Wanting Death Penalty

[Wampa]

fairwinds…looks like someone has their crystal ball out.

Wampa, not everyone is going to “agree” on everything. You have ignored fairwinds, but yet you respond. Seems like you are goading him, not the other way around. I have ignored ppl as well. When they respond in someone’s post and I see, I don’t respond, that is how the ignore feature works. just sayin’

Julianna, fair enough and duly noted.

I thought the charge “I ask most of the anti-DPers, and am still waiting for an answer, at this point I’ll take even a hand wave or Jedi mind trick”, aimed squarely at me, was worthy of an exception to that rule. In hindsight, it wasn’t. My bad. I’m moving on…

 

[Ender]

The CCC is explicit. Capital punishment is permissible as a means of self-defense if no other recourse is available.

The catechism is not quite as cut and dry as you suppose. It opposes capital punishment for prudential reasons; there is no moral objection to it. The church has always supported the right of States to impose it and, prior to 1995, never suggested that it was contingent on it being necessary to protect against future crimes. It is in fact not supportable purely as an issue of self defense.

That is the only case in which capital punishment is permissible.

It is permissible whenever it is just.

It is questionable whether the Church consider it a means of justice at all. The CCC suggests that She does not.

We ought to recognize that this presents a serious problem. CCC 2266 states that the primary objective of (all) punishment is "to redress the disorder caused by the offense" and it ought to be perfectly clear that one cannot redress the disorder caused by a past offense by preventing a future one. In fact that sentence identifies retributive justice as the primary objective of punishment and it is incomprehensible how any punishment could be applied without regard to the question of whether it was just.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It should not be about avenging wrong - not for Christians at least.

One of the worst aspects of CCC 2267 is that it has fostered this belief … which, despite appearances, is quite at odds with what the church teaches. Sin deserves punishment and the State is the avenger of crime. *“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” (Aquinas)

“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium”* (Pius XII)

Being locked up for life is punishment and justice.

It is certainly punishment but it is justice only if the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime and the claim that prison is as severe as execution is certainly debatable.

the death penalty is not a deterrent and not for others from committing the terrible crimes they do.

Every punishment deters some. It is unlikely that the ultimate punishment is the only one that fails to deter any.

… in most countries, justice is administered by the state, not the family of victims.

The church teaches that the individual is forbidden to avenge injustices and the state is obligated to do so.

We should be better that those who commit heinous acts. It should not be an eye for an eye.

Actually this is not exactly correct. We don’t maim people who maim others but in other respects the punishment must fit the crime.* “when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis*;” (St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

what’s a “fox news catholic”?

A right-wing ideologue who is also a Catholic.

 

[Fairwinds]

A right-wing ideologue who is also a Catholic.

we do like our titles.

 

[IrishRush]

Fairwinds -
Has it occurred to you that your discussion would likely be more productive if you didn’t use sarcasm as your main approach in your replies?
I think it’s apparent, and goes without saying, that if someone is against the DP then they would also be even more so against deaths of victims. Your comments inviting “hand waving and Jedi mind tricks” and labeling replies as “strawman arguments” does not advance the debate, it only annoys those who are trying to engage seriously in the discussion.
It seems to me that you entered into and stayed in this discussion only to shoot down every single response that does not agree outright with your own. You don’t seem to consider the other perspective ever. No one is ever 100% right in a discussion of this type because what is being asked for is opinion. There are certain facts that can be introduced but to discuss something with an open mind you must consider the other perspective.
Yes, some gang bangers and some terrorists will order or try to direct attacks from behind bars. But killing everybody to get the rare few who do that seems like an extreme response.
You identify as Catholic so I ask you to consider this:
Genesis 18:23 - 32.
God leads by example here.

 

[Fairwinds]

Fairwinds -
Has it occurred to you that your discussion would likely be more productive if you didn’t use sarcasm as your main approach in your replies?
I think it’s apparent, and goes without saying, that if someone is against the DP then they would also be even more so against deaths of victims.

I’d just like to see one person always opposed to the DP address these very narrow examples. just one time. maybe acknowledge what the FBI study and practical experience shows, that there’s a small group of convicts who cannot be controlled and that criteria fits into the CCC, or take the approach that no matter what the reports and experience shows, the very high, albeit contingent risk of death to innocent victims outside jail is not worth the certain death of a convict by execution. either approach is intellectually honest and morally defensible. what is dishonest are the handwave assertions that these hazards can be fixed because the CCC says the situations are rare. that show that the person is not thinking, only repeating.

Yes, some gang bangers and some terrorists will order or try to direct attacks from behind bars. But killing everybody to get the rare few who do that seems like an extreme response.

(emphasis added)

they actually do and have directed murders. but I didn’t say kill everyone. and am on record elsewhere in this forum as being against the DP for ordinary DP cases. I ask you not to misrepresent my position here.

 

[GoRangers]

I know Church forbids the death penalty, yet I find myself struggling with that teaching.

There have been some pretty terrible attacks in the past year and half. The batman shooting spree, sandy hook, the boston bombing, and now, that poor british soldier.

.

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.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

I think the DP is wrong according to my religious belief.
I think killing is always wrong according to my religious belief.
I think ordering crimes from within prison is also wrong.

Putting people in prison for their wrongs does not make anyone else responsible for their actions.

We should always do what is right before God.

Simple.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Putting people in prison for their wrongs does not make anyone else responsible for their actions.

We should always do what is right before God.

Simple.

so you’re also cool with killings on the the street ordered by convicts whose actions cannot be controlled by prison authorities? because it happens. does God approve?

simple.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Fairwinds.

You know I am not.

I already said killing is always wrong.

Locking someone in prison is one thing and is the right thing to do for some people.

Arranging killings is the wrong thing to do always, whoever arranges it.

You see, it’s simple. Because some of us believe the DP is wrong and people should be locked up instead does not mean we are happy with criminal murders. They are different things completely.

As an analogy:

Do you think children should be locked in their rooms all the time? No. So when they go outside and do something wrong, does that make you responsible for their action? Should you punish yourself instead of them? I know this is a different degree, but its the same principle.

And what if someone is wrongly convicted, killed then its discovered they were innocent as has occasionally happened. Who should go on trial for their murder?

No, Jesus clearly said we should not kill. That means governments AND criminals who arrange things from prison.

Pax vobiscum+

 

[Ender]

I already said killing is always wrong.

That is not what the church teaches.“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

And what if someone is wrongly convicted, killed then its discovered they were innocent as has occasionally happened. Who should go on trial for their murder?

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.On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas)

No, Jesus clearly said we should not kill.

No, he didn’t.At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). (Cardinal Dulles)

That means governments AND criminals who arrange things from prison.

The church has throughout her entire history recognized the right of States to employ capital punishment.It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[Fairwinds]

Fairwinds.

You know I am not.

I already said killing is always wrong.

Locking someone in prison is one thing and is the right thing to do for some people.

Arranging killings is the wrong thing to do always, whoever arranges it.

You see, it’s simple. Because some of us believe the DP is wrong and people should be locked up instead does not mean we are happy with criminal murders. They are different things completely.

As an analogy:

Do you think children should be locked in their rooms all the time? No. So when they go outside and do something wrong, does that make you responsible for their action? Should you punish yourself instead of them? I know this is a different degree, but its the same principle.

And what if someone is wrongly convicted, killed then its discovered they were innocent as has occasionally happened. Who should go on trial for their murder?

No, Jesus clearly said we should not kill. That means governments AND criminals who arrange things from prison.

Pax vobiscum+

the analogy is weak. the DP is a punishment subject to severe limitations by the CCC that have no useful analogy to the punishment of children.

you say: “No, Jesus clearly said we should not kill. That means governments AND criminals who arrange things from prison.”

and the CCC teaches that Jesus means says we have a right of collective self defense that might include, in extreme cases, lethal force. governments and individuals may fight a just war and kill. you might kill an home invader threatening your children. given the undeniable and unpreventable record of continued killing by some DP-eligible convicts, the analogy to just war or defense of others is a closer analogy than punishing children. the CCC carves out a limited exception to a general prohibition.

that woman in AZ who butchered her lover: not DP-eligible under CCC standards because she’s not the kind of convict who will order hits outside prison and confining her will achieve the protection of society.

criminals like that sheikh and the gang bangers ID’d in the FBI report: they **will **continue killing and there is no effective way to prevent this (because of, among other things, constitutional rights, the attorney in the sheikh’s case was already under special administrative procedures and still pass along information to the outside).

if you tell me, as a matter of conscience, that under no circumstances is the DP ethical, then concede that innocent deaths will occur. that would be a moral position that’s fully informed. I disagree with it, but its unassailable.

you haven’t made this argument but its a common anti-DP one, so I’ll address it here. its often said that convicts are denied an opportunity to repent before their execution. its axiomatic that the people murdered by these convicts by order from prison are also denied an opportunity to repent (in cases where this is so).

 

[FrancisBenedict]

Well we have our views andthey differ,that’s all.

Jesus said it in Matthew 19:18.

Anyway Peace! We agree to disagree.

 

[Fairwinds]

Well we have our views andthey differ,that’s all.

Jesus said it in Matthew 19:18.

Anyway Peace! We agree to disagree.

yessir, we shall.

 

[parkerjoe]

Paragraphs from the Catechism on the death penalty: ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=death+penalty&s=SS.

The death penalty is imposed by governments, so it is up to governments to decide if they are warranted or needed. The Church merely urges governments to try other means of punishment before resorting to the death penalty. Unlike abortion or euthanasia, it is not intrinsically evil, but should be avoided whenever posssible.

First came the death penalty, then abortion and now euthinasia. Wher does it stop. Whats so hard to understand the commandment; thou shalt not kill? The death penalty never has and never will relieve the pain and suffering of those that have lost a loved one. Anyone who kills to me is mentally off and needs help and prayers. The anti-christ is very busy on this earth trying to steal souls away from our Lord. Pray for peace of mind of those family’s that have had to deal with this. Remember from the cross Our Dear Lord said; Father forgive them for they no not what they do. God bless everyone.

 

[Fairwinds]

…Anyone who kills to me is mentally off and needs help and prayers. …

you should carefully read the CCC’s teaching on the fifth commandment.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

as your spiritual director for help if necessary.

 

[LongingSoul]

One of the worst aspects of CCC 2267 is that it has fostered this belief … which, despite appearances, is quite at odds with what the church teaches. Sin deserves punishment and the State is the avenger of crime. *“Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” *(Aquinas)

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.

"Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. Accordingly, in the matter of vengeance, we must consider the mind of the avenger. For if his intention is directed chiefly to the evil of the person on whom he takes vengeance and rests there, then his vengeance is altogether unlawful: because to take pleasure in another’s evil belongs to hatred, which is contrary to the charity whereby we are bound to love all men. Nor is it an excuse that he intends the evil of one who has unjustly inflicted evil on him, as neither is a man excused for hating one that hates him: for a man may not sin against another just because the latter has already sinned against him, since this is to be overcome by evil, which was forbidden by the Apostle, who says (Romans 12:21): “Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good.”

If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed."

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.

Now the CCC clearly speaks of Gods ‘mind’ in 2259 – 62 and clearly speaks for mans ‘mind’ in 2267. It’s clearly an important distinction to make for us, knowing the penchant of man for blood lust. Even the best of us are prone to immorally vengeful thoughts against those who’ve done us wrong.
Ender;10789448:

We should be better that those who commit heinous acts. It should not be an eye for an eye.

Actually this is not exactly correct. We don’t maim people who maim others but in other respects the punishment must fit the crime.* “when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis*;” (St. Bellarmine)

St Bellarmine here explains that Jesus isn’t retracting the right and duty of public authority to ‘punish’ sinners according to their crime. He is addressing the ‘perverse interpretation of the Pharisees’ and the tendency in private citizens to desire and seek vengeance.

Now in Jesus time and even more so today, ‘public authority’ isn’t established by prophecy and visions and angels. Leaders are not appointed directly by God as had been the case with the Chosen people. Public authority is a product of the common good. We the people appoint elected bodies to represent our desires and attitudes in the interests of that common good.

I’m assuming that the Pharisees, (knowing as we do, their lack of humility) were feeling a bit like God on earth, in their attitude to punishment. 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.

It makes sense that, while God directly appointed a leader, He would directly speak through that leader but 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. 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.

​

 

[parkerjoe]

My understanding of a correct translation of the Jewish commandment is “Thou shalt not kill an innocent person”.

That changes the complexion of the discussion. Simplistic phrases do not result in cogent answers (and I am not saying you are simplistic; only that the translation you quote is).

Does anyone really agree that everyone in this country has a fair trial? People with money get off. They have executed innocent people. Now who becomes the murderer? I can hear the shouts now at our Lord; crucify him!!! God gives us many crosses to bear, pray hard and He will see you through it. God Bless

 

[Fairwinds]

…I can hear the shouts now at our Lord; crucify him!!! …

how do you manage that?