We must be carefull to avoid Obama logic where the problem in itself justifies the solution with out consideration that the solution may be worse than the problem or consideration there may be better solutions. Killing criminals may be an effective way of preventing repeat crimes but that does not show it is the best way.There are any number of valid complaints that can be raised about our current penal system but this debate is specifically over the use of capital punishment so, as relevant as your points may be to the penal system in general, they are not relevant to the specific topic raised by the OP.
Your right, it would not be murder, but negligent homicide or manslaughter or some other lesser degree of wrongfull killing.It is no more justifiable to say that the execution of an innocent person is murder than to say that any other unintended death is murder. That is not a valid statement. Seriously, we should be able to distinguish between tragic error and murder. Let’s not play word games.
Ender
OK, I’ve found something. The link below is to a 2002 report put together from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The report studied 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 1994 (they represented about 2/3 of the total released). Based on their statistics they found:I’m going to sit this one out with you until I see facts… get the facts, let me review and then we’ll chat.
Ender, the “1.2% of the 4,443” who committed murder again after release does nothing to support your argument because you are giving the forum readers a false choice and either / or. You are saying if DP was done on those 1.2 percent society would be safer… I agree. BUT, you must also agree that if the 1.2 percent was put in prison for life without parole the same effect would happen, namely society would be safer.OK, I’ve found something. The link below is to a 2002 report put together from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The report studied 272,111 prisoners released from prison in 1994 (they represented about 2/3 of the total released). Based on their statistics they found:
Within 3 years,… 1.2% of the 4,443 persons who had served time for homicide were rearrested for a homicide.
Included in the category “homicide” is murder and non-negligent manslaughter. Now, 1.2% of 4,443 is 53 homicides in three years. As this represents only 2/3 of the total released nationwide, the national total would be about 80, or roughly 27 homicides a year committed by people who had already killed once and been released from prison.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf
I realize these numbers don’t address the number of murders committed by prisoners serving life without parole - who don’t get released - but those who are released have also benefited from reduced sentences. After all, if serial killers get LWOP surely a lesser sentence is appropriate for someone who “only” kills once. Recidivism among murderers is a real problem, whether from those who killed after release or from those who kill while in prison.
Ender
Okay. I have no reason to doubt your sincerity here. As for my personal opinion, which I hate getting into, I didn’t lose a lot of sleep when they executed Timothy McVeigh or Saddam Hussein, however, I’m very much nervous, and have my doubts about the extraordinary number of executions per capita that say, Texas, as an example, seems to feel the need to perform. Surely there is a moderate stance which could be found.Well, yes and no. My opinion is at variance with 2267 but not with 2266 or 2260, and conversely anyone who accepts 2267 also has an opinion which varies from the Catechism since one cannot accept all three of those sections. Further, while my opinion may vary from (part of) this Catechism it is very much in accord with the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of Aquinas. And of course everyone who accepts 2267 is at variance with those catechisms - not to mention the teaching of practically everyone else in Church history who has spoken on this topic.
More to the point, it is 2267 which is not in accord with Church teaching; “my opinion” is nothing other than everything else the Church has ever said about the subject.
Ender
I’m a little confused by what you’re saying here, so it’s probably about time for me to wrap things up regarding my participation in this thread. I don’t believe that the Church will deceive me. If the Church is going to lead me to evil, when my faith in her teachings are part and parcel of my faith in her founder, Jesus Christ, the son of God who IS the truth, then what repository of knowledge on earth may I trust for catechesis? I don’t believe everything that just any parish priest tells me when we’re talking about stuff over coffee, (though, the priests in my life seem to have a pretty fair amount of knowledge on faith matters). But I still choose not to stand in variance to the Catechism developed by a plurality of her Bishops in accordance with the last paragraph of your quote. I have faith that the Bishops are not out to trick me, or to misuse the power of magesterium. I understand that they are human, but it would be a sad stretch to think they have conspired to teach error on a topic in the ccc, simply because it one area which is not revealed and declared dogma. In any event, it is God I’m placing my trust in. Not a book. So IF I’m even taking your point, (and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to find I am not), then I think we’re all good here.It is not completely clear what you mean here, but the Church absolutely does not justify all moral choices made by the individual’s conscience. What she teaches is that “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions” so that he can* “assume responsibility for the acts performed.”* That is, if your conscience leads you astray, you may nevertheless be held responsible for your acts. “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility … In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” (CCC 1781 - 1791)
It is not her opinion which the Church gives us; what we’re getting comes from higher up the food chain than that.
*“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” *(Fides et Ratio)
Ender
I’m not sure why you ask me this as I thought I had been clear. First, I believe that we as a society would be safer if more murderers were executed, but second and more importantly, I think this is the proper thing to do regardless of whether it provides additional security or not. I believe that not just society at large but the Catholic community as well has completely lost sight of the purpose and nature of punishment and that the current clamor against the death penalty has contributed mightily to that confusion.Giving this discussion and your limited research, and including other factors involved, (financial, the ability for a person to repent, humane, etc.) what do you think REALLY is the best action our country should take, death or life without parole?
Yes, this based on Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person’s bood be shed; for in his own image God made humankind.Death penalty is acceptable for a Catholic, mainly for the murder of an individual.
God Bless,
Christopher.
The Church is not out to deceive you; it’s just that the truth in this area is not all it at first appears to be.I don’t believe that the Church will deceive me.
Well, there’s the rub because the Catechism is inconsistent on this topic. If you accept section 2260 you would believe that murderers should be executed but if you choose to accept 2267 you would believe they should not.But I still choose not to stand in variance to the Catechism developed by a plurality of her Bishops in accordance with the last paragraph of your quote.
Either position is justifiable; it’s just that 2260 has been the Church’s position on the issue throughout her history and 2267 is JPII’s opinion that, in current societies, its use does more harm than good.it would be a sad stretch to think they have conspired to teach error on a topic in the ccc, simply because it one area which is not revealed and declared dogma.
Murders commit almost 100% of murders! So maybe this is a signal blacks living conditions are not equal to whites? Maybe blacks live where the crime is and thus are more likely to get involved in a crime? If an innocent person is placed in prison are they more likely to commit a crime, probably so as they have to live with criminals and crimes, same for blacks raised in neighborhoods filled with crime and crime related issues. Said another way the man who owns everything cannot steal and the man who owns nothing has nothing to eat.The bishops harp on race…but blacks , who are 12% of the population, according to the U S Department of Justice, COMMIT over 50% of the murders in this nation…here’s the facts…
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm