should be applied, it changes why. Previously established moral doctrine states that the Death Penalty can be legitimately used by the state for the reason of justice.

Please understand, as I stated earlier, I do agree with the more current interpretation of the Death Penalty on the part of the Church, but to suggest that nothing was changed, when it is entirely obvious that this particular area in the CCC is different, would be wrong. Pope Benedict knows this which is why he has stated more than once that Catholics cannot be held as bound to this opinion. In addition, even under the idea of capital punishment as a matter of justice, there are still issues of prudential judgement. The just war doctrine has not changed at all that I can see, and yes there are issues of prudential judgement there as well. However, Catholics are bound to follow it.