Death Penalty And Pro Life

[Socrates]

The second question on the poll has already been decisively answered in the negative by our current Holy Father, in the role of Prefect of the CDF in the following document: [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm"]"Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles[/url]":

[quote]3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.[b] For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.[/b] While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals,[b] it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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.[/b][/quote]

If supporting the death penalty were an offense worthy of excommunication, then plenty of major saints, including Fathers and Doctors of the Church should have been excommunicated, along with those responsible for writing up the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

[quote]The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8).[/quote]

For more arguments and counter-arguments than you'd ever wish to read on this topic, just run a search for "death penalty" on this site.

[Ice_nine]

Only if you give them a really delicious, ridiculously-portioned meal before you get the potassium chloride out.

Also one time they injected a guy, but he didn't die, and they were all like what?! And so they unstrapped him and he thought he was superman and started taunting the crowd and such. Turns out his arm was strapped in too tight to prevent the drug from circulating, and so he dropped dead shortly after he started acting like he was the world's biggest bad ass. True story.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345745752' post='2472770']
If people complain about pro-choice Catholics being allowed to receive communion, they have to make the same argument for pro-death penalty politicians in the United States.
[/quote]

no.

as much as i am against the death penalty(church teaching obviously excluded) and i think some on here are realy pro-death penalty, the church say the death penalty can be used appropriotly at times. so it is not intrisically evil where as abortion is always evil and never ok.

although in america the death penalty should be used next to never. other countries have different standards but with how sophisticated america's prisons are, the death penalty should be used next to never and never for revenge like its used so many times for.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1345792904' post='2473399']
no.

as much as i am against the death penalty(church teaching obviously excluded) and i think some on here are realy pro-death penalty, the church say the death penalty can be used appropriotly at times. so it is not intrisically evil where as abortion is always evil and never ok.

although in america the death penalty should be used next to never. other countries have different standards [b]but with how sophisticated america's prisons are[/b], the death penalty should be used next to never and never for revenge like its used so many times for.
[/quote]The idea that SuperMax prisons are humane is pretty much a myth. It's been discussed on PM before. Do a google search and read about it. The ACLU has been complaining about it. Some Euoropean governments are considering (or have already) refused to extradite prisonors to the US that would go to SuperMax style prisons.

[dairygirl4u2c]

granted this has all been hashed out before.
but i will say, the pope teaches infallibly, they say, on faith and morals, when he teaches to the church with the intention of doing so.
execution of prisoners is an issue of faith and morals.

socrates i'd suppose gave two of the best quotes from popes in favor of those who support the death penalty. how does one reconcile it all?

it'd seem that the old council he quoted is saying "death penalty can be used" it's ambiguous enough to wonder if it's as a means of retaliation or just to defend life etc. PJII said you should only do it when necessary to defend life, which is practically nonexistant nowadays. reading these all to be reconcilable one would say that what JPII said is most specific and worth most consideration.
now, ratzinger did say that one can be at odds on the "application" of the death penalty.... who knows what that means? well, if we read it all together, maybe specific applications one could be at odds with the popes about, or maybe general theories of what's in defense of social welfare one could be at odds about, plausibly.

course, one could take the chicken's way out and say what JPII said was not intended to be on faith and morals, and just him talking, an ambiguous encyclical, which is a path catholics often like to take when confronted with issues they don't l;ike to deal with.

i know catholics here like to take the "general theory of what's in defense of welfare that one could be at odds about" and spin it to all kinds of ridiculous places. but those are all past threads.

much boils down to catholic wanting to justify, rationalize, their preexisting beliefs, to justify their fancy footed revenge... or to justify yet one of many positions they espouse that makes them cookie cutter conservatives, ie, not really an independent agent politically or religiously, but a replica that might have only certain variances with today's westsern mainstream conservatism, and only if it could be considered conservative. (sometimes i don't do justice to the definition of a cookie cutter conservative

granted this has all been hashed out before.
but i will say, the pope teaches infallibly, they say, on faith and morals, when he teaches to the church with the intention of doing so.
execution of prisoners is an issue of faith and morals.

socrates i'd suppose gave two of the best quotes from popes in favor of those who support the death penalty. how does one reconcile it all?

it'd seem that the old council he quoted is saying "death penalty can be used" it's ambiguous enough to wonder if it's as a means of retaliation or just to defend life etc. PJII said you should only do it when necessary to defend life, which is practically nonexistant nowadays. reading these all to be reconcilable one would say that what JPII said is most specific and worth most consideration.
now, ratzinger did say that one can be at odds on the "application" of the death penalty.... who knows what that means? well, if we read it all together, maybe specific applications one could be at odds with the popes about, or maybe general theories of what's in defense of social welfare one could be at odds about, plausibly.

course, one could take the chicken's way out and say what JPII said was not intended to be on faith and morals, and just him talking, an ambiguous encyclical, which is a path catholics often like to take when confronted with issues they don't l;ike to deal with.

i know catholics here like to take the "general theory of what's in defense of welfare that one could be at odds about" and spin it to all kinds of ridiculous places. but those are all past threads.

much boils down to catholic wanting to justify, rationalize, their preexisting beliefs, to justify their fancy footed revenge... or to justify yet one of many positions they espouse that makes them cookie cutter conservatives, ie, not really an independent agent politically or religiously, but a replica that might have only certain variances with today's westsern mainstream conservatism, and only if it could be considered conservative. (sometimes i don't do justice to the definition of a cookie cutter conservative

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='EmilyAnn' timestamp='1345747155' post='2472793']
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Church allows for Catholics to either support or oppose the death penalty. The Church does not allow for the support of abortion, so you're talking about two very different situations.
[/quote]

You are correct.

[dudleysharp]

[size=4][font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000]There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.[/color][/font][/background][/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000]Clearly pro life.[/color][/font][/background][/color][/font]

[font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000]The very recent changes (EV,1995 & CCC, final amendment 2003) in the Catholic position are based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that "defense of society", a utilitarian/secular concern, not a moral or theological one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.

This change in teaching is based upon the Church's switch to utilitarianism - defense of society - when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition - all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead unjust aggressors are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living unjust aggressors.

Living unjust aggressors murder and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.

It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian/secular prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.

It is also a mystery why the Church didn't review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society. There is no evidence that She did.

Thankfully, as the recent Church's teaching is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

Catholics should inquire, why is removal of the death penalty option "preferred".

How does it become "preferred" when

1) 2000 years of Church teachings are in conflict with a secular/utilitarian "defense of society" foundation. Why aren't the prior 2000 years of teachings "preferred" and/or Why aren't those 2000 years of teachings "preferred" over a secular prudential judgment?

2) "Defense of society" is, at best of tertiary importance, even within the recent CCC ? Why aren't the primary or secondary reasons for sanction, individually and/or collectively, "preferred"? and

3) The facts support that the death penalty must be a greater defender of both society and innocent individuals, than is incarceration? Why is a lesser defense of society, which allows more innocents to be victimized, more "preferred'? This is in the context of death penalty eligible crimes, in proportionality and within Church teachings.
===================================

God/Jesus: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.' Matthew 15:4 NAB. This is a frequent passage which God used in the OT, which, as was Jesus' custom, He brought into the NT for emphasis of continuity and importance.
full context [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm"]www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm[/url]

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

Pope (and Saint) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).[/color][/font][/background][/color][/font]

[u][font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000]Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Schoalars[/color][/font][/background][/color][/font][/u]

[font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000][url="http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html"]http://prodpinnc.blo...n-catholic.html[/url] [/color][/font][/background][/color][/font]


[font=Georgia][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][color=#000000]The current Catechism confirms within CCC 2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image."

"This teaching remains necessary for all time."

Just as:

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey confirms: " . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113). Prof. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: ". . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy." (p. 116)."A Bible Study", Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm"]http://www.usccb.org...s/numbers35.htm[/url]

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence. [/color][/font][/background][/color][/font][/size]

[Annie12]

sorry to bother everyone with this topic! I [i]was[/i] curious though...

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if one were to look at what JPII said as mere dicta, or mere "thinking out loud" or prudruential judgment, something not to take fully seriously, i think one does have to give it much weight.

for exam[ple, perhaps we could conclude that punishing consistently with the death penalty for the more heinous crimes, would actually deter crime. as of now, most studies show that punishing with death as the law doesn't deter much at all. but maybe if it were more consistent or such we might be able to conclude otherwise. then we should at least to give JPII's thoughts much weight, conclude that we should only be doing exectutions in the name of deterrence etc... which is not what many a conservative would argue, namely retribution, 'revenge'.
mind you, they spin themselves in circles trying to justify themselves as if it's about deterrence or something else.

and never mind the fact that JPII did say what he said, how are we to take this faith and morals declaration and brush it under the rug as "prudential judgment"?
one could plausibly say it was "thinking out loud" and not to be taken fully seriously, but it was even put in the catholic catechism, which w3hile not per se making it infallible, adds a lot of weight to it. we're not to execute for mere vengence etc.

[Jaime]

One can be pro-life and pro death penalty. One can be pro-life and against the death penalty.

Anyone who is pro death penalty has every right to receive communion. Unless (s)he has fallen out of grace with the Church.


Really easy straightforward questions!! Nothing nuanced or conditional. There isn't any debate in the Church about this.

[Jaime]

[quote name='dudleysharp' timestamp='1345825264' post='2473513']
[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000]There is a 2000 year record of Catholic Saints, Popes, Doctors of the Church, religious leaders, biblical scholars and theologians speaking in favor of the death penalty, a record of scholarship, in breadth and depth, which overwhelms any position to the contrary.[/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000]Clearly pro life.[/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000]The very recent changes (EV,1995 & CCC, final amendment 2003) in the Catholic position are based upon a wrongly considered prudential judgement which finds that "defense of society", a utilitarian/secular concern, not a moral or theological one, very rarely, if ever, requires execution.

This change in teaching is based upon the Church's switch to utilitarianism - defense of society - when the teachings have been and must be based upon justice, biblical and theological teachings and tradition - all of which conflict with the newest teachings based upon utility.

In addition, the evidence is overwhelming that execution offers greater defense of society than does a life sentence. Dead unjust aggressors are infinitely less likely to harm and murder, again than are living unjust aggressors.

Living unjust aggressors murder and harm in prison, after escape and after improper release. The cases are well known and are daily occurrences.

It is a mystery why the Church chose a utilitarian/secular prudential judgement over eternal teachings based upon justice and chose to spare more murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths, but that is, precisely what She has done.

It is also a mystery why the Church didn't review the available evidence, that execution offers a greater defense of society. There is no evidence that She did.

Thankfully, as the recent Church's teaching is a prudential judgement, such means that any Catholic can support more executions and remain a Catholic in good standing.

Catholics should inquire, why is removal of the death penalty option "preferred".

How does it become "preferred" when

1) 2000 years of Church teachings are in conflict with a secular/utilitarian "defense of society" foundation. Why aren't the prior 2000 years of teachings "preferred" and/or Why aren't those 2000 years of teachings "preferred" over a secular prudential judgment?

2) "Defense of society" is, at best of tertiary importance, even within the recent CCC ? Why aren't the primary or secondary reasons for sanction, individually and/or collectively, "preferred"? and

3) The facts support that the death penalty must be a greater defender of both society and innocent individuals, than is incarceration? Why is a lesser defense of society, which allows more innocents to be victimized, more "preferred'? This is in the context of death penalty eligible crimes, in proportionality and within Church teachings.
===================================

God/Jesus: 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.' Matthew 15:4 NAB. This is a frequent passage which God used in the OT, which, as was Jesus' custom, He brought into the NT for emphasis of continuity and importance.
full context [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm"]www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew15.htm[/url]

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

Pope (and Saint) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).[/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]

[u][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000]Death Penalty Support: Modern Catholic Schoalars[/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font][/u]

[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][url="http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html"]http://prodpinnc.blo...n-catholic.html[/url] [/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]


[font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Georgia][size=2][color=#000000]The current Catechism confirms within CCC 2260: "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image."

"This teaching remains necessary for all time."

Just as:

Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey confirms: " . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect." (p. 111-113). Prof. Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: ". . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy." (p. 116)."A Bible Study", Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.

Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43

It is not the nature of our deaths, but the state of salvation at the time of death which is most important.

Jesus: “So Pilate said to (Jesus), “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” John 19:10-11

The power to execute comes directly from God.

Jesus: “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22.

Fiery hell is a considerable more severe sanction than any earthly death.

The Holy Spirit, God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit – to God – through Peter. Acts 5:1-11.

No trial, no appeals, just death on the spot.

God: “You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.” Numbers 35:31 (NAB) full context [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/numbers/numbers35.htm"]http://www.usccb.org...s/numbers35.htm[/url]

For murder, there is no mitigation from a death sentence. [/color][/size][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]
[/quote]

TYPE BIGGER

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='jaime' timestamp='1345861341' post='2473861']
TYPE BIGGER
[/quote]

No.Kidding.

[4588686]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1345777870' post='2473287']
Only if you give them a really delicious, ridiculously-portioned meal before you get the potassium chloride out.

Also one time they injected a guy, but he didn't die, and they were all like what?! And so they unstrapped him and he thought he was superman and started taunting the crowd and such. Turns out his arm was strapped in too tight to prevent the drug from circulating, and so he dropped dead shortly after he started acting like he was the world's biggest bad ass. True story.
[/quote]


That happened to me once.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1345777870' post='2473287']one time they injected a guy, but he didn't die, and they were all like what?! And so they unstrapped him and he thought he was superman and started taunting the crowd and such. Turns out his arm was strapped in too tight to prevent the drug from circulating, and so he dropped dead shortly after he started acting like he was the world's biggest bad ass. True story.[/quote]




Yeah, I have no sympathy for people on death row, I really don't

[havok579257]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345810995' post='2473432']
The idea that SuperMax prisons are humane is pretty much a myth. It's been discussed on PM before. Do a google search and read about it. The ACLU has been complaining about it. Some Euoropean governments are considering (or have already) refused to extradite prisonors to the US that would go to SuperMax style prisons.
[/quote]

i'm not talking about humaine. although for the record being alive is more humane than being killed. same arguement for abortion. but that's neither here or there. the question is, does america have the capabilities to properly contain prisoner. i am not asking if they currently do it. what i am asking is, does this country if the prison system was changed have the capabilities to properly jail humans safely?

just because the system is currently broken does not in anyway mean america is incapable of having a safe prison system in place. that's my point. america can do this. just because they have a messed up system does not negate the fact that they can do it. it just means the system needs to be changed. hence the death penatly should be rarely used because america has the ability to properly and safely jail people.