What exactly does ProLife mean?

[estesbob]

Not for countries like ours, with the ability to deter criminals from committing further crimes by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole…which by the way, turns out to be a fraction of the cost of executing someone!

No other ‘Christian’ country allows the Death Penalty…

You are preaching to the choir HOWEVER the Church allows for the death penalty-always has. The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and the Church has made it clear that a catholic can, in good conscience support it.

 

[Sunflower15]

What about the prisoners that continue to kill and commit other crimes from/in prison? Is it not a crime to kill prison guards or other prisoners, too? We must protect those human lives as well, not just us on the outside. People seem to think that throwing a murderer in jail for the rest of his life is guaranteed to keep that person from murdering more people. This is simply not so.

I am not sure how they can kill from the prison. I haven’t heard of this. However, if this is a problem, a solution must be found within the system. I have read extensively on wardens commenting on the lack of results of the death penalty as a determent from further violence [from others], and none have mentioned that there is a problem with the maximum security prisoner committing further crimes themselves.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

2267 If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Notice that the criminal retains the ‘dignity of the human person’ even when under the influence of evil [for whatever reason, including chemical dependencies, mental imbalances, or plain possession, if you want to go there].

 

[Sunflower15]

You are preaching to the choir HOWEVER the Church allows for the death penalty-always has. The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil and the Church has made it clear that a catholic can, in good conscience support it.

Sure! Provided you don’t do it in the US nor in any other country with the means to constrain the aggressor…

You are free to kill in self defense or to defend another in a jungle somewhere, as needed…

 

[4everjustjesus]

That is how I understand the Church’s teachings too! Not to speak of Jesus’ mercy!

If I remember correctly, JPII was AGAINST the death penalty EXCEPT in extreme circumstances. Something like if the person lives, will it be dangerous to other individuals (then death penalty is accepted… something like that). If there’s another option (life term in prison…idk) than use it. I’m actually not sure

 

[estesbob]

Sure! Provided you don’t do it in the US nor in any other country with the means to constrain the aggressor…

You are free to kill in self defense or to defend another in a jungle somewhere, as needed…

I am afraid it is not as cut n dried as you would like it to be. As Cardinal Ratzinger said:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty

Accordingly you and I may very well feel that the death penalty is always inapropriate in the US BUT we can not try and pass that off as church teaching.

 

[Sunflower15]

I am afraid it is not as cut n dried as you would like it to be. As Cardinal Ratzinger said:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty

Accordingly you and I may very well feel that the death penalty is always inapropriate in the US BUT we can not try and pass that off as church teaching.

I sincerely, honestly don’t understand why?

Is it not clear that the Catechism [not to mention the last few Popes, the commandments, Jesus entire ministry of forgiveness, statements by the US Bishops, etc] explicitly explains that in most circumstances nowadays [due to the possibility of restraint] there is virtually no need for the death penalty.

To quote the Catechism on this part:

2267…’Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender as an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."’

To insist that the Church does not teach against capital punishment [with the exception of absolute necessity to restrain offender, NOT as punishment nor justice, and this as an allowance, not as a mandate] is plain intellectual dishonesty.

Why are YOU against capital punishment then? Is it just personal preference? I’m not sure that I would personally prefer that position if it were not part of the Christian view [as well as the Church’s].

 

[estesbob]

I sincerely, honestly don’t understand why?

Is it not clear that the Catechism [not to mention the last few Popes, the commandments, Jesus entire ministry of forgiveness, statements by the US Bishops, etc] explicitly explains that in most circumstances nowadays [due to the possibility of restraint] there is virtually no need for the death penalty.

To quote the Catechism on this part:

2267…’Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender as an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."’

To insist that the Church does not teach against capital punishment [with the exception of absolute necessity to restrain offender, NOT as punishment nor justice, and this as an allowance, not as a mandate] is plain intellectual dishonesty.

Why are YOU against capital punishment then? Is it just personal preference? I’m not sure that I would personally prefer that position if it were not part of the Christian view [as well as the Church’s].

Yet you yourself acknowledge, no matter how you try to parse it, that the Church does not teach against Captial Punishment.

I came to oppose captial Punishnment during the time I counseled at a Crisis Pregnancy Center. I acknoldege, however, that this is an area that catholics can, ,in good conscience, disagree on. I also know from my work in the minsitry that one can be totally supportive of captial ounishment and be pro-life. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Sunflower15]

Yet you yourself acknowledge, no matter how you try to parse it, that the Church does not teach against Captial Punishment.
Yes, it does…so did Jesus…so did the Father in Genesis 4:14-16. I guess so does the Holy Spirit in my heart.

I came to oppose captial Punishnment during the time I counseled at a Crisis Pregnancy Center.

Working with crisis pregnancies made you think about capital punishment? How so?

I acknoldege, however, that this is an area that catholics can, ,in good conscience, disagree on. I also know from my work in the minsitry that one can be totally supportive of captial ounishment and be pro-life. One has nothing to do with the other.

On the contrary, the Sanctity of Life has everything to do with the Sanctity of Life!

 

[JimG]

There is no problem with the Church’s position on the death penalty, which can be summarized something like this:

The death penalty is allowable if needed to protect society, but should not be used when the means exist to protect society in other ways–i.e., by permanent incarceration.

The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice.

In practice, only a tiny number of convicted murderers receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In most jurisdictions, a “life” sentence means that a person will be eligible for parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has come up for parole hearings many times. The protection of society rests entirely on the judgment of some parole board, and quite often, they get it wrong, releasing “life sentence” inmates who go on to kill again.

I’ve seen an instance where a convicted multiple murderer received four life sentences, to be served consecutively! That convict, who has shown no remorse, has so far come up for parole four times, and will continue to come up before the parole board on a periodic basis.

So the doctrine of the non-necessity for the death penalty to protect society is only as good as its application in practice. (I might add, that the family of one of the victims continues to make the trek to the hearing every time, to testify against release–something which ought not to be necessary, in view of the fact that the convict is supposed to be serving four life sentences.)

 

[Sunflower15]

There is no problem with the Church’s position on the death penalty, which can be summarized something like this:

The death penalty is allowable if needed to protect society, but should not be used when the means exist to protect society in other ways–i.e., by permanent incarceration.

The problem lies not in the theory but in the practice.

In practice, only a tiny number of convicted murderers receive a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

In most jurisdictions, a “life” sentence means that a person will be eligible for parole after a certain number of years. Charles Manson has come up for parole hearings many times. The protection of society rests entirely on the judgment of some parole board, and quite often, they get it wrong, releasing “life sentence” inmates who go on to kill again.

I’ve seen an instance where a convicted multiple murderer received four life sentences, to be served consecutively! That convict, who has shown no remorse, has so far come up for parole four times, and will continue to come up before the parole board on a periodic basis.

So the doctrine of the non-necessity for the death penalty to protect society is only as good as its application in practice. (I might add, that the family of one of the victims continues to make the trek to the hearing every time, to testify against release–something which ought not to be necessary, in view of the fact that the convict is supposed to be serving four life sentences.)

Now, THAT is crazy!
The system obviously needs some ‘fine-tuning’. However, that does not mean that because in some jurisdictions things are done without rationality, that the death penalty would solve this problem.

We currently also have the problem of executing innocent people, as well as of incarcerating for decades on Death Row people who are later exonerated due to DNA testing proving their innocence [after decades!] but at least they are alive and can go back to their families.

 

[JimG]

Now, THAT is crazy!
The system obviously needs some ‘fine-tuning’. However, that does not mean that because in some jurisdictions things are done without rationality, that the death penalty would solve this problem.

We currently also have the problem of executing innocent people, as well as of incarcerating for decades on Death Row people who are later exonerated due to DNA testing proving their innocence [after decades!] but at least they are alive and can go back to their families.

Well, it’s not so much that it is crazy–although it is–but that it’s the law. Once sentence is passed, of however many years, near total control of the convict goes to the Department of Corrections, who apply the law as it relates to parole.

Sometimes, prosecutors don’t seek a life without parole conviction even when it is allowed, because it may be easier to convict on a lesser charge, or to plea bargain to a lesser charge. (And if it wasn’t for plea bargains, the justice system would simply grind to a halt.)

Putting people unnecessarily to death is not the answer, I agree. (And in some cases, a death penalty is actually a sort of double penalty–the person convicted spends ten to twenty years in prison before ever being executed. It’s as though they received a 20 year sentence to be followed by execution.

So I would prefer a life sentence for dangerous criminals, provided that it can be enforced. But at present, such a sentence is actually a rarity.

 

[Sunflower15]

Well, it’s not so much that it is crazy–although it is–but that it’s the law. Once sentence is passed, of however many years, near total control of the convict goes to the Department of Corrections, who apply the law as it relates to parole.

Sometimes, prosecutors don’t seek a life without parole conviction even when it is allowed, because it may be easier to convict on a lesser charge, or to plea bargain to a lesser charge. (And if it wasn’t for plea bargains, the justice system would simply grind to a halt.)

Putting people unnecessarily to death is not the answer, I agree. (And in some cases, a death penalty is actually a sort of double penalty–the person convicted spends ten to twenty years in prison before ever being executed. It’s as though they received a 20 year sentence to be followed by execution.

So I would prefer a life sentence for dangerous criminals, provided that it can be enforced. But at present, such a sentence is actually a rarity.

How come you know so much about this? Are you a lawyer?
This is interesting…
So, why would they not seek life without parole again? If the case is strong, then that makes no sense to me. If the case isn’t strong, then it’s good because may we have the wrong person!

I could not believe how many exonerations we have had, and thanks God that they were alive and could go back to their families even if they spend decades on Death Row!

According the the Innocence Project there have been 241 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States…that means 241 individuals [and their families] …

 

[CWBetts]

it does not include the death penalty

It most certainly DOES include the death penalty. No matter how guilty someone seems, they are still made in the image and likeness of God. Their life still has value and dignity. To think that the death penalty is supported by the teachings of the Church is simply wrong. Though exceptions can be made, it is generally unnecessary. Above all, the death penalty robs a man, the greatest of God’s creations, from any chance at repentance and reconciliation with his Creator and Savior. All life is sacred. All people were made in the image and likeness of God. It is not for us to decide that a certain segment of the population (in this case, criminals) are somehow less than human.

 

[Sunflower15]

It most certainly DOES include the death penalty. No matter how guilty someone seems, they are still made in the image and likeness of God. Their life still has value and dignity.
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
At no point does the image and likeness of God leave the criminal any more than it left Cain…[read Gen 4]

To think that the death penalty is supported by the teachings of the Church is simply wrong. Though exceptions can be made, it is generally unnecessary. Above all, the death penalty robs a man, the greatest of God’s creations, from any chance at repentance and reconciliation with his Creator and Savior. All life is sacred. All people were made in the image and likeness of God. It is not for us to decide that a certain segment of the population (in this case, criminals) are somehow less than human.

Alessandro Serenelli is a prime example of this! For the glory of God!

http://www.mariagoretti.org/alessandrobio.htm

 

[JimG]

How come you know so much about this? Are you a lawyer?
This is interesting…

No, I’m not a lawyer. If I were, perhaps I could give a better answer as to why prosecutors may or may not seek life without parole sentences. But prosecutors do evaluate carefully just what charges they will bring, based not just on the severity of the crime, but based on whether and what type of conviction is obtainable in court. If a higher charge is less provable but is likely to elicit a plea bargain to a lesser charge, they may be take that route.

This article indicates that 9.5% of all inmates are serving life sentences, and that 29% of those serving life sentences have no possibility of parole

In Kansas there is actually a “hard 50” sentence, which is pretty close to a life sentence, being 50 years without parole. But it’s rarely used.

The prisons are already way overcrowded because of ‘tough on crime’ laws and such things as ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ laws, which can result in ridiculously long sentences for relatively minor crimes. Plus, there is less emphasis on rehabilitation now.

I know a little old lady who makes prison visits as part of our parish prison ministry. Now, that’s a good way to meet the evangelical counsel of “when I was in prison you visited me,” but so far it’s been something I’ve been unwilling to try.

 

[Harrison]

2267 If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Notice that the criminal retains the ‘dignity of the human person’ even when under the influence of evil [for whatever reason, including chemical dependencies, mental imbalances, or plain possession, if you want to go there].

No prison system is perfect. If a prisoner continues to kill or the safety of others (in prison or out) is in jeopardy, the state has the authority (and maybe even the duty) to execute them. Plain and simple. Cut and dry. Etc., etc.

 

[CWBetts]

No prison system is perfect. If a prisoner continues to kill or the safety of others (in prison or out) is in jeopardy, the state has the authority (and maybe even the duty) to execute them. Plain and simple. Cut and dry. Etc., etc.

Nothing is as simple as it appears. What you point out is the exception, not the rule. The rule is that only God may decide if someone is worthy of death. Only God has the authority to destroy His creation under normal circumstances. In addition, who has the authority to determine to what degree safety is endangered, before the state-sanction murder of murderers is applied. Too often the death penalty is used as a form of vengeance. Maybe we should all take a step back and try to view life as we should, which is anything but disposable.

 

[Sunflower15]

…

I know a little old lady who makes prison visits as part of our parish prison ministry. Now, that’s a good way to meet the evangelical counsel of “when I was in prison you visited me,” but so far it’s been something I’ve been unwilling to try.

Have you considered writing to them? Maybe just cards on special occasions, Easter, Christmas, etc.
I began writing to someone on Death Row [who I believe was wrongfully convicted] and am considering for this Thanksgiving and Christmas to do a ‘mass mailing’ of cards to comfort them…as the in the works of mercy…

 

[Sunflower15]

No prison system is perfect. If a prisoner continues to kill or the safety of others (in prison or out) is in jeopardy, the state has the authority (and maybe even the duty) to execute them. Plain and simple. Cut and dry. Etc., etc.

**Another problem we have is the inordinate number of wrongfully convicted prisoners, even on Death Row. Did you know the US has exonerated over 240 prisoners who were innocent of the crimes for which they served decades on Death Row, and for which they were almost executed? Those executions would place all of us into the ‘criminal’ category…[killing innocent people]

Besides, we simply cannot afford the death penalty…is way too costly, several times more so than keeping them alive and feeding them until natural death!
**

 

[ProVobis]

Be careful, though, of the politician who claims to be anti-abortion except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother, which many of them such claim. A baby is a baby, no matter how it was conceived.