When or is the death penalty alright?

[CWBetts]

I told you once before to please demonstrate a working knowledge of my posts. In post #790 and post #815 I cited sources relevant to crime. Please do not waste my time posting inaccurate gibberish about my claims or my intentions.

Strawman. I have only even spoken about the execution of violent offenders. I have never spoken about executing anyone because they fall into a larger group of criminals.

The death penalty is almost never used in the US, so it cannot be unfairly applied. The only poor designs are those that either rely on unnecessarily drawn-out methods of execution or unnecessarily costly methods.

Jibber-jabber. The plain facts are that the Church has consistently and clearly supported the morality of the application of the death penalty for grave offenses all throughout its history.

I’m not teaching anything, and I’ll thank you to remember that.

The Church has never opposed the death penalty, and has clearly taught that it is morally valid for the state to use for the defense of society and the just redress of grave crimes.

To simply dismiss an argument with nothing in the form of rebuttal is not debate. It is mockery. If you are going to refute, then I kindly ask you to provide a counter-argument, and not snide comments.

 

[d97c]

Whether it is “necessary” is a matter of opinion and is secondary to the other reasons for it, which you would be aware of, if you read all the other posts. Thats not the sine qua non of the death penalty…whether it is “necessary.” That’s J P 2’s thing, and NOT the basis for centuries, as shown by the other posts, clear to all, when they are read.

 

[CWBetts]

Whether it is “necessary” is a matter of opinion and is secondary to the other reasons for it, which you would be aware of, if you read all the other posts. Thats not the sine qua non of the death penalty…whether it is “necessary.” That’s J P 2’s thing, and NOT the basis for centuries, as shown by the other posts, clear to all, when they are read.

I have provided the example of Jesus Christ, but I guess that isn’t good enough for you…

 

[diggerdomer]

Jibber-jabber. The plain facts are that the Church has consistently and clearly supported the morality of the application of the death penalty for grave offenses all throughout its history.

So that’s how you read the Catechism?

You’re the one saying the Church is in error, not me.

 

[d97c]

The same Jesus you referred to is the same Jesus that gave us the Roman Catholic Church …HIs Church…that taught, allowed and explained the rationale of the death penalty for centuries, and in fact Jesus’ successor, the current Pope says (currently):
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

So…“What would Jesus do??” He’d allow the state to zap bin Laden or Hitler or Adolph Eichmann, otherwise, the state would show disrespect for the lives of the innocent. In fact, that same church wrote about the correctness of Eichmann’s execution in the 60s.
Amen

 

[Lycorth]

To simply dismiss an argument with nothing in the form of rebuttal is not debate. It is mockery. If you are going to refute, then I kindly ask you to provide a counter-argument, and not snide comments.

Pots and kettles, my good man.

I have already given excellent counter-rebuttals, and even went so far as to link back to them in my last post. I have little patience, however, for strawmen or gibberish, and will call a spade a spade anytime one is presented to me.

I have provided the example of Jesus Christ, but I guess that isn’t good enough for you…

We have already provided the teachings of Christ, which He gave to us through His Church for centuries, as well as the irrefutable facts about crime in the modern world. I guess those aren’t good enough for you.

So that’s how you read the Catechism?

You’re the one saying the Church is in error, not me.

Yes, on a matter of opinion, not on a matter of faith or morals, as I explained earlier. Do you know the difference?

 

[Ender]

No they are not.

Catholic morality does indeed rely on the natural law, but the two are not equivalent. The natural law is available to all, on the basis of reason. Catholic morality includes the additional insights given by revelation i.e. matters of faith, not only reason.

Are you suggesting then that Catholic morality changes with the time and it is only the Natural Law that is constant?

Ender

 

[Ender]

So you agree that the death penalty as an act is not “good” in and of itself. Right?

You say intent defines the morality of it?

No act can be intrinsically good. The morality of an act depends on both the nature of the act and the intent for which it is done and if either is immoral then the act is immoral. In that regard the death penalty is no different than giving alms: neither is intrinsically good or bad.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What we are arguing is that in modern society, it is by and large unneeded. Life in prison without parole sufficiently redresses the crime.

On what teaching do you base that opinion? 2267 ignores the issue and I am unaware of anything the Church has said that even suggests this is true. On the side of those who believe that only the death penalty is sufficient, however, the Church teaches that the command of Gen 9:6 is still applicable. The difference in our positions is that yours is a personal opinion based on your own interpretations and mine is a restatement of what the Church teaches.

I know you will get on your justices soap-box, so let me answer you preemptively. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth.

Your assertions would be more compelling if they were backed up by specifics. You are long on claims but very short on evidence to support them. It is valid to challenge whether or not life in prison satisfies the obligations of the state to impose punishments commensurate with the severity of the crime, but justice requires punishment and you have made no case for why a life sentence is justice but the death penalty is absolute justice, which, for some reason, you don’t think is the goal.

Let me say it again, because you have a habit of ignoring my statements. Absolute justice is not consistent with revealed Truth. If it were, then there would be no salvation possible. We are guilty of personal sin. We were born under the curse of original sin. In His mercy, God provided salvation for us, not based on our merit, but on His grace.

If you are arguing that mercy obliges us not to execute anyone then say so. Is that your position?

The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. This is the justification for war and the death penalty. Punishment can be achieved without killing the offender.

Protection is one of the reasons for a just war and is sufficient of itself. Protection is also an objective of punishment but it is not sufficient of itself to use any punishment that increases our safety; the only objective of punishment that justifies its use is justice and justice alone.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Originally Posted by CWBetts
What we are arguing is that in modern society, it is by and large unneeded. Life in prison without parole sufficiently redresses the crime.

I believe you are right about the nature of the argument…1)Is it “needed”?, and 2)whether life without properly “redresses” a premeditated murder?

I say it is needed and it doesnt “redress”, first because life without parole(lwop) is hardly in keeping with the centuries of tradition of the Church, when this “necessity” thing and “protect the puiblic from the murderer” were not the primary emphases of the penalty (we have all discussed—reorder society, retribution, proportionality, in fact-- mentioning the duty to inflict the penalty in prior writings. Lets make a good case to argue. It could happen. We catch bin Laden, we try him, and he is convicted and given the death penalty. . Of course he may WANT to die and get the 72 virgins, but lets say he fights it. To keep this guy alive, with interviews, chances to convert other Muslims in the slammer, and Oprah and Baba Wawa interviews, it would be a real sham to keep this guy alive…a real insult to the approx 3000 lives he caused to die, in part. I say stay with the teachings of the church…its proportional, it helps to reorder society, it cries for justice (fundamental fairness) and thats why Pope Benedict says:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia”

So, the same applies when a rapist rapes and kills a 13 yr old girl, or when a thug blows the insides of a 7-11 store clerk against the wall for a carton of cigarettes ( as actual case I had when I was a prosecutor.)
Let justice flow like a river !!! and righteousness like an ever flowing stream !!

 

[CWBetts]

Originally Posted by CWBetts
What we are arguing is that in modern society, it is by and large unneeded. Life in prison without parole sufficiently redresses the crime.

I believe you are right about the nature of the argument…1)Is it “needed”?, and 2)whether life without properly “redresses” a premeditated murder?

I say it is needed and it doesnt “redress”, first because life without parole(lwop) is hardly in keeping with the centuries of tradition of the Church, when this “necessity” thing and “protect the puiblic from the murderer” were not the primary emphases of the penalty (we have all discussed—reorder society, retribution, proportionality, in fact-- mentioning the duty to inflict the penalty in prior writings. Lets make a good case to argue. It could happen. We catch bin Laden, we try him, and he is convicted and given the death penalty. . Of course he may WANT to die and get the 72 virgins, but lets say he fights it. To keep this guy alive, with interviews, chances to convert other Muslims in the slammer, and Oprah and Baba Wawa interviews, it would be a real sham to keep this guy alive…a real insult to the approx 3000 lives he caused to die, in part. I say stay with the teachings of the church…its proportional, it helps to reorder society, it cries for justice (fundamental fairness) and thats why Pope Benedict says:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia”

So, the same applies when a rapist rapes and kills a 13 yr old girl, or when a thug blows the insides of a 7-11 store clerk against the wall for a carton of cigarettes ( as actual case I had when I was a prosecutor.)
Let justice flow like a river !!! and righteousness like an ever flowing stream !!

Saint Maria Goretti’s killer became a Franciscan, which would have been impossible under your retributive sense of “justice.”

 

[d97c]

Alessandro—After the murder of Maria,he was going to get life (never got the death sentence!!) .He became a lay brother, not a priest, and when he stabbed Maria 14 times, he was a minor, so no death penalty, and he was sentenced to a whopping 30 years!! A minor is, under law, not comparable to Adolph Eichmann ! or any adult. Furthermore, he quite quickly after Maria’s death repented, telling about a vision.
I say send bin Laden to the virgins !!!
Batta-boom

 

[Lycorth]

Saint Maria Goretti’s killer became a Franciscan, which would have been impossible under your retributive sense of “justice.”

There are innumerable innocent Catholics who have become Franciscans without first committing murder, and there will be legions more as time marches on. Even in our modern age the Church is not so desperate for religious that it has to resort to bottom fishing the waters of humanity for recruits.

 

[diggerdomer]

Are you suggesting then that Catholic morality changes with the time and it is only the Natural Law that is constant?

Ender

The natural law is constant, yes. So is the authority of the Church.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, on a matter of opinion, not on a matter of faith or morals, as I explained earlier. Do you know the difference?

Yes I do. But I don’t see where in the Catechism the Church teaching on the death penalty is identified as a matter of opinion. Actually, I can’t find anywhere in the Catechism where a teaching is identified as opinion. Can you clarify that, or show me where? thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

No act can be intrinsically good. The morality of an act depends on both the nature of the act and the intent for which it is done and if either is immoral then the act is immoral. In that regard the death penalty is no different than giving alms: neither is intrinsically good or bad.

Ender

The taking of a human life is different than giving alms. The former is presumed wrong, with justifiable moral exceptions. The latter is presumed good, though may be “wrong” given intent and/or circumstances.

You make some good points…it’s only the equivalence you seem to claim of taking human life and giving to charity that I disagree with.

 

[CWBetts]

There are innumerable innocent Catholics who have become Franciscans without first committing murder, and there will be legions more as time marches on. Even in our modern age the Church is not so desperate for religious that it has to resort to bottom fishing the waters of humanity for recruits.

I suggested no such thing. But execution would have robbed us of this story of redemption. Are you so blinded by vengeance that you cannot see this?

 

[d97c]

For every one Alessandro, the killer of Maria, there are hundreds of victims of murder whose lives would be disrespected by keeping their thug killer alive, with the people’s tax money, paying for his food, shelter, heat, air conditioning, weight room, color tv, endless court appeals, free lawyers, tv interviews (if they are famous,)…so… it would have been “justice” to have executed the thug who stabbed Maria 14 times…(remember tho…he was a minor…and that is not the common case!!)…even if executing him would have eliminated him from being a lay brother…because ----> the damage done to society and the blessed remembrance of Maria by NOT executing the murderer outweighs any benefit from having the murderer be a lay brother… …The history shows he repented within 3 years of the murder…Good for his soul…that has NOTHING to do with the duty the state has…(the 3 years is, by the way, shorter than the 10 years it ususally takes to execute a guy nowadays.)That has nothing to do with the state exacting the proportional response to her murder and attempted rape !!

 

[portarica]

For every one Alessandro, the killer of Maria, there are hundreds of victims of murder whose lives would be disrespected by keeping their thug killer alive, with the people’s tax money, paying for his food, shelter, heat, air conditioning, weight room, color tv, endless court appeals, free lawyers, tv interviews (if they are famous,)…so… it would have been “justice” to have executed the thug who stabbed Maria 14 times…(remember tho…he was a minor…and that is not the common case!!)…even if executing him would have eliminated him from being a lay brother…because ----> the damage done to society and the blessed remembrance of Maria by NOT executing the murderer outweighs any benefit from having the murderer be a lay brother… …The history shows he repented within 3 years of the murder…Good for his soul…that has NOTHING to do with the duty the state has…(the 3 years is, by the way, shorter than the 10 years it ususally takes to execute a guy nowadays.)That has nothing to do with the state exacting the proportional response to her murder and attempted rape !!

When you use the cost argument you ignore the reality of proving guilt. The reason it costs so much to keep some one on death row is not just the housing costs but the checks and balances put into place because of the number of innocents who have been murdered by the states.

The death penalty in the US is not meted out because of the likelihood of the guilt or innocence, but by the severity of the crime. The checks and balances that are in place are because the standards for guilt and innocence are not of certainty but absence of reasonable doubt.

But in reality what is death? If somebody committed suicide because of the financial collapse brought about by unscrupulous wall street traders is that any worse than a death at the hands of a “thug”?

Is unnecessary state sanctioned killing any better than the state sanctioning abortion?

Peace

 

[Lycorth]

Yes I do. But I don’t see where in the Catechism the Church teaching on the death penalty is identified as a matter of opinion. Actually, I can’t find anywhere in the Catechism where a teaching is identified as opinion. Can you clarify that, or show me where? thanks.

I explained my reasoning in post #877.

I suggested no such thing. But execution would have robbed us of this story of redemption. Are you so blinded by vengeance that you cannot see this?

I’m not blinded by anything, thank you. That would be clear to you if you were interested in giving my arguments a fair treatment.

My point here is that while one murderer may have truly repented and come to the Faith, it doesn’t mean that every murderer will, or does. The fact that Catholic evangelization fails to convert the vast majority of murderers (or else we would hear nothing but a constant and relatively unbroken string of conversions) means that as much as we all would like to see every murderer repent and come to the Faith, the vast majority will not and as such, we must defend society rather than cast pearls before swine.

Furthermore, conversions can be faked in an attempt to evade punishment. Naivety will only imperil more people, not save a single soul.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t oppose attempts to reach murderers or anyone else with the Gospel by those so inclined to try. All the convicted should at least be tried once with the Good News and their souls prayed for. But, we cannot imperil society for their sake; we are obliged to defend the innocent. The prison system has failed to do so, due to the rates of recidivism and the inability of prison to act as a sufficient deterrent to crime. Thus, we must return to elder methods and apply them when necessary; that means executing those who have proven they are a threat to the well-being of others and the general social order. We cannot ask the poor and the innocent to subsidize the guilty and the dangerous any longer.

When you use the cost argument you ignore the reality of proving guilt. The reason it costs so much to keep some one on death row is not just the housing costs but the checks and balances put into place because of the number of innocents who have been murdered by the states.

By all means, guilt must be proven conclusively. But when it is, and it oftentimes is, there is no excuse to force the innocent to subsidize the guilty at their own imperilment.

The death penalty in the US is not meted out because of the likelihood of the guilt or innocence, but by the severity of the crime. The checks and balances that are in place are because the standards for guilt and innocence are not of certainty but absence of reasonable doubt.

Absence of reasonable doubt equals certainty. It is hair-splitting to argue otherwise.

But in reality what is death? If somebody committed suicide because of the financial collapse brought about by unscrupulous wall street traders is that any worse than a death at the hands of a “thug”?

Yes; self-murder brought about by grief and short-sightedness is tragic, but a *thug *who wantonly kills someone in the course of a robbery or a rape or just for kicks is even worse. At least the suicide only killed himself; the thug took the life of someone else.

Is unnecessary state sanctioned killing any better than the state sanctioning abortion?

Unnecessary state-sanctioned killing is one thing - necessary executions of dangerous criminals is quite another.

Aborted babies are not dangerous criminals. All killing is not equal; there is no such thing as “equality”.