C
CWBetts
Guest
It would, but the statistics do not show this.
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
Stop being facetious. I said virtually all. Before I accepted Catholic .com, I researched it with people I trusted first. I didn’t just accept it, as well one should not! There are plenty of “Catholic” sites out there with a “.com” or “.org” that cannot be trusted.You mean like Catholic.com?
M
momor
Guest
It would if the net was statistically significant.
E
Ender
Guest
I have started searching for some data about recidivist murderers but as I said before, it’s not easy to find. I did this a couple of years ago and found some Canadian data that, applying the same rate to the US population, implied that about 40 people a year were killed by someone who had killed before and been released.
It may be a while before I can find anything relevant to this discussion … but in the mean time, it is interesting to note that your decision to use or deny use of the death penalty is based not on a moral question but on a practical one; not on whether it is just but whether it is effective. In order to accept its use (if effective) presupposes that its use is just.
Ender
M
momor
Guest
My objection is that I believe our system is too flawed to be just and innocent people have been and will be executed. I also believe that life without parole serves justice without vengence and protects the innocent, so I see no need for the death penalty. If you can find statistics to show that on balance the death penalty saves innocent lives I will reconsider my position. But I reserve the right to pick apart the methodology and logic if its warranted.
E
Ender
Guest
I certainly expect you to pick at any statistics I might provide but your position seems inconsistent. You say that our system is “too flawed to be just” yet you would support capital punishment if it saved lives … despite the fact that you consider such punishment unjust. It does seem that you have elevated the practical above the moral; that is, it’s ok to act immorally (imposing an unjust punishment) if good comes from it (saving innocent lives).
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
Your position elevates retribution over true justice: It is OK to utilize what YOU perceive to a “moral punishment” so satisfy “eye for an eye” justice, even though it leads to higher murder rates (due to a decline in the recognition of the sacredness of life) and even worse, innocents die.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
The next thought should be, “How would doing either of those improve the situation?” The truth is, neither would change what the criminal had done. Lock them up, certainly, but don’t make them miserable intentionally. The purpose of prison is not to deal evil to evil-doers or, to put it more bluntly, “to give those bad guys what they deserve.” Its purpose is simply to isolate a group of people deemed threatening to society. Prevention of harm is the professed goal, and using the mechanism meant to achieve this to deal more harm is hypocrisy.
E
Ender
Guest
Your response is nothing more than name calling. I have repeatedly said that the primary objective of punishment according to the Church is justice which you have equated to revenge. You haven’t addressed my arguments in fact you constantly evade them and simply attack me. Respond to the arguments I make and we can have a meaningful discussion.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
The murderer owes a debt both to the individuals directly affected by his act and to society as well. The Church speaks of “redressing the disorder” caused by the crime and this can only be accomplished by assigning a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. Nothing will bring the dead back to life but that is no argument for not applying the punishment the crime deserves.
That may not be the purpose of prison but it is surely the principle purpose of punishment. That is in fact the precise definition of justice.
Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas ST I/II 21,3)
the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Id. 87,6)
Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Id. 87,3)
Prison yes, punishment no and the discussion here is about punishment, not prison.
Ender
O
Oreoracle
Guest
What he has taken away cannot be returned no matter how much pain is dealt to him.
In other words, the ol’ “eye for an eye” principle. It’s attractive to many people, especially six-year old children on playgrounds. You stole my toy, so I’ll steal your toy. You punched me in the back, so I’ll punch you in the back. Fighting fire with fire sure solves a lot of problems, doesn’t it?
What your Church is advocating is an option for people to get revenge via the death penalty. Revenge is a childish and base notion however you look at it.
But it is an argument against the concept of “deserving.” This whole debate is essentially character ethics vs. consequentialist ethics, so our disagreement is actually a profound one, running back to the fundamentals of our ethical systems.
The Church views morality with the goal of attaining perfect character in mind, which obviously requires a model for us to measure our characters against. God is supposedly the ideal character, and his actions are exempted from the scrutiny of the faithful. But this begs the question: How is it that God’s character is ideal? The goodness of God’s character is then declared axiomatic.
But this is nonsense, and we both know it. We derive our conception of “good character” from the consequences of actions. Being honest makes for good character, for example, because acting honestly tends to produce better consequences than acting to deceive does. Being a peaceful person is better than being a violent person for similar reasons. People who tote character about as the Church does then create virtues to assure that these positive qualities will be upheld by the public, but these qualities are only deemed “good” because of their consequences. Virtue ethics only has a leg to stand on because of consequentialism.
Tell that to the six-year olds on the playground who are…umm…“successfully solving their problems” by hitting and stealing from each other. Prevention of harm and rehabilitation are the only ways to go.
C
Cristian_B
Guest
Death penalty is never alright. We are all under the Law, and condemned to death. What gives the right to another prisoner to punish you before your time? Only the judge decides that.
We are all in prison and under death penalty because we all sinned. By God’s Grace we can escape it. What give the right to another human to punish you before your time? Isn’t that in God’s hands? To throw Him in prison is OK, but to kill him is only in God’s hands.
We are all in prison and under death penalty because we all sinned. By God’s Grace we can escape it. What give the right to another human to punish you before your time? Isn’t that in God’s hands? To throw Him in prison is OK, but to kill him is only in God’s hands.
D
d97c
Guest
Hey…Christian. It may be your opinion that death penalty in never alright, but that was not the position of the church for about 1,980 years. Even now, Catholics can disagree with the current position that it can be used only to protect folks from the perp.
The Pope said I could (said paragraph 3 !!)
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
The Pope said I could (said paragraph 3 !!)
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
C
CWBetts
Guest
Unfortunately, you stop just short of calling anyone who disagrees with you a heretic! If you have the right to say “Kill’em all!” WE ALSO HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE CATECHISM!!!
C
CWBetts
Guest
I evade nothing. You and your ilk have done nothing but question my loyalty to the Faith. Why? Because I actually pay attention the the teachings of the Church, and do not take it upon myself to say that paragraph 2267 of the Catechism is wrong.
D
d97c
Guest
I love you Bettsie
E
Ender
Guest
This is untrue. I have not made a single comment about you or the depth of your faith; all of my statements have been addressed to the arguments you have made in defense of your position. I am arguing for my understanding against yours, not me against you.
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
Your argument is based on the fact that you have the hubris to say that the Catechism is wrong
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t think you have a very clear understanding of punishment. What principle justifies punishment? What are the objectives of punishment?
So, if the criminal doesn’t “deserve” punishment you are suggesting either that we should give him a punishment he doesn’t deserve or that he shouldn’t be punished at all. Can you explain what you mean here?
You should stick to explaining what you believe without giving your opinion of what the Church believes; you’re on pretty thin ice when you do that. There are any number of people on this forum who are well able to explain what the Church teaches. I don’t think you are one of them.
What you mean “we”, fella? Again, speak for yourself. The Church does not judge morality based on outcomes.
This doesn’t make sense even from the consequentialist point of view. Peace can easily be imposed by the biggest kid or the strongest gang. They impose it through force and it works quite effectively. In fact, given the recidivism rate, I suspect the fastest most effective way to reduce crime would be to simply execute every two time felon. Whatever works, right?
Ender
C
CWBetts
Guest
I provide my name in my signature. Use it.
- Status