The Death Penalty from a different angle

[littlechicken]

I have always been against the death penalty, recognizing that it is not a deterrent, and the person may come to repentance during the course of their life.
Also, the reason behind the death penalty is to protect society from the criminal and keeping them locked away under heavy guard seemingly would suffice to that end (protecting society)
Today though an inmate was executed for killing a prison guard in an escape attempt.
Society includes prison guards. Where is their protection?
I am not changing my stance on the death penalty, yet many say it is not necessary because society is protected when the criminal is locked up.

The prisoner’s name was Eric Robert, he was 50 years old and his last words were reportedly;
“In the name of justice and liberty and mercy, I authorize and forgive Warden Douglas Weber to execute me for the crimes. It is done.”

What to do if society (even that within the prison walls) is not protected?

Sorry for the redundancy.

Your thoughts?

 

[Tingo]

The death penalty eliminates all risk of future offending by the person executed. But is this not an argument that the end justifies the means if it is used to argue for the death penalty?

 

[littlechicken]

The death penalty eliminates all risk of future offending by the person executed. But is this not an argument that the end justifies the means if it is used to argue for the death penalty?

Understood, my opinion on the death penalty hasn’t changed, yet many argue from the stance that it is not necessary because we are now able to protect society from violent criminals by incarcerating the person.
This case, and others like it, tend to say otherwise.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Understood, my opinion on the death penalty hasn’t changed, yet many argue from the stance that it is not necessary because we are now able to protect society from violent criminals by incarcerating the person.
This case, and others like it, tend to say otherwise.

Yes. And what if the escape was successful? Prisoners do escape and commit more crimes.

 

[Brendan]

The death penalty eliminates all risk of future offending by the person executed. But is this not an argument that the end justifies the means if it is used to argue for the death penalty?

But since the means are not intrinsically evil, the means are really in no need of justificiation.

We cannot use evil means to achive a good end, that is certain. But every use of the Death Penalty is not evil. In fact, that Church has noted that, in certain circumstances, it is required as an excercise of the Virtue of Justice and is even at time a fulfillment of the 5th Commandment (as noted by both Aquinas and the Council of Trent)

 

[jc4751]

I have always been against the death penalty, recognizing that it is not a deterrent, and the person may come to repentance during the course of their life.
Also, the reason behind the death penalty is to protect society from the criminal and keeping them locked away under heavy guard seemingly would suffice to that end (protecting society)
Today though an inmate was executed for killing a prison guard in an escape attempt.
Society includes prison guards. Where is their protection?
I am not changing my stance on the death penalty, yet many say it is not necessary because society is protected when the criminal is locked up.

The prisoner’s name was Eric Robert, he was 50 years old and his last words were reportedly;
“In the name of justice and liberty and mercy, I authorize and forgive Warden Douglas Weber to execute me for the crimes. It is done.”

What to do if society (even that within the prison walls) is not protected?

Sorry for the redundancy.

Your thoughts?

Well, if you carry it out to the logical end, anyone convicted of a crime that they receive a prison sentence for should be executed, in the name of “officer safety.” Is that what you’re thinking?

 

[littlechicken]

Well, if you carry it out to the logical end, anyone convicted of a crime that they receive a prison sentence for should be executed, in the name of “officer safety.” Is that what you’re thinking?

:ehh:

Had actually thought about that. It would mean that any and all prisoners would have to be executed, well, at least those who posed the threat of physical harm to society. (those convicted of assault/battery/murder)
Really, I have not ever considered the death penalty a viable option, but this particular case caused me to look at it in a way I hadn’t thought of before. And I wanted to get a concensus of sorts.
TYGB

 

[littlechicken]

Yes. And what if the escape was successful? Prisoners do escape and commit more crimes.

Other defense then?

 

[Apagano]

Well, if you carry it out to the logical end, anyone convicted of a crime that they receive a prison sentence for should be executed, in the name of “officer safety.” Is that what you’re thinking?

That is NOT the logical end… A person who was arrested for stealing and has never been violent is not at a risk for being violent and hurting themselves or someone else while in prison. While someone who brutally murdered someone or even several people actually does pose a threat on the well being of others in the prison, themselves, and the guards.

 

[BcuzISaidSo]

The taking of one life does not justify the taking of another. If it did abortion doctors would be in a whole heap of trouble! I understand the desire to protect society, but devaluing human life, even the life of one who does terrible things, is not the way to do it.

 

[littlechicken]

The taking of one life does not justify the taking of another. If it did abortion doctors would be in a whole heap of trouble! I understand the desire to protect society, but devaluing human life, even the life of one who does terrible things, is not the way to do it.

:thumbsup:This I have to agree with.

 

[jwinch2]

Well, if you carry it out to the logical end, anyone convicted of a crime that they receive a prison sentence for should be executed, in the name of “officer safety.” Is that what you’re thinking?

No. Some prisoners can and do behave properly, or at least not dangerously, in prison. However, there are some prisoners who represent an ongoing threat to corrections officers as well as other prisoners, both of whom should be able to life without fear of violent attack or murder. If society puts someone in prison for a crime, it has an obligation to protect that person in the name of justice.

Even a prisoner who is convicted of a very violent crime is not an automatic candidate for the death penalty, unless the state sought it in the first place. Rather, that person has the opportunity to prove that they can live by the rules within the prison system and not become violent against staff or other inmates. If they can, they serve their term. If they cannot, other measures must be taken. Perhaps isolation, but there are rules as to how much someone can be isolated and it does not prevent staff from having to come into contact with them. If, after all reasonable measures have been tried, an inmate is still a threat to others, then the death penalty is a reasonable choice to make. This is completely in line with the CCC and actually goes much further than previous teachings where the Church has consistently taught that the death penalty is a choice which can be used for purposes of justice.

My concern with that is the number of people who are falsely convicted and later exonerated. Because of that, I believe the more prudent thing to do is to use it as a last resort when individual inmates have proven to be unmanageable from a point of safety of staff and other inmates.

 

[504Katrin]

An old friend of mine - very dry, hilarious humour, down to earth guy very intelligent, and too good for this world - once said to me in a discussion about the death penalty a couple of years ago: " We can’t judge him so we send him up there to heaven, so that God can do his job and judge him".

 

[Ender]

Understood, my opinion on the death penalty hasn’t changed, yet many argue from the stance that it is not necessary because we are now able to protect society from violent criminals by incarcerating the person.
This case, and others like it, tend to say otherwise.

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

 

[Lost_Sheep]

An old friend of mine - very dry, hilarious humour, down to earth guy very intelligent, and too good for this world - once said to me in a discussion about the death penalty a couple of years ago: " We can’t judge him so we send him up there to heaven, so that God can do his job and judge him".

This.

 

[jc4751]

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.

 

[starshiptrooper]

The taking of one life does not justify the taking of another. If it did abortion doctors would be in a whole heap of trouble! I understand the desire to protect society, but devaluing human life, even the life of one who does terrible things, is not the way to do it.

On the contrary, the death penalty reinforces the value of human life.

The nature of punishment is to cause pain and it accomplishes this goal by depriving the offender of valuable things. Thus, by executing criminals, we affirm the value of life.

Perhaps you have heard the saying, “A crime is only as serious as its punishment.” By exacting the maximum penalty on the worst, society makes a statement. The life of the victim was valuable, his murderer has committed a serious crime, and therefore he deserves a serious punishment.

 

[ManRay]

The death penalty is a disgusting, and logically flawed societal left over from more savage times. Simply remove all of the weak religious, secular arguments, and look at it from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. Have we ever executed an innocent person? Yes. So logically we cannot say that we know for certain that every person we murder is guilty. It is an impossibility. People falsely confess. People are crazy. Evidence is fabricated, and so on, and so on. You cannot logically defend that murder is wrong by murdering someone. It’s stupid. You may argue that we jail innocent people all the time - well fine - but this innocent person can still fight, and appeal. Dead people can’t do that. The only reason that the death penalty doesn’t fit the actual legal definition of murder - is because we made it legal - so it is technically defined as the -

lawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought

That only makes sense to the confused, the bad, or the crazy.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is a disgusting, and logically flawed societal left over from more savage times.

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.

Simply remove all of the weak religious, secular arguments, and look at it from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. Have we ever executed an innocent person? Yes. So logically we cannot say that we know for certain that every person we murder is guilty.

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.

You cannot logically defend that murder is wrong by murdering someone. It’s stupid. … The only reason that the death penalty doesn’t fit the actual legal definition of murder - is because we made it legal

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.

• so it is technically defined as the - lawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought. That only makes sense to the confused, the bad, or the crazy.

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.

Ender

 

[jwinch2]

The death penalty is a disgusting, and logically flawed societal left over from more savage times. Simply remove all of the weak religious, secular arguments, and look at it from a purely pragmatic viewpoint. Have we ever executed an innocent person? Yes. So logically we cannot say that we know for certain that every person we murder is guilty. It is an impossibility. People falsely confess. People are crazy. Evidence is fabricated, and so on, and so on. You cannot logically defend that murder is wrong by murdering someone. It’s stupid. You may argue that we jail innocent people all the time - well fine - but this innocent person can still fight, and appeal. Dead people can’t do that. The only reason that the death penalty doesn’t fit the actual legal definition of murder - is because we made it legal - so it is technically defined as the -

lawful
killing
of a human
by another human
with malice aforethought

That only makes sense to the confused, the bad, or the crazy.