The Death Penalty, Protecting Society?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Utah_Ken
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

Utah_Ken

Guest
California’s oldest death row inmate a 75-year-old who is legally blind and nearly deaf is to be executed Tuesday. He often uses a wheelchair and had to be resuscitated after suffering a heart attack last year at San Quentin Prison.

Does the State of California’s killing of this man protect society? Or is this simply going to be a revenge killing? I wonder what logic people will use to justify this execution.
 
The only time the death penalty is justified is when you cannot protect society from the criminal. With today’s technology it is hard to argue this is ever the case. As for the 75 year old inmate, I don’t think he is much of a threat to society anymore. Just my thoughts.

God Bless,
Matt
 
I’m with you, Ken and Marty. It is a killing of retribution and nothing else. The only possible “defense” is that it is his “punishment” in the vein of “an eye for an eye.” Thankfully, we are no longer under such a system and the church does not condone this mentality.
 
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Friday denied Allen clemency. Barring a last-minute reprieve by the courts, the governor’s decision means Allen will become the second-oldest person put to death since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976.
Click to expand...
Schwarzenegger said Allen's age and health did not matter and noted that he committed his crimes at the age of 50. "His conduct did not result from youth or inexperience, but instead resulted from the hardened and calculating decisions of a mature man."
Click to expand...
Allen’s death sentence has been delayed by 23 years of appeals. He “should not escape the jury’s punishment because our system works deliberately and carefully,” Schwarzenegger said.
Click to expand...
Full article
 
What many people who advocate suspending the death penalty overlook is the fact that the decision to use it lies with the government–a point the Church concedes. The calls for mercy are perfectly fine, of course, and there are cases in which mercy would be appropriate, but there are ones in which it would be a miscarriage of justice to not carry out the proper sentence.

Retribution has nothing to do with enforcing the death penalty. It is strictly a matter of earthly justice. A government cannot forgive people in the moral sense of the word, only pardon. And it cannot determine the ultimate destination of anyone’s soul. But, it can enforce proper laws and exact justice in this world for its citizens, which is all it can do for them.
 
Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity. State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us. Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed. We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.

“I have set before you life and death, the

blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” (Dt 30:19)

USCCB

Does this execution protect society?

When this forum was focused on the Williams execution, many posters used the idea of protecting society to justify the state sanctioned killing of Williams. What justification can be used to kill a 75 year old blind and deaf man, other than revenge?
 
Before we work to protect the lives of guilty hardened felons, how about focusing on protecting the lives of innocent unborn babies or the lives of innocent people who are in comas.

We can only do one thing at a time, so how’s about concentrating effort and public relations and press conferences and protest rallies to protect the lives of innocent people.

I haven’t heard much public outcry during these times of protest of the executions of murderers from the Catholic bishops about the ongoing legal executions of unborn babies.
 
Al Masetti:
Before we work to protect the lives of guilty hardened felons, how about focusing on protecting the lives of innocent unborn babies or the lives of innocent people who are in comas.

We can only do one thing at a time, so how’s about concentrating effort and public relations and press conferences and protest rallies to protect the lives of innocent people.

I haven’t heard much public outcry during these times of protest of the executions of murderers from the Catholic bishops about the ongoing legal executions of unborn babies.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply, I disagree with you… I believe that we CAN do more than one thing at a time. That one thing is the sanctity of life, from womb to tomb. Life is precious.
 
I haven’t heard much public outcry during these times of protest of the executions of murderers from the Catholic bishops about the ongoing legal executions of unborn babies.

Go to the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops web page. usccb.org/prolife/

You will find that the Bishops have published much more information on Abortion, Birth Control, and Euthanasia than they have on Capital Punishment.
 
Utah Ken:
Our nation should forgo the use of the death penalty because The sanction of death, when it is not necessary to protect society, violates respect for human life and dignity. State-sanctioned killing in our names diminishes all of us. Its application is deeply flawed and can be irreversibly wrong, is prone to errors, and is biased by factors such as race, the quality of legal representation, and where the crime was committed. We have other ways to punish criminals and protect society.

“I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live.” (Dt 30:19)

USCCB

Does this execution protect society?

When this forum was focused on the Williams execution, many posters used the idea of protecting society to justify the state sanctioned killing of Williams. What justification can be used to kill a 75 year old blind and deaf man, other than revenge?
Click to expand...
Apparently when I wrote “Retribution has nothing to do with enforcing the death penalty. It is strictly a matter of earthly justice. A government cannot forgive people in the moral sense of the word, only pardon. And it cannot determine the ultimate destination of anyone’s soul. But, it can enforce proper laws and exact justice in this world for its citizens, which is all it can do for them” it flew past your eyes without a notice.

The idea of justice isn’t about the individual, per se, but about the general impression that our laws mean something and that there ought to be justice for innocent victims of heinous crimes.

By all means let those condemned have access to their spiritual counselors. At least they know when they are to die and so can prepare themselves to face it: confess and repent, make some kind of restitution, etc. Which is more than they did for their victims.

The victims are the people being totally forgotten here. The poor young girl grabbed from a parking lot, begging for her life as she’s raped, tortured and murdered. Or the ordinary working guy who stands behind a counter in a convenience store who hopes to be able to return to his family after his shift or the horrified wife being murdered by her husband because he wanted get rid of her for the insurance money and some new girlfriend.

Those who are executed can never hurt anyone again in the heinous ways they did. People know they can get off with life even if they get caught–what incentive is there not to do it, then? None. It seems to me the worse crime gets the more people cry out for mercy for the perpetrators. Where’s the logic or the justice in that?
 
Somebody (actually, more than one person) used the word “revenge” to characterize legal executions.

Revenge, I think, would be if the family of the murder victim went out and personally killed the murderer. Especially if the family dragged it out with torture and took pleasure in it.

The death penalty is “all business”. The guilty party is given every possible oppurtunity and as much time as he or she wants to take to appeal the jury verdict. The guilty party generally has access to a large pool of attorneys. And there are numerous pleas to the executive branch for clemency, etc.

When all the appeals have been exhausted, the guilty party has access to clergy for an opportunity to “re-form” his or her soul and the execution is generally conducted privately with as little pain and discomfort as possible.

Now, it is possible for people to draw up word-pictures of horrible miscarriages of justice. But the fact is that the use of the word “revenge” is out of place. The family of the murder victim doesn’t get to pull the switch. THAT would be revenge.
 
Al Masetti:
Somebody (actually, more than one person) used the word “revenge” to characterize legal executions.

Revenge, I think, would be if the family of the murder victim went out and personally killed the murderer. Especially if the family dragged it out with torture and took pleasure in it.

The death penalty is “all business”. The guilty party is given every possible oppurtunity and as much time as he or she wants to take to appeal the jury verdict. The guilty party generally has access to a large pool of attorneys. And there are numerous pleas to the executive branch for clemency, etc.

When all the appeals have been exhausted, the guilty party has access to clergy for an opportunity to “re-form” his or her soul and the execution is generally conducted privately with as little pain and discomfort as possible.

Now, it is possible for people to draw up word-pictures of horrible miscarriages of justice. But the fact is that the use of the word “revenge” is out of place. The family of the murder victim doesn’t get to pull the switch. THAT would be revenge.
Click to expand...
Okay, if revenge is not the motivation, then what is?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

How is that our society cannot defend itself against a blind, deaf 75 year old man?
 
Utah Ken:
Okay, if revenge is not the motivation, then what is?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

How is that our society cannot defend itself against a blind, deaf 75 year old man?
Click to expand...
People are allowed to be punished for doing bad things. The punishment is proportional to the badness of the deed. In this case, apparently the “75-year-old man” arranged for people outside prison to be murdered.

The issue of rarity does NOT prohibit the employment of capital punishment. Often life imprisonment is not adequate to protect society from certain individuals who insist on doing as much damage as they can in whatever way they can. [By the way, this topic was already discussed to death in other threads.]

I’m told (cannot verify) that in Spain, prisoners are confined to a very roomy cell (300 sq ft) for the entire duration of their incarceration. They do not leave the cell for any reason. Solitary confinement for the duration. This is one way to protect the general prison population and the prison guards from predators.

Visit the other threads to find the exhaustive paper by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Someone started a Web site for him also, and you may find the actual video of the speech he gave on the subject. And, by the way, Dulles was just an ordinary priest, a Jesuit college professor, whe the Pope saw fit because of the eloquence of his writing, to jump him from ordinary priest over the ranks of monsignor and bishop to be a cardinal. So Cardinal Dulles’ words carry some weight.
 
Al Masetti:
People are allowed to be punished for doing bad things. The punishment is proportional to the badness of the deed. In this case, apparently the “75-year-old man” arranged for people outside prison to be murdered.

The issue of rarity does NOT prohibit the employment of capital punishment. Often life imprisonment is not adequate to protect society from certain individuals who insist on doing as much damage as they can in whatever way they can. [By the way, this topic was already discussed to death in other threads.]

I’m told (cannot verify) that in Spain, prisoners are confined to a very roomy cell (300 sq ft) for the entire duration of their incarceration. They do not leave the cell for any reason. Solitary confinement for the duration. This is one way to protect the general prison population and the prison guards from predators.

Visit the other threads to find the exhaustive paper by Cardinal Avery Dulles. Someone started a Web site for him also, and you may find the actual video of the speech he gave on the subject. And, by the way, Dulles was just an ordinary priest, a Jesuit college professor, whe the Pope saw fit because of the eloquence of his writing, to jump him from ordinary priest over the ranks of monsignor and bishop to be a cardinal. So Cardinal Dulles’ words carry some weight.
Click to expand...
Cardinal Dulles’ words without question carry weight, But other’s words carry weight as well; for instance, Pope John Paul II. or the US Bishops.

So I ask again, How is it that our society cannot protect itself against the actions of a deaf and blind seventy five year old man without resorting to killing him?
 
Utah Ken:
Cardinal Dulles’ words without question carry weight, But other’s words carry weight as well; for instance, Pope John Paul II. or the US Bishops.

So I ask again, How is it that our society cannot protect itself against the actions of a deaf and blind seventy five year old man without resorting to killing him?
Click to expand...
I answer your question with another question - using your own words: How does our society protect itself?

Cardinal Dulles’ words would appear to carry EXTRA weight since he was appointed by Pope John Paul II because of his (Dulles’) writing.

Keep in mind that “rare” doesn’t mean “never”.
 
Al Masetti:
I answer your question with another question - using your own words: How does our society protect itself?

Cardinal Dulles’ words would appear to carry EXTRA weight since he was appointed by Pope John Paul II because of his (Dulles’) writing.

Keep in mind that “rare” doesn’t mean “never”.
Click to expand...
Thanks, because I am not a law enforcement specialist or jurist I could only guess, I can say with conviction that it is a sad reflection of our society if we cannot protect ourselves without state sanctioned killing.

Does the extra weight that the words of Cardinal Dulles amount to more than the Pope, or the US Bishops conference?

I agree that rare does not mean never. but doesn’t practically non-existent come awfully close to never?

Remember, 75 years old, deaf and blind…how hard could it be to protect us?
 
Utah Ken:
Thanks, because I am not a law enforcement specialist or jurist I could only guess, I can say with conviction that it is a sad reflection of our society if we cannot protect ourselves without state sanctioned killing.

Does the extra weight that the words of Cardinal Dulles amount to more than the Pope, or the US Bishops conference?

I agree that rare does not mean never. but doesn’t practically non-existent come awfully close to never?

Remember, 75 years old, deaf and blind…how hard could it be to protect us?
Click to expand...
The Holy Father appointed Avery Dulles to be a cardinal because of his skill as a writer. In all probability, he is the only person in memory to be so honored.

It is essential to not twist or distort words to give them a different meaning, a meaning that we would personally prefer, rather than what the meaning of the words is.

It is not necessary to be a law enforcement person.

We have Original Sin. We have fallen Man. We have the seven deadly sins. The Church has a hundred names for sin.

Instead of crying “shame!” or saying the things we cannot do, I am going to ask:

What actual practical steps can a society take to protect itself?

That’s all.

Just fill in the answer:
 
This particular individual is practically a “poster boy” for the death penalty. While behind bars on death row for one murder, he ordered the killing of some of the witnesses against him, so that during the appeals process they wouldn’t be able to testify against him. See this:

SAN QUENTIN – A 76-year-old man whose lawyers argued was too old and feeble to be executed was given a lethal injection early this morning for the murders of three Fresno market employees. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the final appeal yesterday by lawyers for Clarence Ray Allen, who turned 76 yesterday and was the oldest man on California’s death row.

Allen was pronounced dead at 12:38 a.m.

Allen, who was legally blind, nearly deaf and used a wheelchair, had spent more than 23 years on death row for commissioning the 1980 murder-for-hire of three people while he was serving a life sentence for the 1974 murder of a 17-year-old girl who helped him rob a Fresno market.

signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060117-9999-7n17execute.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top