We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[phaster]

do_justly_love_mercy:

. I find it quite chilling that somebody would think that it is ever the place of the government to kill.

That is exactly my feeling. It perturbs me existing options the way people hold on to the death penalty.

the discussion in this thread reminds me of an episode of the west wing

"The West Wing" Take This Sabbath Day (TV Episode 2000) - IMDb

which culminates in a thought provoking scene w/ a catholic priest

 

[Patri]

the discussion in this thread reminds me of an episode of the west wing

Have not watched that series yet. Is it good?

 

[Rau]

Have not watched that series yet.

…

 

[phaster]

phaster:

the discussion in this thread reminds me of an episode of the west wing

Have not watched that series yet. Is it good?

what I liked about the WestWing TV series is it showed how things might work in a White House setting (and told a compelling story based on real life laws/policies/etc.)

using google, found the WestWing episode that I was reminded about that deals w/ the capital punishment issue

www.dailymotion.com/video/x5spbpz

 

[Patri]

Is that a yes?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is exactly what Dulles said, except he said “retribution” instead of “redress the disorder”. Those are the synonymous terms.

Given the USCCB’s use of the word restoration in their document from 2000, and then expounding on what the difference is between retribution and restoration in the same document, it makes clear that the term “redressing the disorder” isn’t necessarily limited to what some would refer to as retribution.

Given the fact that a truly just retribution is never possible in this life, any punishment which seeks a correction of what was taken will come up short at best, and come up empty most of the time. What then is the point of having “retribution” as the primary aim of “redressing the disorder”. It’s clear that any disorder that’s been caused by a crime should be corrected as much as possible, but the most practical way to correct it is through restoration as the USCCB have described it. And furthermore, the rehabilitation of a criminal should be the first consideration of any sanction given that restitution for any crime is unlikely to take place at all, but restitution should be made if it is possible.

So there is no conflict in the CCC. “Redressing the disorder” isn’t limited to the victims of the crime but refers to society as a whole. That is how to read the CCC in light of the change.

 

[Ender]

Given the USCCB’s use of the word restoration in their document from 2000, and then expounding on what the difference is between retribution and restoration in the same document, it makes clear that the term “redressing the disorder” isn’t necessarily limited to what some would refer to as retribution.

If you would cite the actual passage they wrote, and the document it’s from, I’ll address this. I’m really having trouble with the idea that the bishops have some meaning for “redressing the disorder” other than retribution. I’d like to see what they actually said.

Given the fact that a truly just retribution is never possible in this life, any punishment which seeks a correction of what was taken will come up short at best, and come up empty most of the time.

Retribution is a matter of justice; to disparage it is to disparage justice itself, nor does the fact that we cannot fully restore what was damaged suggest that we are released from our obligation to try.

What then is the point of having “retribution” as the primary aim of “redressing the disorder”.

This is like asking what is the point of justice.

“Redressing the disorder” isn’t limited to the victims of the crime but refers to society as a whole.

Yes, and not just to society but to God as well. All three orders of justice have been disturbed and retribution must be made to all.

Now each of these orders is disturbed by sin, for the sinner acts against his reason, and against human and Divine law. Wherefore he incurs a threefold punishment; one, inflicted by himself, viz. remorse of conscience; another, inflicted by man; and a third, inflicted by God. (Aquinas ST I-II 87, 1)

 

[blackforest]

I’m speaking of the number of instances where convicted felons escape and go on to murder civilians and police.

I’m not sure what you are referring to. One of the reasons stated for getting rid of the death penalty is that society has the means to protect itself. But what happens when it fails to do that, as in the instances of prison escapes where civilians and law enforcement personal are murdered?

I’m coming in late, but I can’t fathom a moral case for what is essentially the death penalty for potential security oversights and/or staff negligence.

 

[mythbuster1]

I don’t oppose the death penalty in principle, but I do oppose lethal injection in principle because it is a perversion of medicine. As to other forms of execution, I’ll obey the Pope in seeking a moratorium, but I will not run afoul of Scripture and Tradition by condemning the death penalty absolutely.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I don’t oppose the death penalty in principle, but I do oppose lethal injection in principle because it is a perversion of medicine. As to other forms of execution, I’ll obey the Pope in seeking a moratorium, but I will not run afoul of Scripture and Tradition by condemning the death penalty absolutely.

Aquinas addressed circumstances where we are commanded to forbear from using the death penalty.

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good,” (Summa Theologica)

If society is moved to abolish the death penalty as doing more harm than good, there is no Catholic argument to resist that.

 

[otjm]

Actually, extending the period that the murderer will have to come to repent and amend their lives and turn to the Gospel is one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty.

To which Samuel Johnson said: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

There certainly have been individuals executed who appear to have been reconciled to God; and just as they reconciled, there have been those executed who outwardly gave no appearance to reconciliation.

The Church appears to have spoken definitively; but society appears to be less convinced; and until society is convinced, executions will continue. There appears to be a gradual turn against the death penalty nationwide, likely with exceptions state by state. It would not surprise me to see a gradual change, possibly excepting mass killers such as Stephen Paddock (although he and a number of other such killers have committed suicide, thus vitiating any such change. It will be up to voters in each state to effect a change; and on the Federal level, up to Congress.

As an aside, you made a comment about isolating the most dangerous convict. Two individuals sentenced to death in Oregon requested that their appeals stop and their executions move forward; Douglas Wright and Harry Moore were both executed. The third prisoner was a convicted killer sentenced to life, who then killed an inmate and was subsequently sentenced to be executed. Governor Kitzhaber granted him a reprieve as long as Kitzhaber was governor. That was Gary Haugen. Governor Brown has continued the reprieve.

It appears that in death penalty cases, approximately 11% of inmates stop their appeals and proceed to execution; it has been dubbed in some circles “suicide by execution”.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If you would cite the actual passage they wrote, and the document it’s from, I’ll address this. I’m really having trouble with the idea that the bishops have some meaning for “redressing the disorder” other than retribution.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice (Nov. 2000)

Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.

An increasingly widespread and positive development in many communities is often referred to as restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses first on the victim and the community harmed by the crime, rather than on the dominant state-against-the-perpetrator model. This shift in focus affirms the hurt and loss of the victim, as well as the harm and fear of the community, and insists that offenders come to grips with the consequences of their actions.

Restorative justice also reflects our values and tradition. Our faith calls us to hold people accountable, to forgive, and to heal. Focusing primarily on the legal infraction without a recognition of the human damage does not advance our values.

these programs offer victims or their families the opportunity to share the harm done to their lives and property, and provide a place for the offender to face the victim, admit responsibility, acknowledge harm, and agree to restitution.

Punishment must have a purpose. It must be coupled with treatment and, when possible, restitution.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm#policy

 

[Hodos]

That’s quite a misuse of the parable of the wheat and tares which speaks of why judgment day is not come upon us yet, given that Paul and Peter both provide justifications for the states use of the sword to punish law breakers. Clearly the apostles didn’t make the same innovation of that passage as you just made.

Again, God himself instituted the death penalty.

 

[PetraG]

I have heard it the other way in regards to when someone is faced with imminent death they often start to question and seek how to make things right with god.

To which Samuel Johnson said: “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.”

In the instance I am thinking of, an inmate waived his appeals to the death sentence and lobbied to have the governor’s stay on his execution waived. He was guilty and he just wanted to be put to death.
He lost.
He was later baptized and Archbishop Sample came to the prison to confirm him.

'God loves you,' archbishop tells death-row inmates as he confirms them - The Catholic Sun

Was that man’s soul not worth the wait?

The priests and others who actually know people on death row and who do prison ministry are against the death penalty. There are reasons for that. It is because they know these people who have committed these terrible crimes.

Again, God himself instituted the death penalty.

God himself became a Man to bring mercy into this world, too.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”

Why the big hurry to put people to death? Where does this impatient impulse come from?

 

[Hodos]

God himself became a Man to bring mercy into this world, too.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.”

Agree, and yet Jesus never did away with the law or with the agencies on earth that that seek to restrain the evils of sin in the world by enforcing the law on those who would violate it. In fact, Jesus upheld them, “Render to Caesar the things that are caesars…” Both Paul and Peter did so as well in the their writings.

Why the big hurry to put people to death? Where does this impatient impulse come from?

I am in no hurry to execute the death penalty, but to make doctrinal clarification when someone such as yourself collapses the distinction between law and gospel, and the rightful use of each in the appropriate context. Both law and gospel originate from God, and both are upheld in their respective realms. We are made right before God through faith in the gospel. However, the world is still in sin and still needs the law and the penalties it uses to curb the evils of a sinful humankind. Believe it or not, someone can be subject to the righteous penalty of the law for sin, and still be saved by the gospel.

 

[PetraG]

I am in no hurry to execute the death penalty, but to make doctrinal clarification when someone such as yourself collapses the distinction between law and gospel, and the rightful use of each in the appropriate context. Both law and gospel originate from God, and both are upheld in their respective realms. We are made right before God through faith in the gospel. However, the world is still in sin and still needs the law and the penalties it uses to curb the evils of a sinful humankind. Believe it or not, someone can be subject to the righteous penalty of the law for sin, and still be saved by the gospel.

True, in theory. The evidence, however, says that lesser penalties are (a) now available and (b) achieve the same end.

The bishops, including the Popes, have been saying this for some time. The problem is that as long as they have conceded that the death penalty is possibly acceptable in theory, their objection that this theoretical situation does not currently exist was blithely ignored.

This is why THEY made the doctrinal clarification that the circumstances that would warrant state-sponsored executions do not currently exist.

Ask Gary Haugen if he’d have been saved by the Gospel if he had been granted his wish to be executed. The man was suicidal. Sure, he might have had the opportunity for salutory repentance. Nevertheless, he was not guaranteed that. (We don’t teach pre-destination.)

Agree, and yet Jesus never did away with the law or with the agencies on earth that that seek to restrain the evils of sin in the world by enforcing the law on those who would violate it. In fact, Jesus upheld them “Render to Caesar the things that are caesars…”

He weighed in on two death penalty cases that I am aware of. In the first, He told the death penalty advocates that the one of them without sin ought to cast the first stone. When they drifted off one by one, he told the accused that he did not condemn her and that she ought to sin no more. In the second, he told someone who admitted to deserving the death penalty that he would be with the Lord in Paradise that day. There is no reason to believe that any one of us will ever be found wanting before the Throne of Judgment for failing, in our circumstances, to give someone the death penalty.

 

[Hodos]

True, in theory. The evidence, however, says that lesser penalties are (a) now available and (b) achieve the same end.

This is debatable for a number of reasons. First, the rate of recidivism for violent criminals is extremely high, so the effectiveness of lesser penalties is doubtful. Also, the death penalty is only carried out in an extraordinarily small percentage of cases where capital punishment is available for sentencing purposes (less than 3%). The assertion that you made that lesser penalties are more effective isn’t born out by available evidence.

That being said, I have no issues with procedural fixes with regard to rules of evidence, limiting the death penalty to specific crimes or evidential minimums, and with regard to appeals processes so that the process is carried out as evenly as possible. Arguments on these types of grounds are fruitful for debate. However, blanket statements that the death penalty is impermissible is an innovation from the historic position of the Church and scripture throughout all time.

However, given that God instituted the death penalty at a time when even less restrictions were in place, and less scientific methods were available for evaluating forensic evidence leading to conviction demonstrates the opposite of the point that you are appealing to. In other words, the crime of murder is SO egregious that even given the limitations of the time in which he instituted it, God still required it in the case of murder.

He weighed in on two death penalty cases that I am aware of. In the first, He told the death penalty advocates that the one of them without sin ought to cast the first stone.

This is an extremely poor example given that the pericope adulterae has extremely spurious evidence for being authentic to the Gospel of John in the first place. With regard to the criminal on the cross in Luke, yeah, Christ assured the man he would be in paradise that day. Christ however did not say that the penalty for his crime was unjust. This example actually supports my position, that we should not collapse the distinction of law and gospel (both are equally applicable in this world), not yours.

 

[PetraG]

This is an extremely poor example given that the pericope adulterae has extremely spurious evidence for being authentic to the Gospel of John in the first place.

OK, so now the plain sense of the Gospels isn’t reliable?

I give up.

 

[Hodos]

OK, so now the plain sense of the Gospels isn’t reliable?

No, I am saying that the pericopae adulterae didn’t appear in the Greek texts originally, and were likely added to the Latin texts sometime in the 300s after the original circulation of the gospel of John. From a textual critical standpoint, the pericopae adulterae of is doubtful authenticity.

 

[PetraG]

No, I am saying that the pericopae adulterae didn’t appear in the Greek texts originally, and were likely added to the Latin texts at least four hundred years after the original circulation of the gospel of John. From a textual critical standpoint, the pericopae adulterae of is doubtful authenticity.

https://jimmyakin.com/2006/08/the_woman_caugh.html
"…the pericope adulterae–by being included in the Vulgate–does not contain errors of faith or morals when properly understood.

And so those would be the two points that–in the absence of a current, binding statement from the Magisterium on the authenticity of the passage–one would naturally conclude regarding it: Critical scholarship must determine whether the passage was in the originals but, even if it was not, the passage does not contain errors of faith or morals when understood in a Catholic sense and so it may safely be appealed to as a passage from which Christians may learn."