E
eddietoo
Guest
consider this, if for the protection of others,the only alternative to the death penalty is a life time of solitary confinement, some might consider the death penalty the more merciful penalty.
- Status
A
Annie
Guest
First, not all nations have access to the high-tech, modern prison set-ups we have in the West.
Second, even those we have in the West are not 100% secure: prisoners still escape, and prison employees are still killed.
Third, there is a difference between personal vengeance and a just retribution. J Budziszewski explains in this article:
www.firstthings.com
Second, even those we have in the West are not 100% secure: prisoners still escape, and prison employees are still killed.
Third, there is a difference between personal vengeance and a just retribution. J Budziszewski explains in this article:
Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice | J. Budziszewski
Justice is giving each what is due to him. So fundamental is the duty of public authority to . . . .
www.firstthings.com
A
AlNg
Guest
There have been escapes from prisons.
A
AlNg
Guest
Was it justified to burn people at the stake for heresy?
E
Ender
Guest
What is required of every punishment? That it protect ? That it rehabilitate? That it deter? No, none of these are required, however desirable they may be as objectives. What is required of each and every penalty is that it be just, that it be neither too severe nor too lenient, and that it not be harmful to the community as a whole.
What, then, argues against the use of capital punishment? It is clearly not too severe a punishment for (at least) the crime of murder or the church would not have supported it all these centuries, but if the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime why do we oppose it?
It could be argued that it is harmful to society in that it sends the wrong “message” about our reverence for life, and while that may or may not be so, it is surely a practical objection, not a moral one.
Where is the moral objection?
What, then, argues against the use of capital punishment? It is clearly not too severe a punishment for (at least) the crime of murder or the church would not have supported it all these centuries, but if the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime why do we oppose it?
It could be argued that it is harmful to society in that it sends the wrong “message” about our reverence for life, and while that may or may not be so, it is surely a practical objection, not a moral one.
Where is the moral objection?
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
It was quite an easy call for me to become anti-death penalty for USA.
Administratively, it’s unworkable - the appeals process goes on and on and on, the methods approved for execution require drugs that are hard to get and may cause pain. The fact that we even require this elaborate of an execution method (or the equally elaborate and potentially painful electric chair) shows how uncomfortable we are with putting people to death. One would think it a simple matter to just take them out and shoot them by firing squad, or overdose them on a giant dose of opioids, rather than require exotic methods.
There is a high propensity for unjust and uneven application of it, and an excellent chance that innocent people have already been put to death and that some innocent people in the future will be put to death.
There is also, now, a wider availability of life without parole (LWOP) sentences, whereas in the previous incarnations of the death penalty, some states did not have true LWOP. If you got life, it came with a possibility of parole after a certain time period, and not because you were old or sick and thus got a compassionate parole either. People were justifiably afraid that if the offender was not killed himself, he would be out and killing others again in the future.
Prison escapes aren’t good justifications. Death rows are not easy places to even get into, much less get out of, and I am equally concerned about people escaping whose crimes weren’t even in death penalty range. Plus the number of escapes is relatively low. I find it more compelling that we have probably executed the innocent, or that two people equally involved in the same crime could end up with one getting life and one getting death, based on something as simple as who the judge was or what state this happened in or what race they were.
I never even had to get to the moral grounds of whether killing the person is right or wrong to get to this position.
Administratively, it’s unworkable - the appeals process goes on and on and on, the methods approved for execution require drugs that are hard to get and may cause pain. The fact that we even require this elaborate of an execution method (or the equally elaborate and potentially painful electric chair) shows how uncomfortable we are with putting people to death. One would think it a simple matter to just take them out and shoot them by firing squad, or overdose them on a giant dose of opioids, rather than require exotic methods.
There is a high propensity for unjust and uneven application of it, and an excellent chance that innocent people have already been put to death and that some innocent people in the future will be put to death.
There is also, now, a wider availability of life without parole (LWOP) sentences, whereas in the previous incarnations of the death penalty, some states did not have true LWOP. If you got life, it came with a possibility of parole after a certain time period, and not because you were old or sick and thus got a compassionate parole either. People were justifiably afraid that if the offender was not killed himself, he would be out and killing others again in the future.
Prison escapes aren’t good justifications. Death rows are not easy places to even get into, much less get out of, and I am equally concerned about people escaping whose crimes weren’t even in death penalty range. Plus the number of escapes is relatively low. I find it more compelling that we have probably executed the innocent, or that two people equally involved in the same crime could end up with one getting life and one getting death, based on something as simple as who the judge was or what state this happened in or what race they were.
I never even had to get to the moral grounds of whether killing the person is right or wrong to get to this position.
B
Brendan
Guest
You are correct. Certain types of forced labor, such as prisoners being forced to make license plates, or a civil offender being sentenced to community service, are also types of ‘slavery’, in that they are forced labor without recompense.ringil:
I think there are various institutions which are called slavery. So, exchanging one’s future labor as payment for a debt is called slavery, as is exchanging labor for room and board when one is a POW (albeit widely defined).
Chattel slavery, where human beings are treated as animals by being captured, sold, and forced to work, often bred as livestock are bred with the children belonging to the owner and at his disposal, has been condemned by the Church since the 1400s.
In the case of debt, well, it is an exchange; in the case of the second, it is preferable to simply killing the prisoners a nation cannot hold. There is no similar justification for the last.
Those are not immoral. The characteristic of both of those is that while they compel labor, they do not deny the inherent personhood of the subject.
Chattel slavery, which reduces a person to the status of property, IS an evil.
B
Brendan
Guest
One other consideration is violence while in prison. Against other prisoners or the guards themselves. They too are members of society who are to be protected.
That happens FAR more frequently than escapes.
po18guy
Well-known member
Misleading title, as the Church does not condemn the death penalty across the board. Western prison systems and security do not apply around the world, thus a dangerous murderer in Myanmar, for example, may have a much greater chance of escaping and causing grievous harm to others - particularly those who may have testified against him. In such limited cases, the death penalty can be allowed.
E
Ender
Guest
What is it that makes a punishment “allowed”? I would think that foremost among reasons is that it is just, and if it is just it is the appropriate penalty for the crime: the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime. The thing is, that isn’t dependent on the capabilities of a nation’s prison system. Is a murder in Myanmar more or less severe than a murder in New York, and if not, why should the penalties be different?
Last edited:
Z
Zzyzx_Road
Guest
I’m normally against the death penalty, but I too recognize the exceptions that the Church makes.
For me, there is one paramount consideration in the case of every convicted person: society has the absolute right to protect itself from the few in its midst who commit violent crimes and are convicted for it. Hence it isn’t just the severity of the crime that matters it is also the risk of recidivism, particularly in the case of violent crimes. Maybe not LWOP, but certainly well into very old age.
For me, there is one paramount consideration in the case of every convicted person: society has the absolute right to protect itself from the few in its midst who commit violent crimes and are convicted for it. Hence it isn’t just the severity of the crime that matters it is also the risk of recidivism, particularly in the case of violent crimes. Maybe not LWOP, but certainly well into very old age.
A
AlNg
Guest
I think that the characteristic is that they have committed a crime.
R
redbaron162
Guest
I guess you have never worked in a jail or prison before? Assaults and murders of jailers and corrections officers is very high
S
superblue
Guest
well for one we are now currently slaves to a corrupted one party system that is constantly trying to destroy our freedoms and constitution . bil of rights and way of life…
As for the death penalty being a mortal sin, okay , but then that begs to question who is to blame for the death penalty, the criminal that commited the crime, the jury who convicted the criminal to death or the judge, or those in government who do not stop the death penalty. Or the companies that produce the instruments and chemicals to facilitate the death penalty, ( which some companies have stopped providing said chemicals )
but the same can be argued for murder with a gun, do you hold the gun company accountable, the people who manufactor and ship fire arms, or the company and individuals who make the bullets.
where does the " sin " begin and end .
As for the death penalty being a mortal sin, okay , but then that begs to question who is to blame for the death penalty, the criminal that commited the crime, the jury who convicted the criminal to death or the judge, or those in government who do not stop the death penalty. Or the companies that produce the instruments and chemicals to facilitate the death penalty, ( which some companies have stopped providing said chemicals )
but the same can be argued for murder with a gun, do you hold the gun company accountable, the people who manufactor and ship fire arms, or the company and individuals who make the bullets.
where does the " sin " begin and end .
B
Brendan
Guest
That is simply a matter of law. The fact is, they are being forced to do labor, and recompense is not being offered. That is a type of slavery.
There could be a law that requires all 18 year olds to spend a weekend doing community service. That too would be forced, unpaid labor, and thus a type of slavery. But it would not be immoral. And no one would make a claim that being 18 is a crime.
Nor would the Church consider such a law to inherently unjust.
There could be a law that requires all 18 year olds to spend a weekend doing community service. That too would be forced, unpaid labor, and thus a type of slavery. But it would not be immoral. And no one would make a claim that being 18 is a crime.
Nor would the Church consider such a law to inherently unjust.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If you want to kill people in order to protect their fellow prisoners, you’ll be executing half the prison population in no time.
B
Brendan
Guest
I never said a single thing about killing anyone, rather, it is one factor to be considered when determining if CCC 2267 applies to a specific prisoner.Brendan:
If you want to kill people in order to protect their fellow prisoners, you’ll be executing half the prison population in no time.
The call of 2267 to defend human life from unjust aggression does not exclude those who are already in prison.
W
Wesrock
Guest
“These men don’t have souls” was used as justification for slaves taken from the Americas or Africa (though the Church at its highest level did condemn such statements), and may have been thrown about elsewhere, but it was never part of the Church’s explanation for “Roman-style” slavery, indentured servitude, prisoners of war, peoples that rejected Christianity, etc . . .
Now, maybe those types of (non-chattel) slavery are just as much mortal sins, but the pope’s comments seem to primarily target chattel-style slavery.
Now, maybe those types of (non-chattel) slavery are just as much mortal sins, but the pope’s comments seem to primarily target chattel-style slavery.
Last edited:
- Status