When or is the death penalty alright?

[iluvburpees]

Faithful Catholics may have a difference of opinion on the matter. This comes from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

Timeout, sir. Even if Pope Benedict said the death penalty were immoral, it still wouldn’t overturn the Church’s Traditional teaching for almost two thousand years. And the fact is that the pope didn’t say it was immoral, or that Catholics can have different opinions on whether it is moral or not. He said:

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

Notice he says “applying.” He doesn’t say “justness of” or “morality of” the death penalty, but the applying of, that is, the use in different situations of, the death penalty. So, you are wrong.

I will stand by his statement

You may stand by his statement, but make sure you understand what he actually said (as I explained).

not the statement of some self-serving practical schismatic who thinks he knows more about the teachings of the Church than anyone else.

Ad Hominem attacks, an example of the fallacy of ignoring the issue, are always helpful in exposing someone who cannot find any flaws in another’s arguments, and instead makes personal attacks. Thank you for clarifying your level of logic

 

[Jim_Baur]

Perhaps we could invert the question: When is it an act of injustice not to execute a criminal?

I believe it would be an act of injustice to let a man with a gun continue to murder innocent human beings. If a man has many people in his sights and is actually murdering them five and six at a time, then it would unjust for a SWAT team not to execute the criminal. This is assuming that the SWAT team is unable to stop the man by other means.

All other ideas of common sense are implied.

I do not have the time or energy to read all of the other posts. If I repeated another person, sorry.

 

[CWBetts]

Timeout, sir. Even if Pope Benedict said the death penalty were immoral, it still wouldn’t overturn the Church’s Traditional teaching for almost two thousand years. And the fact is that the pope didn’t say it was immoral, or that Catholics can have different opinions on whether it is moral or not. He said:

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

Notice he says “applying.” He doesn’t say “justness of” or “morality of” the death penalty, but the applying of, that is, the use in different situations of, the death penalty. So, you are wrong.

You may stand by his statement, but make sure you understand what he actually said (as I explained).

Ad Hominem attacks, an example of the fallacy of ignoring the issue, are always helpful in exposing someone who cannot find any flaws in another’s arguments, and instead makes personal attacks. Thank you for clarifying your level of logic

You are the master of the ad hominem. I never once siad it was immoral, only that it was unnecessary. Tnak you for displayin g your lack ofreading comprehension.

 

[iluvburpees]

You are the master of the ad hominem. I never once siad it was immoral, only that it was unnecessary.

Actually, you did (or at least your post did and you didn’t understand what you were saying). My post with the quotes from holy saints, doctors, and councils was entirely based on showing you that the death penalty is just, not that it should be used in our present society. Then you responded to that post saying that the pope said we can differing opinions on it. In other words, I said that the death penalty is just, and you denied that by saying that the pope sad we can differing opinions. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention, but the way you answered was unclear. I could say that it was the fallacy of ambiguity, but I’ll let it go.

Tnak you for displayin g your lack ofreading comprehension.

Instead of continuing to attack me with a false accusation, perhaps you should actually bring forth a good argument for your position. If not, then arguing with you is not quite worth my or anyone’s time.

 

[CWBetts]

Actually, you did (or at least your post did and you didn’t understand what you were saying). My post with the quotes from holy saints, doctors, and councils was entirely based on showing you that the death penalty is just, not that it should be used in our present society. Then you responded to that post saying that the pope said we can differing opinions on it. In other words, I said that the death penalty is just, and you denied that by saying that the pope sad we can differing opinions. Perhaps that wasn’t your intention, but the way you answered was unclear. I could say that it was the fallacy of ambiguity, but I’ll let it go.

Instead of continuing to attack me with a false accusation, perhaps you should actually bring forth a good argument for your position. If not, then arguing with you is not quite worth my or anyone’s time.

I have put up plenty of good arguments. I will no linger respond to you.

 

[iluvburpees]

I have put up plenty of good arguments. I will no linger respond to you.

So far all I’ve gotten are things such as:

“it is you who feels the state can play God”

“I will no longer respond to you. If you want to know why, read some of my previous posts”

“I will stand by his statement, not the statement of some self-serving practical schismatic who thinks he knows more about the teachings of the Church than anyone else.”

And now this:

“I have put up plenty of good arguments.”

This only continues to expose the fact that you cannot contest my position (the teaching of the Church for almost 2000 years). I suggest you do stop trying to debate this at least until you get an understanding of this issue.

 

[CWBetts]

So far all I’ve gotten are things such as:

“it is you who feels the state can play God”

“I will no longer respond to you. If you want to know why, read some of my previous posts”

“I will stand by his statement, not the statement of some self-serving practical schismatic who thinks he knows more about the teachings of the Church than anyone else.”

And now this:

“I have put up plenty of good arguments.”

This only continues to expose the fact that you cannot contest my position (the teaching of the Church for almost 2000 years). I suggest you do stop trying to debate this at least until you get an understanding of this issue.

One last piece of advice: READ. I have posted many times on this thread and have neither the time, nor the inclination, to repeat my arguments to someone who needs spoon-fed.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps we could invert the question: When is it an act of injustice not to execute a criminal?

Since the primary objective of all punishment is justice this is an interesting and relevant question. First, we know that the Church considers the death penalty just (at least in some cases) as she has always allowed its use and even with the caveats JPII added does so today.

The argument is often made that the obligations of mercy require us to impose the lesser penalty of life in prison. This may or may not be true but to make the argument that the lesser penalty is the merciful one is to admit that the harsher sentence is the just one. Unless one is willing to argue that mercy calls for leniency in sentencing in every instance case - capital cases or not - then I don’t think the argument that mercy obliges leniency in every capital case holds together.

The State has the positive duty to apply a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266) and that duty cannot be met by applying punishments that are less than the criminal deserves. We must also understand that the obligations of the State are different from those of the individual and there is no justification in saying that mercy trumps justice when, if any virtue can be seen as supreme, it is justice:

If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas ST II/II 58,12)

So, in answer to your question: not executing someone who has committed a heinous crime can indeed be unjust.

Ender

 

[iluvburpees]

Since the primary objective of all punishment is justice this is an interesting and relevant question. First, we know that the Church considers the death penalty just (at least in some cases) as she has always allowed its use and even with the caveats JPII added does so today.

The argument is often made that the obligations of mercy require us to impose the lesser penalty of life in prison. This may or may not be true but to make the argument that the lesser penalty is the merciful one is to admit that the harsher sentence is the just one. Unless one is willing to argue that mercy calls for leniency in sentencing in every instance case - capital cases or not - then I don’t think the argument that mercy obliges leniency in every capital case holds together.

The State has the positive duty to apply a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266) and that duty cannot be met by applying punishments that are less than the criminal deserves. We must also understand that the obligations of the State are different from those of the individual and there is no justification in saying that mercy trumps justice when, if any virtue can be seen as supreme, it is justice:

If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas ST II/II 58,12)

So, in answer to your question: not executing someone who has committed a heinous crime can indeed be unjust.

Ender

Not only unjust, but unmerciful as well, by endangering the innocent citizens who are the ones who should be protected.

 

[CWBetts]

Since the primary objective of all punishment is justice this is an interesting and relevant question. First, we know that the Church considers the death penalty just (at least in some cases) as she has always allowed its use and even with the caveats JPII added does so today.

The argument is often made that the obligations of mercy require us to impose the lesser penalty of life in prison. This may or may not be true but to make the argument that the lesser penalty is the merciful one is to admit that the harsher sentence is the just one. Unless one is willing to argue that mercy calls for leniency in sentencing in every instance case - capital cases or not - then I don’t think the argument that mercy obliges leniency in every capital case holds together.

The State has the positive duty to apply a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime (2266) and that duty cannot be met by applying punishments that are less than the criminal deserves. We must also understand that the obligations of the State are different from those of the individual and there is no justification in saying that mercy trumps justice when, if any virtue can be seen as supreme, it is justice:

If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. (Aquinas ST II/II 58,12)

So, in answer to your question: not executing someone who has committed a heinous crime can indeed be unjust.

Ender

The only thing I feel that must be added is that those crimes which are heinous enough to deserve execution are very few in number. Truly, not even all murderers should be executed, and in those exceptional cases where a true conversion has occurred and the prison population would be done a disservice by execution, the death sentence should be commuted. In these cases, such application of the death penalty I believe would be immoral. Though punishment may be primary, rehabilitaion is also an end of sentencing practices. In the application of the death penalty, which must be handled on a case by case basis, must be used with extreme care as to not be merely an avenue for vengeance.

 

[CWBetts]

Not only unjust, but unmerciful as well, by endangering the innocent citizens who are the ones who should be protected.

How many innocent citizens are in harms way while the perp is in prison?

 

[iluvburpees]

How many innocent citizens are in harms way while the perp is in prison?

Escape is always possible, though unlikely.

What about the innocent prison guards and other prisoners?

 

[CWBetts]

Escape is always possible, though unlikely.

What about the innocent prison guards and other prisoners?

The prison guards are well aware of the danger.
Innocent prisoners? Please tell me you are joking. By suggesting that innocent mean are behind bars, you also open up the possibility that innocent men are on death row.

 

[iluvburpees]

The prison guards are well aware of the danger.

They’re still in danger, are they not?

Innocent prisoners? Please tell me you are joking. By suggesting that innocent mean are behind bars, you also open up the possibility that innocent men are on death row.

Joking?

Here is my quote:

What about the innocent prison guards and other prisoners?

Where did I say “innocent prisoners?” I said “innocent prison guards” and “other prisoners,” but not “innocent prisoners.” I suppose you could have seen the adjective “innocent” going with both nouns, though.

 

[Shin]

The prison guards are well aware of the danger.
Innocent prisoners? Please tell me you are joking. By suggesting that innocent mean are behind bars, you also open up the possibility that innocent men are on death row.

Don’t dismiss how hard it is to be a prison guard these days… people who do not know what they go through… have no idea. No idea at all.

Regardless of the debate about the death penalty…

No idea.

 

[iluvburpees]

Don’t dismiss how hard it is to be a prison guard these days… people who do not know what they go through… have no idea. No idea at all.

Regardless of the debate about the death penalty…

No idea.

My friend’s dad was a former warden of a large prison in New Jersey, and I had a personal interview with him for my research paper on the death penalty in high school. He told about one of the most violent escape attempts he’s witnessed, back in the 70’s sometime I think. There were quite a few convicts involved in it. I don’t remember all the details, but I do remember that some of the prison guards were sexually assaulted, and I think others hanging out of some of the windows. None were killed, but some were seriously wounded and, like I said, raped.

These animals are a danger to society and cannot be a hazard to the rest of the world.

 

[CWBetts]

Don’t dismiss how hard it is to be a prison guard these days… people who do not know what they go through… have no idea. No idea at all.

Regardless of the debate about the death penalty…

No idea.

I meant no disrespect. The nature of their work is very dangerous and requires extensive training. They are not in danger only from those guilty of murder, but also those convicted of lesser crimes. The incidence of fatal attacks on corrections officers is thankfully low. I suppose that the danger could be eliminated by executing everybody. And trust me, I do know what they go through. I know some prison guards personally (both present and former). It is a thankless and highly dangerous job. There is no practical way to completely eliminate this danger, short of executing all felons. I firmly believe the money wasted on the extensive appeals process connected with capital crimes could be better spent on prevention programs.

 

[CWBetts]

These animals are a danger to society and cannot be a hazard to the rest of the world.

Herein lies the problem. Criminals are not animals. They are people with an inherited sin problem in need of a savior. Dehumanization is a tactic used by all who wish to deny life to another.

 

[Shin]

For my part, I believe if we implemented corporal punishment, crime would be reduced significantly.

Singapore would be the modern example for this.

 

[momor]

I have a question and I hope it has not been asked and answered. I read about 20 pages of posts but got too impatient to read all 33!

Aren’t those here who quote St. Paul and the Council of Trent to support capital punishment viewing this rather simplistically?

It seems to me that allowing the ‘state’ to have unquestioned and full moral authority to decide and administer capital punishment is dangerous. If you live in a ‘state’ where Shariah law is in force you could be subject to the death penalty for being a practicing Catholic! Are you suggesting Jesus thinks you should be subject to the authority of that ‘state’?

Roman’s were killing Christians. Do you think St. Paul was in favor of that ‘state’s’ right to wield the executioner’s sword?

Also, don’t forget that in Jesus’ time the death penalty was justified for adultery. I’m pretty sure you don’t suggest that should be a capital offense today.

Times change and moral understanding increases. If not, we wouldn’t need the Church’s guidance anymore. So singleing out isolated references and according them absolute authority to support a position on capital punishment can get a person into trouble. That smacks of fundamentalism.

I stopped supporting capital punishment in the USA after I read John Grisham’s non-fiction book The Innocent Man. I think our judicial system is too flawed for me to support the death penalty at this time, even though I am not necessarily against it on religious grounds.