When is the death penalty justified?

[vern_humphrey]

I equate them on the same level…murder and execution.

Then whenever a Corrections Officer, a police officer, a judge, a prosecutor, or a member of their families are killed, you must accept that you are guilty of those murders – because you failed to protect them.

My reasoning? Here’s an example…In firing squads for example…when one is being put to death, or has been put to death…they have 6 or 8 men fire at the criminal, so as no one shooter feels that his bullet was the mortally wounding one.

I recommend you read the Army manual on the subject – multiple shooters are used to ensure at least one bullet kills the condemned man cleanly.

Hmmmm…it’s funny, but one can see that even a prison system…has a conscience. Albeit, a little too late.

You’ve never been in a prison, but you pass judgement on those who work there every day. That’s not very Christian of you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have a brother in law, and sister in law who work in prisons…and in juvenile homes. They tell me first hand of the horrors of that life. They do say …that the guards are not that far from being behind the bars themselves, in some cases.

Why is it that people with no experience or background in subjects like this are always able to suddenly claim they have “a brother in law, and sister in law” with that expertise – but are unable to get those people to come on this forum and speak for themselves?

 

[jmcrae]

Huh?

You give the death penalty for murder, not for blackmail

You minimize the blackmail potential by making it fatal to the inmate if he kills someone.

So, you’re thinking that these guys, who you have already described as being voraciously and violently insane, are going to reason to themselves, “Oh, if I kill that guy, I will get the death penalty.” But they have already ended up in prison, because they didn’t reason that “if I do this, I will go to prison,” - because the sort of guys you are talking about don’t reason. They either consider themselves too intelligent to get caught, or else they really just don’t care - they wrote themselves off years ago, and they’re so angry that they just want to take as many people down with them as they can.

It also seems strange to me that we have to allow them to plot murder because that’s their human right - but then we should be allowed to kill them if they actually carry it through?

So, total freedom, and then death. Nothing in between. No work program, no education or rehabilitation, no restrictions on who they can see and talk to, no restrictions on what can be brought to them by outsiders - but then, BAM, as soon as they kill someone (which seems five minutes too late, to my way of thinking) then, we get to kill them.

But we’re not allowed to do anything beforehand actually to prevent the guy from having the ability to murder someone.

That seems completely daffy, to me.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So, you’re thinking that these guys, who you have already described as being voraciously and violently insane, are going to reason to themselves, “Oh, if I kill that guy, I will get the death penalty.” But they have already ended up in prison, because they didn’t reason that “if I do this, I will go to prison,” - because the sort of guys you are talking about don’t reason. They either consider themselves too intelligent to get caught, or else they really just don’t care - they wrote themselves off years ago, and they’re so angry that they just want to take as many people down with them as they can.

What evidence do you have that is the case?

Those with experience in prisons are overwhelmingly in favor of holding the death penalty in reserve for cases like this. Let us bow to their experience before asserting our own imagination is superior.

It also seems strange to me that we have to allow them to plot murder because that’s their human right - but then we should be allowed to kill them if they actually carry it through?

Are you advocating the death penalty for thinking?

So, total freedom, and then death. Nothing in between.

There you go with your imagination again.

No work program, no education or rehabilitation, no restrictions on who they can see and talk to, no restrictions on what can be brought to them by outsiders -

There you go with your imagination again.

but then, BAM, as soon as they kill someone (which seems five minutes too late, to my way of thinking) then, we get to kill them.

You advocate the death penalty before they kill?

Just how would you prove they would have killed?

But we’re not allowed to do anything beforehand actually to prevent the guy from having the ability to murder someone.

There you go with your imagination again.

That seems completely daffy, to me.

It’s your imagination that’s daffy.

But I invite you to apply to the US Bureau of Prisons – you can show them how your ideas are superior to their actual experience.

 

[Sheeniac]

I follow what Pope JP2 stated…that the death penalty should be used in extreme cases…

Yet later in the thread, you seem to oppose the use of the DP. You ignore stated theological positions and definitions. Then, you erect strawmen (what about rehabilitation? - as if me being in favor of the death penalty means that I am anti-rehabilitation, etc).

If you are unaware of doing these things, you might want to examine your own thoughts. It’s difficult to present arguments when the other poster posts as such.

I think you have a VERY Ameri-centric thought process (not that there’s anything wrong with that). But the Pope speaks to the whole flock - the whole world.

And in this whole world, there are places where executions are more common. And I think when the Pope speaks, he is speaking to everyone. It just might be that he is concerned more about China than Pennsylvania.

I agree with him in general, but until there is such a time that people in prison (other prisoners included) no longer present a serious lethal risk to others, it must remain on the table. That being said, I am of the belief that it shouldn’t be the default choice for punishment for any crime. I am a strong believer in letting judges and juries have a lot of leeway. While it may be abused, the need for mercy exists.

 

[jmcrae]

What evidence do you have that is the case?

Those with experience in prisons are overwhelmingly in favor of holding the death penalty in reserve for cases like this. Let us bow to their experience before asserting our own imagination is superior.

Are you advocating the death penalty for thinking?

There you go with your imagination again.

There you go with your imagination again.

You advocate the death penalty before they kill?

Just how would you prove they would have killed?

There you go with your imagination again.

It’s your imagination that’s daffy.

But I invite you to apply to the US Bureau of Prisons – you can show them how your ideas are superior to their actual experience.

I’m just trying to grasp the thought process of people who favour the death penalty.

Apparently we “need” the death penalty, because we aren’t allowed to violate people’s human rights, which apparently includes the right to plot murder. (So, it’s perfectly okay to kill them, but it would be horrifyingly barbaric to take away their telephone privileges. )

There are other ways to prevent plots for murder besides the death penalty. Unplugging the phone from the wall would be one.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

There are other ways to prevent plots for murder besides the death penalty. Unplugging the phone from the wall would be one.

Again, you allege the possibility of solutions yet have ignored previous requests to explain how to implement the details practically in a way consistent with Catholic teaching on the treatment of prisoners. Do you have something of substance to say or is retreating to vague hypotheticals that require ignoring certain practical facts all you have?

 

[Ender]

Nearly everyone is familiar with 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”

It is certainly fair to question whether “non-lethal means are sufficient” as is claimed. As a rough estimate it appears that 50-100 people are killed each year in the US by persons who served time for homicide, were released, and killed again. This number doesn’t include what goes on within the prison system and it also doesn’t address any possible deterrent effect that the death penalty might provide. It appears that the Catechism’s estimation of society’s ability of “rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm” is exaggerated.

Beyond this, however, is the greater question of “justification” as a question of justice. There are crimes for which the only just sentence is execution. The question of protecting society from possible future crime is irrelevant in addressing the needs of a just sentence for a crime actually committed.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m just trying to grasp the thought process of people who favour the death penalty.

No. What you’re trying to do is denegrate and insult people who disagree with you.

Apparently we “need” the death penalty, because we aren’t allowed to violate people’s human rights, which apparently includes the right to plot murder. (So, it’s perfectly okay to kill them, but it would be horrifyingly barbaric to take away their telephone privileges. )

That’s you imagination at work again.

There are other ways to prevent plots for murder besides the death penalty. Unplugging the phone from the wall would be one.

Again, why don’t you apply for a job at the US Bureau of Prisons and make your ideas available to them?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, you allege the possibility of solutions yet have ignored previous requests to explain how to implement the details practically in a way consistent with Catholic teaching on the treatment of prisoners. Do you have something of substance to say or is retreating to vague hypotheticals that require ignoring certain practical facts all you have?

I think a person that brilliant – one with a solution for every problem prison authorities face – has a moral obligation to make his services available to the prison authorities. After all, if he knows how to control these people without executing them, then the crimes they commit and their subsequent execution is on his head, is it not?

 

[jmcrae]

I think a person that brilliant – one with a solution for every problem prison authorities face – has a moral obligation to make his services available to the prison authorities. After all, if he knows how to control these people without executing them, then the crimes they commit and their subsequent execution is on his head, is it not?

Somehow, here in Canada, we have managed to have a peaceful society without the use of the death penalty since the 1960s. So, there is a model, if people want it.

 

[Sheeniac]

Somehow, here in Canada, we have managed to have a peaceful society without the use of the death penalty since the 1960s. So, there is a model, if people want it.

Peaceful? I think us society is peaceful too. I think a better indicator is re-offenders who are murderers.

BTW, has the MS-13 hit Canada yet?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Somehow, here in Canada, we have managed to have a peaceful society without the use of the death penalty since the 1960s. So, there is a model, if people want it.

When you stratify by population groups, Canadian society is more violent that the US – Canadian caucasians, for example, are slightly more likely to commit murder than US caucasians.

 

[whatevergirl]

Yet later in the thread, you seem to oppose the use of the DP. You ignore stated theological positions and definitions. Then, you erect strawmen (what about rehabilitation? - as if me being in favor of the death penalty means that I am anti-rehabilitation, etc).

If you are unaware of doing these things, you might want to examine your own thoughts. It’s difficult to present arguments when the other poster posts as such.

I think you have a VERY Ameri-centric thought process (not that there’s anything wrong with that). But the Pope speaks to the whole flock - the whole world.

And in this whole world, there are places where executions are more common. And I think when the Pope speaks, he is speaking to everyone. It just might be that he is concerned more about China than Pennsylvania.

I agree with him in general, but until there is such a time that people in prison (other prisoners included) no longer present a serious lethal risk to others, it must remain on the table. That being said, I am of the belief that it shouldn’t be the default choice for punishment for any crime. I am a strong believer in letting judges and juries have a lot of leeway. While it may be abused, the need for mercy exists.

I have said this throughout the thread…perhaps it would behoove you to go back and read my posts. I have always been for mercy over the DP. To say that I think otherwise, shows me you didn’t really read my posts. And the Pope speaks for the whole world…and Pope JP2 speaks for extreme cases, that it shouldbe used. Again, please reread – as I have said just this.

 

[jmcrae]

BTW, has the MS-13 hit Canada yet?

I don’t even know what that is.

 

[whatevergirl]

Why is it that people with no experience or background in subjects like this are always able to suddenly claim they have “a brother in law, and sister in law” with that expertise – but are unable to get those people to come on this forum and speak for themselves?

Vern…your tone is very insulting. I am done conversing with you. Arguing to be right…and talking over people…insulting others will never make me buy into someone’s view point. Have a good day, vern.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Somehow, here in Canada, we have managed to have a peaceful society without the use of the death penalty since the 1960s. So, there is a model, if people want it.

Its a simple question you are obviously refusing to address: do you have a practical, sepcific solution that addresses the challenges already enumerated while not violating Catholic moral teaching on the treatment of prisoners that can effectively eliminate the need for the death penalty without placings government employees or the public at risk and without bankrupting the government in the process?

 

[jmcrae]

When you stratify by population groups, Canadian society is more violent that the US – Canadian caucasians, for example, are slightly more likely to commit murder than US caucasians.

Do you have a source for that?

I am safe walking to and from Church at night, in the downtown of a city of one million. (Of course, very few of my neighbors are Caucasian. It might be a different story in the suburbs.)

How about in the States? Is it equally safe to walk at night downtown?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern…your tone is very insulting. I am done conversing with you. Arguing to be right…and talking over people…insulting others will never make me buy into someone’s view point. Have a good day, vern.

My apologies for offending you.

But I must tell you that again and again I have seen people on these forums cite a friend, relative, etc., as an expert – and never has one of these friends, relatives, etc. appeared and spoken for themselves.

 

[jmcrae]

Its a simple question you are obviously refusing to address: do you have a practical, sepcific solution that addresses the challenges already enumerated while not violating Catholic moral teaching on the treatment of prisoners that can effectively eliminate the need for the death penalty without placings government employees or the public at risk and without bankrupting the government in the process?

No, I don’t have a detailed plan.

Do you have a detailed plan for when and how to implement the death penalty in such a way that it acts as a deterrent, rather than as an after-the-fact event? Texas has the death penalty, but they are still building prisons.