Troy Davis makes final appeal before execution

[Ender]

Ender, I have seen you post many times, that #2267 contains an opinion. I have not stepped in to defend you in the past because you do an excellent job of defending yourself. Frankly, when you say that #2267 contains an opionion, you are so obviously correct I do not understand why you get so much grief for saying it.

Thank you. As you point out, the last sentence - which is an evaluation of the penal capabilities of modern societies - is so obviously an opinion it is simply irrational to pretend otherwise.

The catechism is clear that our Church does not forbid use of the death penalty. Its application in a particular case is a matter of prudential judgement that should be guided by the principles that really are doctrine. One of those principles is that we have a duty to protect the lives of the innocent. If that aim can be accomplished by the reasonable use of capital punishment, then it is not only allowed–it is a good and just thing.

This is one of the real ironies about 2267. It opposes the use of capital punishment on the basis that it isn’t needed for protection - and on that basis alone - but suppose social scientists in the future determine conclusively that executions significantly increase our protection. What would that mean? This is the ironic part: if executions increased security then the logic of 2267 would call for more executions, not their elimination.

One should surely hope that that part of the catechism is not doctrine as Catholicism would be a laughingstock if its doctrines could be totally reversed by the work of statisticians with note pads.

Ender

 

[Tsuwano]

Yes there is, just not as much room as you appear to believe.
There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Aquinas)
*
*Inasmuch as capital punishment for murder is set by divine law it is not clear that much mercy is appropriate in such cases.
this movement of the mind (viz. mercy) obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)
Ender

Are you saying that according to God’s will all murders are to be punished by execution and that it is not within the power of the judge or the state to show mercy in such situations? Are you saying that by imposing a life sentence on a murdered, for whatever reason, the state and the judge are going against what God wills and that sin is being committed? I find it odd that an act of mercy towards a human person when that person is no longer capable of threat should be construed as sin.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Are you saying that according to God’s will all murders are to be punished by execution and that it is not within the power of the judge or the state to show mercy in such situations? Are you saying that by imposing a life sentence on a murdered, for whatever reason, the state and the judge are going against what God wills and that sin is being committed? I find it odd that an act of mercy towards a human person when that person is no longer capable of threat should be construed as sin.

Most murderers are dealt with simply by locking them up for a period of time.

Most.

Not all.

And we are prohibited by various court rulings from keeping the worst of the worst locked up all of the time.

Perhaps in other countries, the worst of the prisoners can be locked up all the time.

But not in the USA.

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that according to God’s will all murders are to be punished by execution and that it is not within the power of the judge or the state to show mercy in such situations?

No, don’t try to make this so absolute. There are valid reasons why some people should not be executed in spite of their crimes, but the default punishment for murder should be execution.

Are you saying that by imposing a life sentence on a murdered, for whatever reason, the state and the judge are going against what God wills and that sin is being committed?

No.

I find it odd that an act of mercy towards a human person when that person is no longer capable of threat should be construed as sin.

Whether or not a person threatens future crimes he has a debt to pay for the crimes he has already committed and that debt is not lessened by the absence of threats. As regards mercy, there are surely times when it may be appropriate to apply it but it should by no means be unconditionally granted to everyone.

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

Then your previous post stating that I have no right to impose a view on anyone else is wrong, because, like you, I do have the right to advocate a policy for adoption by the state.

You do not have the right to advocate a policy of nonviolence—which is the only coherent implication of your remarks here. That can only ever be a council of perfection, something that might be taken on by an individual or (conceivably, but very cautiously) a religious order, but certainly not society at large.

 

[Tsuwano]

You do not have the right to advocate a policy of nonviolence—which is the only coherent implication of your remarks here. That can only ever be a council of perfection, something that might be taken on by an individual or (conceivably, but very cautiously) a religious order, but certainly not society at large.

Of course I have a right to advocate a policy of nonviolence! Where do you get the idea that I can’t advocate such a policy? I live in a free country, after all. I do not, however, advocate such a policy. I believe there may indeed, at least until humanity evolves, be reasons why nations must go to war. I come from a military family, so I’m very much aware of the sacrifice that many of our soldiers offer when they are called upon to engage in violence. What I do advocate is an end to the death penalty as a means of punishing criminal behavior. I do so, not merely because of the violence the penalty inflicts upon the criminal, but also because of the violence it inflicts upon society and upon those who must carry out the punishment. All violence, to one degree or another, chips away at our humanity is makes us less that what God has called us to be. Violence may be necessary in some cases, but I no longer believe it is necessary in order to insure justice for victims or punishment for criminals in developed societies where the legal system and the penal system is as highly develped as it is in America. I am not a pacifist, as you want to insist, but I want to be as peaceful and as nonviolent as my conscience allows me to be. You believe that modern society has not developed to the point where the death penalty is an obsolete means of carrying out justice. I believe that most modern societies have.

 

[Tsuwano]

Either the doctrine on capital punishment changed after nearly 2000 years of constant teaching or 2267 is not doctrine.

None of the five previous catechisms (including the 1992 version of the current catechism) agree with 2267. No statement (that I have seen) from any pope prior to 1995 agrees with 2267. I believe there are no statements to be found in any ecumenical council that support it. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on the application of capital punishment, the USCCB said they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation” to those who disagree, and Cardinal Dulles said flat out that it represents “prudential opinion.”

I’m going with the belief that 2267 is not doctrine.

Ender

I agree that 2267 is not doctrine. I’m not aware that there has ever been a doctrine concerning capital punishment. The thinking regarding capital punishment has undergone changes through the centuries as societies have developed and new ways and methods of assuring justice have come to the fore. Capital punishment may have been appropriate at one time in history, but in my opinion, and the opinion of many leading theologians and churchmen, it is now obsolete and possibly immoral to inflict such punishment given the development of modern legal and justice systems.

 

[Tsuwano]

No, don’t try to make this so absolute. There are valid reasons why some people should not be executed in spite of their crimes, but the default punishment for murder should be execution.
No.
Whether or not a person threatens future crimes he has a debt to pay for the crimes he has already committed and that debt is not lessened by the absence of threats. As regards mercy, there are surely times when it may be appropriate to apply it but it should by no means be unconditionally granted to everyone.

Ender

Well, I’m pleased that you do not wish to deal in absolutes. I agree with you. I do not believe that the will of God dictates the use of capital punishment for crime. I would agree that some people deserve death for their crimes, but I would disagree that capital punishment should be the default punishment for murder. Simply because some people deserve to be executed does not mean that society should lower itself to the level of the criminal and inflict that punishment. Some people choose to live beneath their human dignity, but the State and the Church, in my opinion, should always seek to uphold that same dignity. I believe that upholding human dignity requires us not to inflict punishment which lessens that dignity, both of the criminal and of the one who inflicts the punishment.
I also agree that no one deserves mercy. It is freely given because, in offering mercy to those who are underserving, we once again uphold the value of life and human dignity and raise ourselves above the evil behavior of the criminal. By offering mercy we imitate God who offers mercy to us. Nevertheless, I agree that mercy should not be offered unconditionally in all circumstances. Punishment should be inflicted. The criminal should be made to pay for his crimes, but this does not necessitate capital punishment. Other means are available to modern societies. In addition, the criminal should be given every opportunity to repent of his crimes and come to conversion. He is unable to do that when the State takes his life.

 

[Hastrman]

Of course I have a right to advocate a policy of nonviolence! Where do you get the idea that I can’t advocate such a policy? I live in a free country, after all. I do not, however, advocate such a policy. I believe there may indeed, at least until humanity evolves, be reasons why nations must go to war. I come from a military family, so I’m very much aware of the sacrifice that many of our soldiers offer when they are called upon to engage in violence. What I do advocate is an end to the death penalty as a means of punishing criminal behavior. I do so, not merely because of the violence the penalty inflicts upon the criminal, but also because of the violence it inflicts upon society and upon those who must carry out the punishment. All violence, to one degree or another, chips away at our humanity is makes us less that what God has called us to be. Violence may be necessary in some cases, but I no longer believe it is necessary in order to insure justice for victims or punishment for criminals in developed societies where the legal system and the penal system is as highly develped as it is in America. I am not a pacifist, as you want to insist, but I want to be as peaceful and as nonviolent as my conscience allows me to be. You believe that modern society has not developed to the point where the death penalty is an obsolete means of carrying out justice. I believe that most modern societies have.

No, you have no right to advocate an immoral position, and pacifism is nothing more than a state subsidy of (other people’s) martyrdom.

Perhaps most modern societies have developed to the point where the death penalty is obsolete. If they have, it is only by each and every one of their members having become not worth killing.

But forgive me, I do not insist on denying human dignity like that; I have too much respect for humanity.

 

[Tsuwano]

No, you have no right to advocate an immoral position, and pacifism is nothing more than a state subsidy of (other people’s) martyrdom.

Perhaps most modern societies have developed to the point where the death penalty is obsolete. If they have, it is only by each and every one of their members having become not worth killing.

But forgive me, I do not insist on denying human dignity like that; I have too much respect for humanity.

Now you’re just ranting. I don’t even think you’ve bothered to read my posts. Ok, I’ve listened to what you have to say. Thank you for expressing your opinion. I’ll take it for what it’s worth and move on.