Where is the justice?

[Sixtus]

Ender posted:

There is no case in the US in the last 50 years where an innocent man is known to have been executed.

I do not know of the statistics for executions in the USA but I have to disagree with you that less than 10 people have been executed in the last 50-years,

I think your adding up is suspect.I would re-check your statistics .

I would further suggest that as the psalm says ‘I have rolled up my life, I have been consigned to death for the rest of my years’. I am to spend those years God allowed me not enjoying life but my corpse rotting in the grave.

I suggest that execution is not only violent but the worst of violence. I would hardly describe it as ‘peaceful’

Death the bible tells us ‘is part of satan’s plan not of God!’

 

[Amolibri]

I am familiar with “jumping the shark” and I respectfully disagree.

I am feeling your agression, Mr. Ender. Causing another human being’s death is violence to me. I guess it depends on your definition. Vengeance/retribution is the major reason for the existence of the death penalty the way I see it.

I don’t have to prove anything to you. We each have our opinions. I respect yours, and disagree.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’m not sure what you are implying here but this is obviously a new argument. If you are claiming that an execution is a violent act then I would dispute that. Anyone who has had a pet euthanized will tell you that a death by lethal injection is really quite peaceful. You may feel that the deliberate killing of another human is a horrible act … but don’t claim that it is a violent one.
Ender

Hi Ender,
Are you considering the DP in terms of euthanasia, or as an act of vengeance.
If the former, then we are close, for to me, the appropriate action to take with a dangerous person is preventative detention. Now PD is the ‘punishment’, and euthanasia is a humane exit from that detention.
However, that euthanasia MUST be voluntary.
I still believe that as an alternative to euthanasia, that lethally dangerous voluntary tasks should be allowed, especially mine clearance, so that the condemned might be atoned.

 

[Sixtus]

xxx

 

[Sixtus]

Ponpoopkpoo

 

[Sixtus]

that euthanasia MUST be voluntary.

I can see where you are coming from but the CC forbids voluntary euthenasia

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I can see where you are coming from but the CC forbids voluntary euthenasia

I can see where the CC is coming from, but to allow capital punishment, and forbid voluntary euthanasia to those condemned to full life preventive detention is not logical.
I agree that the euthanasia path is not the best, preferring the use of lerthally dangerous tasks to be preferable for spiritual reasons, but if for some reason, this is not possible, then VE is preferable to DP.

 

[Ender]

I do not know of the statistics for executions in the USA but I have to disagree with you that less than 10 people have been executed in the last 50-years,

I think your adding up is suspect.I would re-check your statistics .

I said there was no confirmed case where even one innocent person had been convicted in the last 50 years although there were credible allegations that at least four innocent men have been executed since 1985. My intention was to apply some statistics to the argument on the danger of the execution of the innocent. Regarding the execution of the guilty, we are in the 50-60 a year range (down from a high of about 100).

I suggest that {execution} is not only violent but the worsed of violence. I would hardly describe it as ‘peaceful’

Death the bible tells us ‘is satanic and evil’

Death may be satanic and evil but it is not necessarily violent even when done deliberately. No one who has undergone anesthesia considers it a violent act. In executions by lethal injection, prisoners are first anesthetized and then euthanized. Where is the violence?

Amolibri:

Causing another human being’s death is violence to me. I guess it depends on your definition.

Yes it does, and I am insisting that in these discussions we use the common definition of words. Find another word that properly expresses your abhorrence of an executions … violent is not accurate.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are you considering the DP in terms of euthanasia, or as an act of vengeance?

Neither, I consider it an act of justice. What is the primary purpose of punishment? According to the catechism “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Given that “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime”, I believe that for some offenses the only just punishment is death.

I can see where the CC is coming from, but to allow capital punishment, and forbid voluntary euthanasia to those condemned to full life preventive detention is not logical.

People commit suicide because they no longer want to face life given their particular circumstances. Why would that prohibition be removed from criminals? The individual citizen has no moral right to exact punishment on the criminal who harms him … but the state has not only the right but the duty to do so. Suicide is a personal act we are forbidden to perform; punishment is a social act the state is required to perform.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Dear Ender,
Punishment and vengeance are one and the same. You cannot differentiate between the two.
Vengeance,
reparation,
atonement,
are all too, similar concepts.
The Catholic church only permits,
sorry, condones,
the DP where there exists no practical alternative.
Practical alternative now abound, especially in technologically advanced ‘civilised’ countries.
Yes there must be a deterrance in the consequence of offence, and that deterrance must be seen by the potential offender as more terrible than the offence, but full life PD is just as terrible as death. To many, it is worse.
Far better to use the condemned to some useful purpose.
Better for society.
Better for the soul of the offender.
Better for atonement.
I favour mine clearance,
followed by medical research,
followed by ultimately,
harvesting of organs.

 

[Sixtus]

Voco proTatiano
Punishment and vengeance are one and the same. You cannot differentiate between the two.,

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree.

Punishment is ‘That which is due offences committed’. Vengeance is ‘When we put ourselves above the law and judge our brother [and sister] worthy of being judged!’

Punishment is commensurate with Justice. Vengeance commensurate with lynching.

Vengeance is where we become blind to our own faults. Where we forget that our offences against Almighty God are infinitely greater than our offences against each other.

Pursue vengeance if you will but remember the words of warning from Mt 7:1-2 which tells us that ‘As we judge others, so we will be judged’ and ‘Whatever measure you deal out to others, will be dealt back to you!’

I find that really scary and would bid my brothers and sisters to keep well away from Vengeance. I for one am all too aware that my offences against Almighty God’s moral law are significantly greater than my neighbour’s offences against me. Therefore to avoid ‘judgement without mercy’ by Almighty God, I must forgive my brothers as I am aware ‘there will be judgement without mercy for those who have not been merciful themselves!’

 

[Ender]

Punishment and vengeance are one and the same. You cannot differentiate between the two.

The Church thinks differently: “Civil authorities should punish any violation of the rights of individuals” (2498). I don’t even think you believe what you just said - surely you believe that someone who commits murder should be punished. Whether you oppose the death penalty or not, you must believe some punishment is appropriate for criminals. We are disagreeing about what punishment is proper, not about whether punishment itself is proper.

I suspect that many people believe it is a desire for vengeance that motivates those of us who support the death penalty but that is based on a lack of understanding of the nature of punishment and justice. (1472) - “every sin, even venial, … must be purified either here on earth, or after death … These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

The Church is very clear about the relationship between sin and punishment: (1863) “Venial sin … merits temporal punishment.” If this is true even for venial sin it can be no less true for serious sin. I already quoted in an earlier post where the Church says that the state has not merely the right but the obligation of punishing criminals.

As I said before, for me the question of the death penalty is tied to the issue of justice. Vengeance is in no way part of my position.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I am afraid I must respectfully disagree.

Punishment is ‘That which is due offences committed’. Vengeance is ‘When we put ourselves above the law and judge our brother [and sister] worthy of being judged!’

I understand your thinking, based on common useage, but, when you read your deffinition of punishment, it reads very similar to:
‘giving just deserts’
This is also very close to the definition of revenge.
Thus the only real difference is the reference to due course, but that in itself does not deny vengeance in punishment.
You put it in a nutshell below, but as I said, due course does not eliminate vengeance.

Punishment is commensurate with Justice. Vengeance commensurate with lynching.

Yes, the state is commonly responsible for lynching, or in plain English, homicide without due process. Neglecting actual deaths on an active battlefield, that includes assasinations and show-trial executions. US client states have become very adept at these tricks, but then what a teacher!

Vengeance is where we become blind to our own faults. Where we forget that our offences against Almighty God are infinitely greater than our offences against each other.

‘Vengeance is mine’ saith THE LORD.
Think carefully on your words, as to what they imply about THE LORD.

Pursue vengeance if you will but remember the words of warning from Mt 7:1-2 which tells us that ‘As we judge others, so we will be judged’ and ‘Whatever measure you deal out to others, will be dealt back to you!’

I find that really scary and would bid my brothers and sisters to keep well away from Vengeance. I for one am all too aware that my offences against Almighty God’s moral law are significantly greater than my neighbour’s offences against me. Therefore to avoid ‘judgement without mercy’ by Almighty God, I must forgive my brothers as I am aware ‘there will be judgement without mercy for those who have not been merciful themselves!’

My objection is to the concept of punishment as an end in itself. It is an acceptable tool of reformation and atonement, but it has no value of itself.
It is, in effect, a form of torture, and shold be seen as such.
Be careful that you mght imply that some offenders are less than human, this is a slippery slope that some of us can remember from the madness of NAZIsm.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Church thinks differently: “Civil authorities should punish any violation of the rights of individuals” (2498). I don’t even think you believe what you just said - surely you believe that someone who commits murder should be punished. Whether you oppose the death penalty or not, you must believe some punishment is appropriate for criminals. We are disagreeing about what punishment is proper, not about whether punishment itself is proper.

As I said to another, it is not punishment that is needed for offence, but atonement. Punishment might be a useful tool in that end, but it is not an appropriate end in itself.

I suspect that many people believe it is a desire for vengeance that motivates those of us who support the death penalty but that is based on a lack of understanding of the nature of punishment and justice. (1472) - “every sin, even venial, … must be purified either here on earth, or after death … These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

The word used above is ‘purified’. This better complies with atonement than punishment. Remember, attempts at punishment do not always result in atonement, thus punishment fails to purify.

The Church is very clear about the relationship between sin and punishment: (1863) “Venial sin … merits temporal punishment.” If this is true even for venial sin it can be no less true for serious sin. I already quoted in an earlier post where the Church says that the state has not merely the right but the obligation of punishing criminals.

No! The state has a right and a duty to protect its citizens from harm. That includes offenders. The aim as I said, should be atonement, not punishment.
Punishment is just vengeance.
Atonement is repairation to the offended and the offendor.

As I said before, for me the question of the death penalty is tied to the issue of justice. Vengeance is in no way part of my position.

Ender

Perhaps we differ in the use of language. I hope my explanation helps.

 

[dudleysharp]

Dear Dudly,
You cry out in the name of justice, but you seek vengeance.
‘Vengeance is mine saith the Lord’…

Bibilically, vengeance is the Lord’s. Yet God invokes execution for many crimes/sins. Those sentences are to be carried out by the governing authorities.

As God does no contradict Himself, we know that such executions are justice, not vengeance.

God reserves vengeance for Himself to mete out.

 

[Ender]

As I said to another, it is not punishment that is needed for offence, but atonement.

I understand what your position is; I am simply explaining what the Church’s position is. You are free to believe what you like. Since the catechism explicitly defines the primary purpose of punishment you should at least acknowledge that your disagreement is with the Church, not with me.

Punishment is just vengeance. Atonement is repairation to the offended and the offendor. Perhaps we differ in the use of language.

We do use words differently. I use “punishment” as the word is commonly understood and as the Church uses it; you have altered the definition to fit your personal inclination. It is as inappropriate for you to say punishment is vengeance as it would be for me to say it is a kindness.

This is the same objection I had to the use of “violence” to describe an execution. It is nothing more than an attempt to hijack another word for its objectionable meaning and misapply it to the discussion to win your point without having to make an argument. I have provided numerous citations from the catechism regarding punishment: can quote any church source that supports your contention that punishment is merely vengeance?

Ender

 

[Sixtus]

Voco proTatiano posted:

Quote:Originally Posted by Sixtus

Punishment is ‘That which is due offences committed’. Vengeance is ‘When we put ourselves above the law and judge our brother [and sister] worthy of being judged!’

I understand your thinking, based on common useage, but, when you read your deffinition of punishment, it reads very similar to:‘giving just deserts’
This is also very close to the definition of revenge.

You are right that Just Desserts is very similar to revenge but the model which is ‘revengeful’ is ‘Retribution!’

I must correct your assumption that I believe in Just Desserts. I do not, neither do I believe in Retribution I subscribe to [and in professional life practice] the Rehabilitative model.

Vengeance is where we become blind to our own faults. Where we forget that ]our offences against Almighty God are infinitely greater than our offences against each other.
—End Quote—
‘Vengeance is mine’ saith THE LORD.
Think carefully on your words, as to what they imply about THE LORD

One would assume that we are all aware that God is without fault so your inference is rather pointless don’t you think!

…and on your OWN words, I rest my case!

Be careful that you mght imply that some offenders are less than human, this is a slippery slope that some of us can remember from the madness of NAZIsm.

No-where have I indicated that offenders are ‘less than human’ on the contrary work hard in practice to ensure they are treated with respect and dignity, mindful of their diverse needs as individuals.

Often invited to speak on Crime Order and Social Control, am very keen to point out offending behaviour is not something ‘other’ people do, it is something 'we ALL do but most of us do not get caught! That is why there is no cure to crime because everyone does it and therefore it is absolutely normal, undesirable but normal! Can you honestly say you have never committed an indictable offence? I have and several times

I digress: the thread subject is a heinous crime. Of course they need to be punished providing we are certain they committed the crime and providing we are prepared to consider their long term rehabilitation back into society as reformed individuals. This most likely comes about through showing mercy pro-social modelling and a willingness to forgive. Is that not what every Christian is called to do!

Forgiveness does not have to involve State sanctioned murder. Two wrongs do not make a right!

 

[Ender]

I must correct your assumption that I believe in Just Desserts. I do not, neither do I believe in Retribution I subscribe to [and in professional life practice] the Rehabilitative model.

“Just desserts” is what the Church teaches: 2266 - “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

This most likely comes about through showing mercy pro-social modelling and a willingness to forgive. Is that not what every Christian is called to do!

Mercy is a part of the consideration of justice so this is an appropriate discussion. I do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to show mercy to someone who is unrepentant of his crime.

Forgiveness does not have to involve State sanctioned murder. Two wrongs do not make a right!

Now don’t you start. Capital punishment is not murder. If you really believe that, you must acknowledge that the Church has sanctioned murder for two millennia - and still does today. Please, let’s use the proper meaning of words without tacking on our personal inventions.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I understand what your position is; I am simply explaining what the Church’s position is. You are free to believe what you like. Since the catechism explicitly defines the primary purpose of punishment you should at least acknowledge that your disagreement is with the Church, not with me.

Perhaps I misunderstand the item in the catechism, but I thought that punishment was a device to obtain atonement, not to inflict physical or mental pain, or discomfort for its own sake.
Punishment in the sense of loving correction is a reasonable aim. Punisment to inflict terror is not. Having a regime of correction which is distasteful is not unreasonable, so that not to offend is preferable to being subjected to correction.

We do use words differently. I use “punishment” as the word is commonly understood and as the Church uses it; you have altered the definition to fit your personal inclination. It is as inappropriate for you to say punishment is vengeance as it would be for me to say it is a kindness.

If punishment is merely to inflict an ‘appropriate’ level of pain or discomfort, for its own sake, then that is vengeance.

This is the same objection I had to the use of “violence” to describe an execution. It is nothing more than an attempt to hijack another word for its objectionable meaning and misapply it to the discussion to win your point without having to make an argument. I have provided numerous citations from the catechism regarding punishment: can quote any church source that supports your contention that punishment is merely vengeance?

Ender

Bottom line is:
If the purpose of punishment is not as a tool to achieve atonement, then it is vengeance.

 

[Sixtus]

Ender posted:

“Just desserts” is what the Church teaches: 2266 - “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

I simply do not believe the Church teaches that if someone can be proven circumstantially then they must be punished as if they were guilty whether they were guilty or not

Sorry but I just do not believe that. I think you are making it up as you go along

Mercy is a part of the consideration of justice so this is an appropriate discussion. I do not believe, however, that it is appropriate to show mercy to someone who is unrepentant of his crime.

You are right and so it is in UK law and that is an abomination.10% of every prison population are unrepentent because they are innocent. Unless they ‘own up to the crime’ and ‘show repentence’, they will never be eligible for parole. So the guilty are being release ahead of the innocent. Now that just cannot be right, but you are free to disagree.

If you think the innocent should be locked up and the key thrown away, then what can I say but to pray for you

So did Christ die for my sins for the sins I may have been accused of committing?

Two wrongs do not make a right!

N

ow don’t you start. Capital punishment is not murder. If you really believe that, you must acknowledge that the Church has sanctioned murder for two millennia - and still does today. Please, let’s use the proper meaning of words without tacking on our personal inventions.

If someone is ‘killed’ then their life has been stolen from them!
If the thief is the State then the State is guilty of murder.That is a fact.

In English law when hanging was on the statute book, the hangman was paid twice: once for carrying out the execution and once to ‘pay his fine for taking a life!’ Sound bizarre? Absolutely true. So the State recognises that the taking of a life is murder even when the murderer issainctioned by the State.

You have no right to say that a person is sub-human!

Murder is murder. Whether it be by soldiers who fail to follow the Rules of Engagement, lynching, malice aforethought or the worse kind: someone with the power to kill, which is sanctioned by the State.

That is akin to the thinking of Nazi Germany. They too said that it was ok to murder because they were in charge, they had the power to de-humanise and therefore it was not murder! Now you are saying exactly the same thing.

I respectfully disagree. But I respect your right to believe in whatever you choose