Why the revised CCC 2267 is NOT a condemnation or contradiction of the historical Church’s teaching

[PetraG]

I’m not so concerned with preserving the human dignity of the most violent criminals. Coddling violent criminals makes a poor example for society.

And what of the human dignity of their victims whose lives these violent criminals destroy?
I hope their victims had “sufficient opportunity for redemption” before their lives were stolen from them by these violent criminals whose human dignity the Pope aims to protect.

You’re in the “I say to you, love your enemies” and “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do” religion, right? Are you sure?

 

[HeDa]

There is a major problem if a criminal is killed by death penalty and later science can prove that someone else committed the crime and the killed person is in fact innocent. Science has developed greatly during the past centuries and decades and will continue to do so.

 

[misstherese]

The real question that should be answered is this: what is a better choice, the death penalty or solitary confinement? There are more than 80,000 people in the United States alone, in solitary confinement. They are suffering.

What Death Penalty Opponents Don’t Get

There are fates worse than death.

www.themarshallproject.org

 

[leocor]

Those crimes and murders committed in prison are not by maximum security prisoners. The statistics are made up of general population prisoners. The general population prisoners involved in these incidences are in there for all sorts of crimes. How do you propose to catch those prisoners by the death penalty when they are convicted? You’d need a crystal ball to know which criminal was going to go on to commit crime inside.

That is factually incorrect again. I must kindly ask, do you do any research at all? There have been many cases in where maximum security prisoners commit further crime in prison, against guards and other inmates, or in connection with some organized gang.

Here is one story of a convicted murderer prisoner escaping a state prison and killing a guard in the process (and there are many more stories like this):

Inmate in prison for murder kills Stillwater guard

Suspect was in prison for second-degree murder.

www.startribune.com

In fact, gangs thrive in maximum-security prisons:

“Inside Maximum Security Prison: Murder, Mayhem, and Meditation (Part 1)”

Here is another article:

“Super-Maximum Security Prison Can’t Stop Gang Members From Committing Crimes”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/05/13/supermaximum-security-pri_n_854.html

There are dozens of such other articles which you can find by a quick google search.

The basis for the elimination of the death penalty is that there exist better and more adequate means or alternatives to contain and restrain the criminal elements within our society. That is clearly factually false. The US with all its money and all its high tech infrastructure still struggles with containing these criminals, even within prisons or maximum security prisons.

 

[leocor]

You seem to know little of South American history. Catholics around the world became familiar with it when 25 Mexican martyrs were canonised by the Church in May 2000. It references Mexican Priests executed for carrying out their ministry disobeying their suppression under the anti-clerical laws of Plutarco Elías Calles after the revolution in the 1920s.
Do you consider those men worthy of state execution? Don’t you recognise how unjust the death penalty is when prejudice, racism or bias are in any way a factor? Mexicans don’t want the death penalty in that environment.

To assume that the Church, a mostly and mainly religious organization, will be able to do the work that countless of republics, peoples and governments in the third world countries and less developed countries have tried to do, many times for many years, is ridiculous. It is absolutely baseless. Instead of trying to eliminate the death penalty by pursuing a political agenda with the aim to bring these third world countries on board with modern technology (which will not happen), the Pope and our Church should focus on preaching the gospel to them and getting the people there to repent of their sins, to respect the Law and those powers ordained by God to execute justice, to establish a government that respects the Natural Law of God, etc.

And I respectfully ask for you to not come on here trying to tell me I know nothing of South American or Latin American history. I have family from central America who know all about the civil wars that happened there, mostly wars that were pushed by militant Communists trying to take over. I have family that fought and died in those times. My mother (and father) who is alive was in the middle of it as a young woman, her brothers were forced to join militant groups or face death, and even that doesn’t cloud her mind as to why the death penalty is important. You are trying to conflate issues non relevant to the fact that even high security prisons today are not adequate enough to contain the criminal elements in our society.

 

[PetraG]

The real question that should be answered is this: what is a better choice, the death penalty or solitary confinement? There are more than 80,000 people in the United States alone, in solitary confinement. They are suffering.

That is really not a “real question.” We may not kill someone when there is an alternative. It may be that solitary confinement in which the prisoner is not only isolated physically but also isolated with regards to voice and view of other prisoners is inhumane, but that doesn’t make execution into the only alternative.

 

[PetraG]

To assume that the Church, a mostly and mainly religious organization, will be able to do the work that countless of republics, peoples and governments in the third world countries and less developed countries have tried to do, many times for many years, is ridiculous. It is absolutely baseless. Instead of trying to eliminate the death penalty by pursuing a political agenda with the aim to bring these third world countries on board with modern technology (which will not happen), the Pope and our Church should focus on preaching the gospel to them and getting the people there to repent of their sins, to respect the Law and those powers ordained by God to execute justice, to establish a government that respects the Natural Law of God, etc.

And I respectfully ask for you to not come on here trying to tell me I know nothing of South American or Latin American history. I have family from central America who know all about the civil wars that happened there, mostly wars that were pushed by militant Communists trying to take over. I have family that fought and died in those times. My mother (and father) who is alive was in the middle of it as a young woman, her brothers were forced to join militant groups or face death, and even that doesn’t cloud her mind as to why the death penalty is important. You are trying to conflate issues non relevant to the fact that even high security prisons today are not adequate enough to contain the criminal elements in our society.

The question is when it is allowable to execute a prison in custody, not whether the government’s failure to provide adequate prisons gives an excuse to exercise the death penalty.

 

[yankeesouth]

But the question of security is one of the reasons that is given that the death penalty is not needed.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens

That is just not accurate.

 

[misstherese]

That is really not a “real question.” We may not kill someone when there is an alternative. It may be that solitary confinement in which the prisoner is not only isolated physically but also isolated with regards to voice and view of other prisoners is inhumane, but that doesn’t make execution into the only alternative.

so you would find it better to prolong torture by putting someone in a fluorescent box for 23 hours a day with little to do but read and exercise?

what other options are there for dangerous criminals? They can’t be around other people; they’re dangerous. That’s why it’s a supermax prison.

 

[Delphinus]

The most violent offenders go to maximum security where they are housed alongside other violent offenders. The security measures are ramped up to manage situations that might threaten both offenders and staff. The statistics regarding inmate crimes are mostly made up from the general population. How do you propose resolving these? Executing all offenders regardless of their crime?

In this instance I had to defer to a dear friend who works as a prison guard with a PHD in psych. I do not work with inmate populations in any capacity so I am not qualified to make an assessment, but he is a little moreso. What he told me was was that when you work with these populations enough it becomes rather apparent who is a true danger and who is not. He states that he has yet to see someone where the death penalty would be a viable option. Prisons these days are excellent at keeping others safe. However, he has not worked with someone who could be a real danger behind bars despite security, but he knows who has. He fully believes the death penalty is still needed to keep populations safe, though it would be a one-in-a-million scenario. He and I both believe it is horribly overused, but still may be necessary in extreme cases.

And no, I would never advocate for slaughtering people regardless of their crime. Excessive, much?

 

[graciew]

But then,who of those prisoners were on death row?
I get what you are trying to say,but even CP is restricted to a very few.
In your example,most respectfully,it would more or less boil down to kill them all and quickly. And this could apply to any person incarcerated for something violent. And this isn t so,fortunately. It would also be another carnage…
There is different question also,how much weight is placed on the other side of the scales ( figuratively) to restore prisoners to their families and communities?

It is difficult,I know…and an inner struggle.

 

[PetraG]

so you would find it better to prolong torture by putting someone in a fluorescent box for 23 hours a day with little to do but read and exercise?

what other options are there for dangerous criminals? They can’t be around other people; they’re dangerous. That’s why it’s a supermax prison.

This is along the lines of the excuses given for euthanasia–we don’t have treatment to lessen their suffering, so the only merciful option is to kill them. No, that is not an option.

The lighting is negotiable, and yes, the conditions ought to be as humane as possible. Having said that, it is hard to argue that the person’s actions warrant death instead of difficult living conditions. It is possible, though, that the options available could be deemed too inhumane to be an option for anyone. Considering the options that are used on people who are innocent but mentally ill, however, this would have to be pretty extreme. Not unimaginable, but pretty extreme.

If you really are talking about self-defense rather than punishment, after all, does the culpability of the prisoner even matter? Why would we execute a guilty prisoner but not execute someone who was just as dangerous but not culpable, if the danger posed were really the driving consideration?

 

[misstherese]

If you really are talking about self-defense rather than punishment, after all, does the culpability of the prisoner even matter? Why would we execute a guilty prisoner but not execute someone who was just as dangerous but not culpable, if the danger posed were really the driving consideration?

St. Thomas Aquinas says it is moral to put to death those who pose a threat to the rest of society. Those who are more dangerous, like those who murder prison guards, other prisoners, try to escape, etc. pose a threat.

By placing them in solitary confinement, you would not only be prolonging their torture, but also would be hindering their conversion. If they are cut off from human contact, (which they have to be) it makes it hard for them to find spiritual support, mental stability, or even a point to life, hence the high number of suicides.

St. Thomas Aquinas also says,
“They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”

 

[PetraG]

St. Thomas Aquinas says it is moral to put to death those who pose a threat to the rest of society. Those who are more dangerous, like those who murder prison guards, other prisoners, try to escape, etc. pose a threat.

Let me ask you this:
a) how many people have committed a murder while on death row?
b) are you suggesting that the state should reserve the right to enact the death penalty on those in its custody who are deemed an imminent threat to life, regardless of whether they are convicts or have been deemed not guilty by reason of insanity? If someone is criminally insane and kills someone keeping them in custody, after all, their victim is just as dead as if they were killed by a responsible party.

If you are saying that a government could conceivably reserve the right to execute someone kept in custody when the state can demonstrate it cannot prevent that person from posing an imminent mortal threat with any means that are humane, then I think you have actually moved from preemptive self-defense to an act of self-defense against an imminent threat.

Legal people, help me, here: would that not require a new classification by which a court would make a finding concerning a person’s danger to society that is independent of guilt or innocence–I mean, that could be used against someone who is not legally responsible for the persons they killed or attempted to kill?

 

[misstherese]

Church teaching lies with the guilt of the person, and the threat they pose on society. Frankly, I’m not all that informed on legal issues. But I do believe murder is really the only case that would warrant the death penalty.

If someone is mentally ill, their guilt is reduced. They belong in a mental facility where they can get proper treatment.

 

[PetraG]

Church teaching lies with the guilt of the person, and the threat they pose on society. Frankly, I’m not all that informed on legal issues. But do I believe murder is really the only case that would warrant the death penalty.

If someone is mentally ill, their guilt is reduced. They belong in a mental facility where they can get proper treatment.

OK, but consider someone who has already killed or attempted to kill another person and is judged an imminent threat to do it again unless the person is kept in inhumane conditions. Why does it matter whether they are culpable or not, if the reason for executing the person is self-defense? Self-defense doesn’t have anything to do with judging whether the assailant is culpable for the attack or not, does it?

 

[hmikell7]

Part of the problem with that arises with the determination of the guilt of the person. I would rather a million violent criminals walk free on the streets than I would have a single innocent person unjustly put to death

 

[hmikell7]

Good for him, I disagree on the grounds that the Pope hasn’t made any pronouncement relating to the morality of the death penalty, but merely to it’s admissibility in light of the alternative means available to us today

And since when is EWTN the end all tell all conclusion to an argument?

 

[Usagi]

There is an awful lot of excluded middle between “coddling” and “not killing.”

 

[Usagi]

Execution is not self-defense. If you are in a position to execute someone, you have already established complete control over that person’s body and environment. They are helpless and at your mercy. Self-defense, even on some notional societal level, cannot possibly apply in that situation. If you can execute someone, you can imprison him indefinitely.