F
Forkfoot
Guest
Only the grossly uninformed and the willfully ignorant believe that.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
Ender
Guest
None of the rest of paragraph you cited is relevant to the point I made … which is why I saw no reason to include it. Punishment for sin is vengeance. It is not something evil in and of itself and while it is forbidden the individual it is the obligation of the state.Aquinas here is justifying punishment as if God gives the keys to His house to a caretaker. He is not suggesting that God has signed over ownership of His house to the State. I think that would be more evident if you were to quote whole passages from the Summa in context and not just isolated sentences.
You misread the sentence. It is not by amending or restraining the sinner that justice is upheld. Justice is itself an objective just as are amending and restraining. These are all valid objectives of punishment… but the primary objective is retributive justice.Here Aquinas clearly indicates that the mind of the State must be primarily motivated by some good as in the sinner amending his ways or that he is restrained so that others aren’t disturbed. Through this, he says, justice is upheld and God honoured.
Since the individual is forbidden to exact vengeance his inclinations are irrelevant in the imposition of punishment. It is both the right and the duty of the state to set the penalty.Even the best of us are prone to immorally vengeful thoughts against those who’ve done us wrong.
That was the point being made: public authority has the right and duty to punish sinners and the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. That is - contrary to what was claimed - Christ did not abolish the concept of an eye for an eye but restricted its application to the state.St Bellarmine here explains that Jesus isn’t retracting the right and duty of public authority to ‘punish’ sinners according to their crime.
Since this obligation is explained in the catechism I’m thinking it may be some time before we “get off” the idea. 2266* Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.*Perhaps getting off on idea of a mans right to divine retribution instead of humbly conforming to what advances the common good of all men as their mandate in effecting Gods will.
If this statement was true then the state would have no authority to punish anyone for anything. Either the state is authorized to exact vengeance or it isn’t. If it is, then it is authorized to apply the death penalty, but if it isn’t then it has no more right to punish the criminal than does the individual.when we the people take part in electing our leaders, we have to humbly accept that we the people cannot desire or seek vengeance through our creation… the public authority.
I don’t think you understand what the church teaches about punishment - and what she has consistently taught for two millennia. Do you think the church has had nothing to say on this subject since Jesus walked the Earth? What she has always taught is what she teaches today: the State has the obligation to punish crimes. Exacting vengeance is the duty of a just State.The only authoritive leader in our frame who is not democratically elected would be the Pope and it makes more sense to submit to his direction on matters of faith today, than continue to go back to the old law as the Pharisees were doing.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
That doesn’t make it just. A grave injustice has still happened. This can and has happened in capital cases.If an innocent person is wrongfully executed and there was no malfeasance involved then the killing was not murder and no one should go on trial.
E
Ender
Guest
Indeed, a grave injustice has surely occurred. I was addressing only the assertion that a murder had been committed and that those involved should be punished.That doesn’t make it just. A grave injustice has still happened. This can and has happened in capital cases.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
IMO even one innocent executed is sufficient argument for the permanent dissolution of the death penalty. The number of acquittals of people on death row after genetic evidence came along to prove their innocence is by itself enough to prove the institution is a horrific failure.
E
Ender
Guest
If you are concerned solely with the number of innocent people who will die then it would make more sense to approve capital punishment than to oppose it. Even those organizations most opposed to its use can only claim a handful of cases where they believe an innocent person was executed. On average (again, by their calculations) about one every five years is wrongfully executed. By contrast evidence points to roughly 50 recidivist murders a year by people who killed once, were released, and have killed again. This does not include the number of murders committed or instigated by those who are still in prison.IMO even one innocent executed is sufficient argument for the permanent dissolution of the death penalty. The number of acquittals of people on death row after genetic evidence came along to prove their innocence is by itself enough to prove the institution is a horrific failure.
There is no perfect solution; innocent people will die no matter whether we extend the use of capital punishment or eliminate it but it surely seems that many more will die if we don’t use it than if we do.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Nope, no, I cannot respect your argument. If we know that we’re executing innocent people, however infrequently, then we shouldn’t be executing people. Keep 'em locked up forever, but our system of justice has no business risking actively executing innocent humans.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
No number but zero is small enough. It’s not just for a state’s judicial system to be able to look into the eyes of the family of an innocent they killed and say “Sacrificing their lives was worth it. It was worth killing your innocent son to be able to also kill people who are guilty.”
K
kelvinf
Guest
That explains a lot. When I hear people talking about killing criminals and sometimes in very horrific ways, I wonder where they cultivated this kind of mindset. So it is clear that when people are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that killing criminals is justice or a solution to crime, they confortably grow up with this kind of mindset. Thank God people like you and most others as it seems are abandoning this disposition and becoming pro-life.This is tough. I lived through the OKC bombing in 1995. I cheered and was happy when McVeigh was executed. He killed many people and ruined many lives, and, in part, my family.
I am a Texan. We grow up with the death penalty from kindergarten. As an attorney in Texas, now, I have become (aghast … bad conservative) opposed to the death penalty. Part of it comes from the Church teachings (which are not binding), but most of it comes from my practicing law for 11 years. I don’t handle many criminal cases (less than 100 in 11 years), but I have had enough to know that, even when the State is “right,” the State is not always right.
I know all of the arguments … it costs less to execute someone than to keep them on death row for their lives. You kill someone in my state, we will kill you back. Etc., etc. I am just so tired of death. Sanctioned death by the government. I am just tired of it. Life comes from God.
The argument that it’s cheaper to kill criminals than to put them behind bars, that is, diminishing human dignity in favour of materialism, is just sickening and that Catholics also say such a thing is horrible.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
that does -]explain/-] illustrate all of the strawman arguments against the DP.That explains a lot. When I hear people talking about killing criminals and sometimes in very horrific ways, I wonder where they cultivated this kind of mindset. So it is clear that when people are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that killing criminals is justice or a solution to crime, they confortably grow up with this kind of mindset. Thank God people like you and most others as it seems are abandoning this disposition and becoming pro-life.
The argument that it’s cheaper to kill criminals than to put them behind bars, that is, diminishing human dignity in favour of materialism, is just sickening and that Catholics also say such a thing is horrible.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
in this accounting system, where are the victims who are murdered at the direction of those serving life sentences? do they count in your equation?No number but zero is small enough. It’s not just for a state’s judicial system to be able to look into the eyes of the family of an innocent they killed and say “Sacrificing their lives was worth it. It was worth killing your innocent son to be able to also kill people who are guilty.”
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Sure. Yes. Not good enough. Find another way.in this accounting system, where are the victims who are murdered at the direction of those serving life sentences? do they count in your equation?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
the famous hand wave argument. Fail.…Find another way.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
I don’t think you’re the sort of person I want to have a dialogue with, Fairwinds.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
foot, we’re not having a dialogue.I don’t think you’re the sort of person I want to have a dialogue with, Fairwinds.
B
Baelor
Guest
How often does such a death occur when the individual is in solitary confinement without visits? i.e. totally isolated?in this accounting system, where are the victims who are murdered at the direction of those serving life sentences? do they count in your equation?
F
Fairwinds
Guest
totally isolated? the most isolation is probably federal supermax, 22 or 23 hours a day in solitary. total isolation would in theory solve the problem, but convicts have constitutional rights to see attorneys, and communication to attorneys is privileged from government inspection. even when the government anticipated and tried to prevent attorney lynne stewart from receiving instructions from that sheikh, they couldn’t stop it. being held totally incommunicado (barred from communicating with family) would have civil rights organizations up in arms, and is also probably illegal. the FBI found that letters and phone calls to family members used codes.How often does such a death occur when the individual is in solitary confinement without visits? i.e. totally isolated?
if preserving the lives of these convicts is so important, then it has to be done by violating all of their other civil and constitutional rights. I personally wouldn’t object to that, but I doubt it could be done. and I don’t believe in jedi mind tricks.
I know that attorneys are used because I was asked to pass messages (and refused, there are many temptations not worth it, this is one of them). its done this way: I could be hired by the family of some convict in prison for some ordinary crime and confer with him with him in an interview room at a prison, the client would pass on instructions from someone in the prison gang chain of command. I’m leaving out details, but it would surprise you to know how easy this is. attorneys meeting burglary convicts aren’t watched the same way that stewart was, there were “special administrative procedures” in place and even they failed.
I have to restate my position because its been falsely stated in this thread. in most of the DP-eligible cases, the public can be made safe by ordinary prison conditions, and the DP is not moral under the CCC. in a small number, procedures don’t work, can’t be made to work and, assuming other conditions are met, the execution is permitted under the CCC.
so the question really boils down to how many innocent victims are the anti-DPers willing to tolerate?
K
kelvinf
Guest
This topic has been and is still being discussed on this forum over and over again. I have heard all possible arguments for supporting the death penalty in this age and I don’t buy any of them especially taking into consideration what the bishops have taught. I am not interested in those same arguments. But I do have some interest in understanding the mindset of people who are supposed to be pro-life but are not.that does -]explain/-] illustrate all of the strawman arguments against the DP.
E
Ender
Guest
Well so far we don’t “know” that we’ve executed anyone who was innocent, despite the allegations that have been made. But if this is your objection to using capital punishment then you must at the same time accept that we “know” our inaction will lead to the death of many more innocent people and that we are choosing more deaths over fewer. I’m not sure how that can be conceived of as more just.Nope, no, I cannot respect your argument. If we know that we’re executing innocent people, however infrequently, then we shouldn’t be executing people. Keep 'em locked up forever, but our system of justice has no business risking actively executing innocent humans.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The argument against capital punishment “in this age” is based on several assumptions: that prison really can safeguard the innocent from recidivist killers, that this capability is a recent development, and that the only reason that justifies the death penalty is protecting the public. The caveat “in this age” has to be added because the church’s acknowledgment of the validity of capital punishment throughout her entire history is too extensive to dispute.I have heard all possible arguments for supporting the death penalty in this age and I don’t buy any of them especially taking into consideration what the bishops have taught.
That prisons really can secure the public from determined killers is at least debatable. Beyond that, it is an entirely prudential judgment which may legitimately be disputed. It obviously is not doctrinal.
The assertion that this is a new development is also questionable. We know of cases where prisoners even in supermax prisons have ordered executions, using supporters on the outside to carry them out and it is reasonable to ask whether such a thing would have been possible for prisoners serving out their time on Devil’s Island or on a slave galley. The Romans seemed to have had little trouble managing their prisoners. What justification is there for believing that ancient systems of imprisonment were in fact less secure than our own? Again, this is another prudential judgment with which one may disagree.
The real issue, however, is the question of whether capital punishment should be limited solely to those cases where it is deemed necessary for protection. To assert this is to repudiate the traditional justification for its use - which was retributive justice. The primary objective of punishment is not protection but retribution, not protecting against future crimes but repairing the disorder caused by crimes already committed.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
- Status
- Not open for further replies.