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?We’re not talking about all convicted felons generally. The bishops are talking about a comparison of those given a life sentence compared to those given a death sentence.
How many people who were sentenced to life in prison have escaped and murdered someone in the past, oh, 25 years? Compare that to the number of people who were wrongly executed.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 don’t consider the state killing somebody in cold blood to be justice. I think what you are talking about is revenge or retribution.The primary interest of the state ought to be justice, and that objective will not change over time. Capital punishment has always been accepted as a just punishment for certain heinous crimes like murder. So, if justice is the primary objective, and the death penalty is a just punishment then it’s hard to see what the objection is.
“ought to” - according to who? The Church teaches differently. It teaches that the primary interest of penal sanctions are “rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal”.The primary interest of the state ought to be justice,
That may be. But has justice always been the primary motivation for using capital punishment, or has capital punishment simply historically been one of two just options? The other option being mercy, which seems to be the Church’s current approach.Capital punishment has always been accepted as a just punishment for certain heinous crimes like murder.
I too don’t understand why people hold on to the death penalty, when innocent people have been executed and the church is trying to help us comprehend the true meaning of the word mercy. The death penalty was always a problem for me, when Pope Francis spoke against it, I was one of the few that felt relief. My priest involved in prison ministry also spoke about it in his sermon.I am not sure why you are so keen on finding faults with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. Is it because you are just really keen on the state having the right to kill people in cold blood or is it because you don’t approve of Pope Francis and this is a way of showing up what you think are his faults? Or possibly both?
I don’t either. Also, USA is not the only country with death penalty. There are countries people are still being stoned to death for adultery, executed for being gay, for carrying drugs or for having different political ideas. The church has to look out for everyone.I don’t consider the state killing somebody in cold blood to be justice. I think what you
No it’s not. One of the reasons given against the death penalty is that it is not necessary in a modern society that has the means (prison) to protect itself. That is not the case as in instances of prison escapes where murder is committed.Those are two very different issues. Are we still an eye for an eye? I believe not. But if you support the death penalty, I would like to know how you feel about innocent people executed.
Then, as I said, there is no moral objection to its use.Their principles were correct.
The primary objective of all punishment is retributive justice, not protection or deterrence. We can accept punishments that don’t deter and don’t protect, but will not accept a punishment that is unjust.The validity of the death penalty rests on two features: the need to protect future victims by deterring other criminals and the presumption that this punishment will be meted out fairly.
To believe that all punishments provide some deterrence except the most severe is a matter of faith, not fact. The evidence is decidedly mixed on this point, but again, while deterrence is a valid objective of punishment it is not primary.… we have evidence to the contrary. It does not serve as a deterrent compared to sentences of life in prison.
That argument might have been valid two years ago, but it isn’t now. It doesn’t matter if the prisoner is a threat to society, according to the current interpretation of Francis’ change, capital punishment is a violation of man’s dignity and is “inadmissible.” No exceptions.I can think of only one case in which the death penalty would be legitimate: the prisoner who is so dangerous to others that other people cannot be protected from a mortal threat…
OK, and that’s a prudential judgment they are entitled to make. It is not, however, condemnation on moral grounds.Otherwise, however, the bishops have come to the conclusion that the evidence does not support the previous premise that the conditions necessary to warrant the death penalty exist.
No, the church’s position was based on scripture, not “concrete facts”.They are saying that the Church now has the evidence necessary to decide based on concrete facts rather than having to rely on theory or isolated anecdotes, which was all the Church had to go on in the past.
They might have implied that it is intrinsically evil, but they cannot assert it because it cannot be true. As you said, something cannot go from licit to illicit. If it was intrinsically evil then the church would have taught evil as good for 2000 years. Worse, God would have commanded the Israelites to commit evil inasmuch as he commanded the death penalty for any number of sins.Maybe it is my fault but I read their statements saying it is intrinsically evil
What is more, according to the Apostle Paul, God knows his own (2 Timothy 2.19), and it is impossible for any of them to perish by the whirlwinds and floods of any error, scandal, schism, persecution, heresy, tribulation, adversity or temptation, for he has foreseen from eternity and unchangeably the number of his elect and the extent of their merits in such a way that everything good and bad, what is theirs and not theirs, prosperity and adversity, all work together for them for good, except indeed that they appear even more glorious and commendable in adversity. (St Albertus Magnus)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.
This is completely irrelevant. Either execution violates man’s dignity or it doesn’t, and if it does then nomadic tribes have no more right to its use than modern societies.As for the regulations of Genesis, remember that life in prison isn’t possible for a people who live a nomadic herdsman lifestyle with no connection to an agricultural society that can run a prison.
No, I’m saying your understanding of what is being taught is flawed.Are you saying you do not believe the bishops teaching in concert with the Pope are competent to teach morals? This is a rather serious charge, friend. Just because you don’t accept their interpretation hardly means that their teaching is “not supportable.”
You might not consider it to be justice, but it is clear this is what the church has always taught.I don’t consider the state killing somebody in cold blood to be justice.
Given that retribution is in fact the primary objective of all punishment, that would be true. As for vengeance, Aquinas defined it as “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” Given that God himself said “vengeance is mine” perhaps we should view it a little more circumspectly.I think what you are talking about is revenge or retribution.
2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.“ought to” - according to who? The Church teaches differently. It teaches that the primary interest of penal sanctions are “rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal”.
The argument from mercy doesn’t really work that well. First, to argue that a life sentence is the merciful punishment is to admit that death is the just punishment, otherwise not executing a person would be the just punishment, not the merciful one. Second, mercy, even God’s mercy, is not universal - not everyone receives it. His mercy requires repentance, so what is the argument against applying the just punishment (death) in those cases where mercy is not appropriate?An eye for an eye is just. But is it merciful?
The argument that innocent people are routinely executed is quite overblown, and no, I don’t know it has happened and neither do you. Even those websites most opposed to capital punishment have only a short list of individuals whose improper execution can be realistically argued. Since 1973 this at worst would be one every five years or so (but as I said, none of them have actually been confirmed.)All those in favour of the death penalty, how can you compensate the family of innocent people that were executed? You do know that has happened?
…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. (St. Bellarmine)Are we still an eye for an eye? I believe not.
Really? I believe you are wrong. Innocent people. have been executed. Retribution? There seems to be a justification for everything. Perhaps because the death penalty does not exist in my country I can understand that it is not needed. I hope one day it becomes a thing of the past for every nation.The argument that innocent people are routinely executed is quite overblown, and no, I don’t know it has happened and neither do you. Even those websites most opposed to capital punishment have only a short list of individuals whose improper execution can be realistically argued. Since 1973 this at worst would be one every five years or so (but as I said, none of them have actually been confirmed.)