When or is the death penalty alright?

[CWBetts]

Thank you for giving a straight answer and not just trying to blow my question off by bringing up “picking and choosing”.

Which has been the case for many decades in America and Europe. The only countries I would presume to overuse the death penalty (and for unjustifiable reasons) would be countries like China, et al - non-Christian or otherwise secular regimes with agendas to enforce and opposition to suppress.

The death penalty is *underused *in the West, not overused, I’d argue.

Moderation and just use of anything certainly are; the execution of dangerous criminals is one thing, the execution of political opponents another.

This is where you and I must “agree to disagree.” The death penalty is vastly overused in the United States. There are ways to punish without execution. The application of the death penalty should be such that it is only applied because incarceration would do nothing to prevent further murders from happening. Example: Crime bosses and terrorist leaders would simly run their organizations from prison, and therefore should be executed. THe small-time thug that holds up a convenience store and kills the clerk should not. Neither should the man (or woman) who hires a hit man to kill their spouse for the insurance money. The latter examples are those who would be a threat to no-one, whereas the former continue to be a threat unfettered.

 

[Magdalena09]

Wow. I didn’t read this entire thread, but it is my belief that for the time being, Catholics are within their “rights” I guess you’d say, to either support or be against the death penalty. There are adequate defenses for either position.

However, I would challenge everyone to really think about WHY they support the position they do. If, after thought and prayer, you believe you are on “the right side” of the argument, then I see nothing wrong with it, so long as you are listening to your conscience on the matter.

Maybe that is just me though.

 

[Lycorth]

This is where you and I must “agree to disagree.” The death penalty is vastly overused in the United States. There are ways to punish without execution. The application of the death penalty should be such that it is only applied because incarceration would do nothing to prevent further murders from happening. Example: Crime bosses and terrorist leaders would simly run their organizations from prison, and therefore should be executed. THe small-time thug that holds up a convenience store and kills the clerk should not. Neither should the man (or woman) who hires a hit man to kill their spouse for the insurance money. The latter examples are those who would be a threat to no-one, whereas the former continue to be a threat unfettered.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. I’d argue that each example you’ve cited merits the death penalty because every murder is a declaration of war on innocent society and certainly renders the murderer a clear and present danger. It is not as if Western civilization hasn’t been awash in moral education for at least the past two milennia (and in large part, much earlier) that teaches that killing the innocent is absolutely wrong; it would be one thing if a civilization were wholly ignorant of the gravity and sinfulness of murder to begin with and hence had little to no moral culpability, but just to speak of Western civilization alone, every child is raised to know that murder is wrong (from a variety of standpoints, depending on the community, etc). This is why even the small-time hood who shoots a cashier in the course of a robbery is as morally culpable for the act of murder, per se, as the mobster or gangbanger who orders hits and runs operations from behind bars.

All necessary means to defuse criminal behavior happen during an individual’s education; even from non-religious perspectives we are taught that murder is wrong and why. Non-lethal means have already been tried; I’d argue that there is not a single murderer in America who did not know that murder is socially unacceptable and knew so before becoming a murderer. Hence, they committed their crime in full light of the wrongness of the act and as such, warrant execution as a defensive measure, since education has already been tried and rejected; I hope this explains my position more clearly.

Also, the death penalty is not overused in America. Since the death penalty was re-instituted in 1976, less than a thousand executions have taken place in the US. There were only 37 executions in 2008 - contrast this with 16,272 murders (not to mention 89,000 cases of forced rape) and there can be no possibility of claiming that the death penalty is overused; it is hardly used at all.

Wikipedia entry on the death penalty in America:* “Capital Punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction and is applied rarely: in practice only for aggravated murder and even more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.”

*Disastercenter.com page on United States crime rates 1960-2008

Death Penalty Information Center’s page on Executions in the US from 1608 to 2002

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles is free to offer his opinion on Magisterial teaching, just as anyone (and any theologian) is. There’s still a different between personal opinion and Magisterial teaching. You seem to favor the former.

My position is not based solely on the comments of Cardinal Dulles. Do you have an explanation for the comments I quoted from the USCCB?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The application of the death penalty should be such that it is only applied because incarceration would do nothing to prevent further murders from happening.

This approach ignores the primary objective of all punishment, which is justice. Let me ask this: if person A and person B both commit equally heinous murders and are tried and convicted, on what basis is it just to execute one of them and not the other?

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

This approach ignores the primary objective of all punishment, which is justice. Let me ask this: if person A and person B both commit equally heinous murders and are tried and convicted, on what basis is it just to execute one of them and not the other?

Ender

Define justice. (Hint: it has nothing to do with punishment)

 

[Magdalena09]

Also, the death penalty is not overused in America. Since the death penalty was re-instituted in 1976, less than a thousand executions have taken place in the US. There were only 37 executions in 2008 - contrast this with 16,272 murders (not to mention 89,000 cases of forced rape) and there can be no possibility of claiming that the death penalty is overused; it is hardly used at all.

I’m not sure this is a valid argument. Frequency of use does not necessarily equate with overuse or “underuse”…

For instance, if I say that there is no way I can overuse oxycontin because I get headaches several times a day and I only take oxycontin once a day… then my argument is not valid because likely, some aleve or excedrin would be sufficient in getting rid of the pain and there is no need for me to take the oxycontin at all for a headache.

In the same way, since life in prison is sufficient as a means to protect society (at least in the US) it doesn’t necessarily matter how many murders vs capital punishments there are in the US.

 

[Ender]

Define justice. (Hint: it has nothing to do with punishment)

"Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” (Aquinas ST II/II 58,1)

"We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to anothers advantage or hurt." (Id. I/II 21,3)

Are you going to answer my question about Mr A and Mr B?

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

"Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” (Aquinas ST II/II 58,1)

"We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to anothers advantage or hurt." (Id. I/II 21,3)

Are you going to answer my question about Mr A and Mr B?

Ender

Since you cherry pick sentences out of context, I seriously see no reason to answer your questions.

 

[Ender]

In the same way, since life in prison is sufficient as a means to protect society (at least in the US) it doesn’t necessarily matter how many murders vs capital punishments there are in the US.

The death penalty is underused if it is less than justice demands and it is overused if it more than justice allows. The question of whether it protects society is a completely separate consideration and a secondary objective that can neither require nor prohibit the use of capital punishment.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Justice is here taken in its ordinary and proper sense to signify the most important of the cardinal virtues. It is a moral quality or habit which perfects the will and inclines it to render to each and to all what belongs to them. Of the other cardinal virtues, prudence perfects the intellect and inclines the prudent man to act in all things according to right reason. Fortitude controls the irascible passions; and temperance moderates the appetites according as reason dictates. While fortitude and temperance are self-regarding virtues, justice has reference to others. Together with charity it regulates man’s intercourse with his fellow men. But charity leads us to help our neighbour in his need out of our own stores, while justice teaches us to give to another what belongs to him.

 

[Ender]

Since you cherry pick sentences out of context…

If you want the context I am happy to oblige. Please, tell me if the entire paragraphs in any way change the meaning of the pieces I excerpted. I put the sections I extracted in bold just to be clear and if this still isn’t enough let me know what is sufficient and I shall provide it.
*
The aforesaid definition of justice is fitting if understood aright. For since every virtue is a habit that is the principle of a good act, a virtue must needs be defined by means of the good act bearing on the matter proper to that virtue. Now the proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other* *men, as shall be shown further on (2). Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” since, as Isidore says (Etym. x), “a man is said to be just because he respects the rights [jus] of others.”

**On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10-11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.” *
I answer that, We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man.

… I seriously see no reason to answer your questions.

You are being disingenuous. You will not answer the question because either answer causes you problems you cannot resolve.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

If you want the context I am happy to oblige. Please, tell me if the entire paragraphs in any way change the meaning of the pieces I excerpted. I put the sections I extracted in bold just to be clear and if this still isn’t enough let me know what is sufficient and I shall provide it.
*
The aforesaid definition of justice is fitting if understood aright. For since every virtue is a habit that is the principle of a good act, a virtue must needs be defined by means of the good act bearing on the matter proper to that virtue. Now the proper matter of justice consists of those things that belong to our intercourse with other* men, as shall be shown further on (2). Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, "Rendering to each one his right," since, as Isidore says (Etym. x), “a man is said to be just because he respects the rights [jus] of others.”

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10-11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”
I answer that, We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man.

You are being disingenuous. You will not answer the question because either answer causes you problems you cannot resolve.

Ender

I refuse to answer your questions because you, my friend feel that you are free to pick and choose which parts of the faith you adhere to

 

[diggerdomer]

Then which position do you accept? Is the death penalty suitable and permissible for the good of society (as per Trent) or is it “rarely justified” despite the fact that human nature has not changed and society is more violent and murderous than ever (per the New Catechism)? I’d like a straight answer please.

I am glad Ender cited Pope Benedict’s explanation earlier, that we are free to hold basically either opinion and not be in error; I don’t think it would have been brought up otherwise.I certainly accept the Holy Father’s ruling on this, especially if it is official and binding. What I cannot accept is the (apparent) claim that the death penalty, which was once accepted, is somehow now unacceptable.

I believe everything taught in the Catechism, which does not contradict Trent nor any other prior Magisterial teaching. It’s rarely justified.

 

[diggerdomer]

The death penalty is underused if it is less than justice demands and it is overused if it more than justice allows. The question of whether it protects society is a completely separate consideration and a secondary objective that can neither require nor prohibit the use of capital punishment.

Ender

And that, again, is where you differ with Catholic teaching (as presented in CCC 2267 for example).

 

[portarica]

But that was not about capital punishment; were it so, Christ would have turned to His apostles and said so, either plainly or in metaphorical language. Furthermore, Christ did not address any other act of capital punishment, whether it was being practiced by Jews or the Romans, and He could have easily gone out and found some party looking to execute someone and made an example out of that.

Also, adultery is not a capital offense, and cannot be, since it is not dangerous to the lives and safety of anyone in the community. The only danger present is to one’s soul. It is not anything like rape or murder, the perpetrators of which prove by their actions that they endanger the rest of the community.

I’m not twisting a thing, merely sticking with Church teaching and tradition. That you cannot even show basic respect for me by daring to assert that I am twisting the Scriptures or Church teaching is not my problem.

Please reread your post and look at what you use as support for your arguments.

Your comment that it wasn’t about capital punishment because Jesus didn’t explicitly say it was about capital punishment is ignoring the fact that stoning a person was capital punishment.

Which brings us to your point about it not being a capital offense. That is just mistaken.

People have killed people for the wrong reasons for time immemorial and stoning adulterers is a prime example of it.

In speaking to your contention that Jesus was talking the the proportionality of the punishment , perhaps you were right. Perhaps Jesus was saying that when men decide who lives and dies, mistakes will be made so leave it up to the Father in heaven.

The fact that Jesus contradicted the wishes of Lev. also speaks volumes.

Peace

 

[Brendan]

People have killed people for the wrong reasons for time immemorial and stoning adulterers is a prime example of it.

How can it be for a wrong reason if God commanded it to be done?

 

[CWBetts]

How can it be for a wrong reason if God commanded it to be done?

Go and actually study the Old Testament, particularly Numbers and Deuteronomy, and you will answer your own question.

 

[Lycorth]

I’m not sure this is a valid argument. Frequency of use does not necessarily equate with overuse or “underuse”…

It doesn’t? If something is used rarely, then it cannot be overused. Words mean things and the facts I provided render this a moot discussion.

For instance, if I say that there is no way I can overuse oxycontin because I get headaches several times a day and I only take oxycontin once a day… then my argument is not valid because likely, some aleve or excedrin would be sufficient in getting rid of the pain and there is no need for me to take the oxycontin at all for a headache.

Sure, but in the end, dangerous criminals and headaches are apples and oranges. A headache does not kill you nor does it threaten to kill others; a headache is not a de facto declaration of war on civilized society by one’s head.

That, and to carry out your analogy, there are simpler and more effective remedies for most headaches than oxycontin. Most headaches are like most crimes - they do not require severe measures to handle.

But vicious, stubborn headaches or migraines, like dangerous crimes that threaten the very lives of the innocent, require stronger medicine - just like those dangerous crimes do.

In the same way, since life in prison is sufficient as a means to protect society (at least in the US) it doesn’t necessarily matter how many murders vs capital punishments there are in the US.

Life is prison is not a sufficient means to protect society, and is unjust to the innocent. The facts are that most violent offenders, when released, re-offend. That is not sufficiently protecting society. Also, taxpayers have to cough up millions of dollars each year to provide for the maintenance of prisons, for food and shelter and medicine and clothing and entertainment for inmates, and for the salaries of those whose exclusive job is to watch over them in prison, all while we struggle to feed our families, pay our bills, and get on with life. That is not fair, merciful, or just.

Add unto that the fact that prisons tend to turn softer criminals into hardened scum by way of prison life itself. Prisons are essentially gated gang communities, and gangs flourish behind bars, oftentimes being run from prison by inmates themselves. Inmates without gang ties in prison soon learn that they must either join a gang or else face greater danger as a loner in prison, and gang ties are rarely cut upon release. Contrary to rehabilitating criminals, prisons usually make them worse, and when they are set free, they re-offend, and oftentimes as part of a larger criminal society.

Executing dangerous criminals is neither sinful (as per Church tradition and history), unjust, or detrimental to innocent civilians in any way. Keeping them around in guarded communities where their criminal nature is enhanced and encouraged, on the innocent’s dime no less, and letting them re-offend repeatedly is the work of the devil.

God help a society that coddles enemies at the expense of the innocent.

Please reread your post and look at what you use as support for your arguments.

Your comment that it wasn’t about capital punishment because Jesus didn’t explicitly say it was about capital punishment is ignoring the fact that stoning a person was capital punishment.

Which brings us to your point about it not being a capital offense. That is just mistaken.

People have killed people for the wrong reasons for time immemorial and stoning adulterers is a prime example of it.

In speaking to your contention that Jesus was talking the the proportionality of the punishment , perhaps you were right. Perhaps Jesus was saying that when men decide who lives and dies, mistakes will be made so leave it up to the Father in heaven.

The fact that Jesus contradicted the wishes of Lev. also speaks volumes.

Jesus, through the Church, also did not teach the abolition of the death penalty as a means of protecting the innocent from dangerous criminals. This is the teaching of the Church for centuries. If Christ was anti-death penalty across the board, the Church’s teachings would reflect this. They do not, therefore He is not.

I use the facts about modern life in an increasingly violent world for support of my views. I was not and never have talked about executing anyone by stoning, nor for adultery. Please demonstrate a working knowledge of what I am arguing or else do not respond to my posts.

 

[joe_clark]

The death penalty is underused if it is less than justice demands and it is overused if it more than justice allows. The question of whether it protects society is a completely separate consideration and a secondary objective that can neither require nor prohibit the use of capital punishment.

Ender

If you are a human being, the question of whether it protects society is where the conversation eventually funnels to. It is and should be the question answered BEFORE we continue to execute human beings.

No matter what you are told, what you believe, the questions come. Why take someone out of society, lock them up and protect said society, only to strap someone down and murder them because written words on a page says you can? Seems like overkill…no pun intended. It is completely NOT necessary at this point. Every time we kill a human being, it diminishes and numbs us to continue this dance of death because we have been doing it this way for years? And this is pro life? Seems like a real conflict here. The mission of protecting society had been accomplished at the point you incarcerate the guilty.

This country has been executing people who have been under their complete control for decades, only to continue quoting law and verse killing more people to stop killing???

Facts:
The death penalty is not working.
The death penalty does not and never detered others from killing. If protecting society is not the reason we engage in the death penalty, then someone please tell me why?

Why continue to insert the wrong key into a lock, only to keep trying and maybe hoping one day it will open. This is no different than creating your own reality then believing it.