Death Penalty / Abortion/ Thou shall not Kill

[superblue]

Something to debate and mull over ( found the marijuana thing to be boring ) .

 

So for those who do not know Jodi Arias is a seemingly innocent looking female who went bananas and brutally murdered her ex boyfriend.

Found guilty but during the first trial the jury was hung on determining if she should get the death penalty or not.  Fast forward to this past week, the jury once again became a hung jury and I am roughly paraphrasing from what I remember in the news. It did not appear that the jury all agreed at first, an then 11 finally came around to the death penalty, and the entire explosion of this case is to find out the jury was hung by one vote.  One person has basically saved Jodi Arias from the death penalty ( which even if she did get it, she would have spent probably 10 yrs or more in appeals before actually being executed ).

But the issue is the death penalty itself,

I found one org online which seems reputable,

http://www.ncadp.org/pages/about-us

It is a very odd subject because for me ,  I can't honestly say how I would feel to be a victim of knowing a loved one had been murdered, and I wonder how many who are , are actually apart of such a group as linked.  An what makes things extra hard is if the person charged is guilty an has zero remorse, to still be honest an say yes this person is still loved an valued by Christ and God and deserves to be treated with respect an more over to spare his or her life from the death penalty. No one said we have to like them.

Then Abortion, these two issues fit this grander scale of the right to basically live. It is so much easier to say yes spare the innocent life that has not even been given a chance to live, versus a criminal who took a life and is unremorseful or maybe even is remorseful.

 

So I took the time to look into my Catechism / ( 2267) addresses the death penalty but I would say with a catch 22, ( the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, IF this is the only possible way etc.... but if you continue reading which maybe some don't, it goes on to read, IF non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety .......   BASICALLY, a last ditch resort seems to be the only acceptable means of the death penalty. An would it be fair to say that since here in America, we have plenty of non lethal ways to protect society , being life in prison, that in turn there is no real reason for the death penalty other than flat out revenge in the secular world. ?

Would it be fair to say that most of our society in America does not think about the death penalty in the context of the Catechism, but as means of justified revenge ? An do not look at the death penalty as an answer to help in preventing crime. 

Lastly  I would say, I never hear anything in regards to praying for the end of the Death Penalty, at least not in my diocese. We pray to end abortion though...

Why is this, and I might just send a letter to my Bishop for his opinion on this. pending the replies from this.

 

 

[AccountDeleted]

I have been back and forth on this issue over the years. I can fully enter into the feelings that a victim's family might have regarding the perpetrator but because of the many reverses that have been made in sentences over the years due to improved technical knowledge and forensic procedures (DNA especially), I personally am against the death penalty. I don't know how I would feel if it were someone very close to me who had been the victim, but I don't think that my emotions should make that decision anyway.

I know the church isn't opposed to it per se, but there are priests and religious who have protested against it individually. I guess I come back to the simple conclusion that God gives life and only God should take it away.

Then we get onto the question of a 'just war'. So if it's not ok to kill an individual in peacetime, what about during war? That question is too big for me because of monsters of depravity like Hitler who just had to be stopped. 

Life and death isn't an easy issue for those who believe in the sanctity of life, but then it shouldn't be either. Before taking a human life, everything should be taken into consideration and the good vs evil outcome should be examined. If a person has truly repented, doesn't God forgive them anyway? Does that mean that society should be less forgiving than God? As I said, a really tough one - much harder than the abortion issue.

[CatherineM]

I had a nephew murdered. I've done death penalty cases. I've witnessed an execution. I never met a person on death row who was both sane and sober when they committed their crimes. I met no rich people on death row, or geniuses. Most were in the 75-90 IQ range. 

 

Some opinions I formed is that "closure" for the families of the victims doesn't come from the execution, it comes from forgiveness. The decision of who faces the death penalty is handled in a very arbitrary and biased way. Finally, I think that we are capable of being a better country if we respect all life, even scumbags that kill little kids. 

[AccountDeleted]

I worked as a psych nurse in a prison for awhile and I even attended the trial of one of the inmates/patients I had. It was clear to me from the evidence presented that there was no doubt about his guilt, but he couldn't admit it to himself. He insisted that he was innocent. Now, of course, he was in my section of the prison because he was being evaluated for mental illness - whether he knew right from wrong and whether he knew that what he did was wrong. I don't think he could even comprehend what he had done, and from the particulars of the case, I think he might have blocked a lot of it out, even to himself. Killing him wouldn't have done anything more that satisfy a need for vengeance.

I'm with CatherineM on this - forgiveness is the secret to closure. Not easy, but most things that are worthwhile aren't easy. 

[superblue]

ty for the insights thus far, The Catechist is a really good source of information in regards to war and self defense,

 

I guess at this point in time, I am becoming curious as to why the Church is more vocal about abortions than the death penalty here in America,

I constantly hear things brought up in regards to euthanasia , abortion, and suicide, but seems like when it comes to the death penalty the Church in general is not that concerned. ( and this is excluding those clergy and religious who are vocal, I am talking about the Church on a bigger level calling for attention on these right to life issues. )

[superblue]

http://news.yahoo.com/frustration-pushes-utah-toward-renewed-firing-squads-090004298.html

 I put the two quotes below in reverse order for a reason. 

The first was to illustrate what I was trying to express before hand in the first quote, a conundrum  where some people even those friends and families of the victims want to spare the guilty parties life and some don't, but then the  real question in regards to the death penalty in general which is why does the guilty deserve compassion ?  The flip side to this which I rarely even think about is the guilty parties family, and the pain that they also go through, in this case the guilty persons' brother. 

So I guess the saying an eye for an eye an everyone goes blind might be fitting;   at what point does the cycle of pain end.

At what point is the Death penalty nothing more than revenge, vs justice, when the alternative is life in prison with no option for parole.

An then for the government to step in at some level or anyone and then reduce human life to the numbers game, how much does it cost to keep a person who is guilty of a crime in prison for life, at the " tax payers expense " . Also is it hypocritical of Catholics to be  pro-life  but stopping right at the death penalty.  Or the flip side, to be pro - choice yet be against the death penalty.

Some of the victims' family and friends wanted Gardner's life spared in 2010. But relatives of the slain bartender, Melvyn Otterstrom, and bailiff George "Nick" Kirk, pushed for the death sentence to stand.

"Gardner has hurt so many people. He has never shown any compassion for any of his victims, so why does he deserve compassion?" Kirk's daughter, Tami Stewart, said tearfully at the time. "The agony and toll he placed on my father deserves justice and that it be given."

 

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Randy Gardner still struggles four years later to talk about seeing his brother's bullet-ridden body at the mortuary after he was executed.

Ronnie Lee Gardner was the last person to die by firing squad in Utah — a method state lawmakers voted this week to reinstate, illustrating frustrations across the U.S. over bungled executions and shortages of lethal-injection drugs.

[Ice_nine]

I've grapple with this topic and have actually changed my mind a number of times. It's certainly not an easy thing to figure out. I mean sometimes you hear about a case and you think "OK that person definitely did it and deserves to die," but those are more extreme cases that can't be legally defined. What I mean by that is you know it when you see it, even though it may not tick off a number of legal criteria to meet the conditions for a death penalty.

 

Some things that I've thought about and have challenged me:

1) Some people say, ironically, that death penalty proponents "kill people to show that killing people is wrong," making proponents out to be hypocrites. At first it sounds viable. But then you think, what if someone came to your house with guns and threw you in a cage in their basement for 5 years against your will? What would be a just punishment? I think having cops come to that persons house with guns and throwing them in a cage against their will for double time is a fitting punishment no? Inflicting the same punishment on the perpetrator to show that such an act was wrong is not hypocrisy. An egregious crime demands a fitting punishment precisely because the crime is egregious. The difference is who initiated violence, and that is a HUGE difference.

2)While I think the death penalty is a good idea in theory, in practice I do NOT trust our government to dole out sentences justly. There is racial and economic bias within our legal system and until that is ameliorated (probably never) I won't advocate the death penalty here for this reason alone.

3) Even if we believe we can contain violent criminals and keep them away from the general population they still interact with people (other criminals, doctors, prison guards, other prison staff) and they can still present a danger to these people. Believe me I have no warm feelings in my heart for the police, but do they and less vile criminals deserve to share living quarters with super violent criminals? For example does a person say convicted of armed robbery and grand theft auto because he was high and/or desperate and/or not thinking at the time of the crime deserved to be housed with people who get off by raping and killing people? Or you could put the person in solitary, but that's a pretty sadistic option imo.

4) Sociopaths, at this time, can not be rehabilitated. Unfortunately rehab efforts can even wind up teaching them how to better manipulate people. There have been studies done and these people do not show the same autonomic responses (increased heart rate, blood pressure, respiration rate) that normal people have when exposed to violent stimuli EXCEPT when the violence is directed toward them. For example, they can see pictures of corpses cut up, other people being slaughtered and feel nothing, but when they see a picture of a gun pointed toward them, THEN they can feel that. Probably less than normal people, but anyhow it brings me to my next point:

5) Isn't giving a criminal an execution date and thus giving time to settle their affairs, make peace with their maker before they see him etc, much, much, MUCH more merciful than the acts some criminals commit. Torturing and killing people in cold blood? The victims did not have the same courtesy. From a theological perspective it makes more sense. Either allow them to live and create a hell on Earth with a bunch of super violent criminals, or allow them to repent but then remove them from this earth and perhaps get a little bit of peace and justice.

 

Anyhow that's where I'm at. I'm always opening to revising my opinion if anyone can challenge me.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ice, several of those points have been brought up by my priest when teaching on the death penalty. I think it is a very reasonable viewpoint, and totally consonant with Catholic social teaching.

[CatherineM]

I was raised in a hang 'em high kind of place, so I have been conflicted about it many times.  If it was applied evenly, fairly, without regard to race or social class, and those with mental illnesses and/or mental disabilities were excluded, I might have reason to rethink my opinion.  As long as it is done with bias and bigotry, I don't have to wrestle with myself too much.  I do understand those who are for it (including almost every member of my family) and those who struggle with it.

[beatitude]

 

3) Even if we believe we can contain violent criminals and keep them away from the general population they still interact with people (other criminals, doctors, prison guards, other prison staff) and they can still present a danger to these people. Believe me I have no warm feelings in my heart for the police, but do they and less vile criminals deserve to share living quarters with super violent criminals? For example does a person say convicted of armed robbery and grand theft auto because he was high and/or desperate and/or not thinking at the time of the crime deserved to be housed with people who get off by raping and killing people? Or you could put the person in solitary, but that's a pretty sadistic option imo.

4) Sociopaths, at this time, can not be rehabilitated. Unfortunately rehab efforts can even wind up teaching them how to better manipulate people. There have been studies done and these people do not show the same autonomic responses (increased heart rate, blood pressure, respiration rate) that normal people have when exposed to violent stimuli EXCEPT when the violence is directed toward them. For example, they can see pictures of corpses cut up, other people being slaughtered and feel nothing, but when they see a picture of a gun pointed toward them, THEN they can feel that. Probably less than normal people, but anyhow it brings me to my next point:

​I would be seriously cautious about trying to use heart monitors and EEGs to prove a psychological difference between "these people" and "normal people". This was a core aspect of racial eugenics and it's still sketchy because all sorts of factors can affect physiological signs like blood pressure. Some people who have suffered severe and enduring trauma, for example, are just numb and frozen in the face of violence and won't react at all to disturbing images - it doesn't mean that they can't feel concern or compassion. Even supposing that we could demonstrate a clear link between physiological signs and personality/mental state (and I've yet to see any licensed mental health professional claiming that you can) tests like these wouldn't account for why someone is reacting in the way they are, and it doesn't prove that people can't change. This is why even the concept of sociopathy is controversial in psychology. It has multiple conflicting definitions and isn't even a recognized diagnostic term.

Secondly, the people sentenced to death are almost always from the demographic Catherine describes - poor people with learning difficulties or mental health issues or both. It makes no sense to have a hypothetical discussion about people who aren't capable of changing when these aren't the people who are getting killed. Thirdly, is it in keeping with the Christian faith to believe that some people just can't change their ways? Would God create someone immune to grace? And while it's true that some people who have committed capital crimes literally don't understand what they did wrong or don't see it as wrong, I don't think killing them is going to prompt them to feel genuine remorse - it will just reinforce the message that the world is a violent hostile place and that killing is the norm.

Finally, in the UK prisons are organised into categories depending on the type of crime that prisoners committed, so no one serving a sentence for murder should be in the same facility as someone who is in prison for a non-violent crime. I don't know if this is the case in the US but this seems to be quite a simple way of differentiating between prisoners.

[superblue]

Would God create someone immune to grace? And while it's true that some people who have committed capital crimes literally don't understand what they did wrong or don't see it as wrong, I don't think killing them is going to prompt them to feel genuine remorse - it will just reinforce the message that the world is a violent hostile place and that killing is the norm.

The only thing I would add to this is that the person does not care if what they did is wrong/   but I think the message you speak of is something everyone sees, an eye for an eye,  except here in America the death penalty is some how more humane because the process which it was delivered by is considered humane and just.  VS  in the middle east, where stoning a person to death etc is considered barbaric. 

 1) Some people say, ironically, that death penalty proponents "kill people to show that killing people is wrong," making proponents out to be hypocrites. At first it sounds viable. But then you think, what if someone came to your house with guns and threw you in a cage in their basement for 5 years against your will? What would be a just punishment? I think having cops come to that persons house with guns and throwing them in a cage against their will for double time is a fitting punishment no? Inflicting the same punishment on the perpetrator to show that such an act was wrong is not hypocrisy. An egregious crime demands a fitting punishment precisely because the crime is egregious. The difference is who initiated violence, and that is a HUGE difference.

The italic part, is I think what is mentioned in the Catechist, a non lethal means of keeping one away from society from doing more destruction. A viable way of dealing out justice with out having to resort to the death penalty. ( bold an italic )  I am bit split on this, now from a secular point of view it makes sense, but when we are pushed to look at life through the eyes of Christ, it becomes harder, Christ had plenty of chances during his life to exact and support this type of justice but never did.  An even though who threw the first stone does in a legal sense make a very big difference are we as Catholics supposed to really say okay what Christ taught really only applies in such an such a circumstance, and then more over if I as a Catholic am called for Jury Duty to serve on a death penalty case, I can then disregard parts of my faith, to make sure this form of social justice is dealt fairly.

For example does a person say convicted of armed robbery and grand theft auto because he was high and/or desperate and/or not thinking at the time of the crime deserved to be housed with people who get off by raping and killing people? Or you could put the person in solitary, but that's a pretty sadistic option imo.

You are correct in that this scenario you suggested would be sadistic, but one would really have to first look at the arrangements that a prison and or jail has, and most prisons and jails do segregate inmates for safety reasons ( as ironic as that may sound , the laws outside of a jail and prison still apply inside ) so your general population an etc are not always having rapists and murders mingling . An the system knows how inmates preys upon each other, to exact prison justice upon the most heinous of crimes as a form of earning respect among each other.

Solitary confinement is another topic deserving its own debate, plenty of people have made documentaries and done studies of solitary confinement as being inhumane and not effective by any sense of anything positive other than separating uncontrollable people that can not integrate or refuse to adapt to the prison system.  I think the biggest and rampant problem being addressed with solitary confinement is it is being used to house the clinically / mentally disabled that have at some degree committed a crime, and since they can not adapt due to medical reasons are shoved away...  but again this is really a separate topic.

 5) Isn't giving a criminal an execution date and thus giving time to settle their affairs, make peace with their maker before they see him etc, much, much, MUCH more merciful than the acts some criminals commit. Torturing and killing people in cold blood? The victims did not have the same courtesy. From a theological perspective it makes more sense. Either allow them to live and create a hell on Earth with a bunch of super violent criminals, or allow them to repent but then remove them from this earth and perhaps get a little bit of peace and justice.

At first this reason of thinking might seem logical,

 

but here is the thing, the part that I bolded, can easily hands down be said for euthanasia , A doctor can say well patient B, you have terminal cancer, you probably only have a year left to live, I don't want to waste good medicine on you because it wont cure you and it is only going to relieve the pain temporarily, so I am going to give the medicine to another patient, where it will not only relieve the pain but have a chance at putting the cancer into remission.  But I have another option for you patient B , instead of drawing out a year in misery, we can offer you a concoction of drugs to end your life very safely and peacefully, we can do this at any time, we just need you to get your affairs in order, make peace with God, and let us know when you are ready and pay us of course.  

 

or any scenario maybe someone with depression, what ever.

 

The only difference is we are not talking about a criminal, now we are going back to reducing the human life.

So why is it okay to reduce the life of a truly convicted criminal to death ?

How as a Catholic, am I to argue against euthanasia but not the death penalty.  

* Italic, maybe the victims and random people do get a tiny feeling of peace an justice, now what about the condemned brother/sister(s) parent(s) who still loves that person and hopes for mercy ? Hopes that family member reaches a sense of remorse and turns to Christ for forgiveness.

do we say hey sorry bub, there is a priest at your local church to console you. at the very same time the Church rarely officially fights against the death penalty.

 

I see nothing here but trying to rationalize the death penalty and picking and choosing what part of the faith we are going and teachings we are going to follow when it seems fit to us.

 

And if that is what is going on, then maybe I shouldn't give two beans about it, an be like what ever  that person made their own bed now they have to lay in it.

[CatherineM]

There's a guy in Europe, I can't remember which country but one that has legal euthanasia, who's serving a life sentence and he's requested permission to die. At first they said yes, then no. Not sure where it stands now, but it's a country without death penalty. Created a pickle for them. Now that assisted suicide is legal here in Canada, I wonder how long before that scenario happens here.  

[Ice_nine]

​I would be seriously cautious about trying to use heart monitors and EEGs to prove a psychological difference between "these people" and "normal people". This was a core aspect of racial eugenics and it's still sketchy because all sorts of factors can affect physiological signs like blood pressure. Some people who have suffered severe and enduring trauma, for example, are just numb and frozen in the face of violence and won't react at all to disturbing images - it doesn't mean that they can't feel concern or compassion. Even supposing that we could demonstrate a clear link between physiological signs and personality/mental state (and I've yet to see any licensed mental health professional claiming that you can) tests like these wouldn't account for why someone is reacting in the way they are, and it doesn't prove that people can't change. This is why even the concept of sociopathy is controversial in psychology. It has multiple conflicting definitions and isn't even a recognized diagnostic term.

Secondly, the people sentenced to death are almost always from the demographic Catherine describes - poor people with learning difficulties or mental health issues or both. It makes no sense to have a hypothetical discussion about people who aren't capable of changing when these aren't the people who are getting killed. Thirdly, is it in keeping with the Christian faith to believe that some people just can't change their ways? Would God create someone immune to grace? And while it's true that some people who have committed capital crimes literally don't understand what they did wrong or don't see it as wrong, I don't think killing them is going to prompt them to feel genuine remorse - it will just reinforce the message that the world is a violent hostile place and that killing is the norm.

Finally, in the UK prisons are organised into categories depending on the type of crime that prisoners committed, so no one serving a sentence for murder should be in the same facility as someone who is in prison for a non-violent crime. I don't know if this is the case in the US but this seems to be quite a simple way of differentiating between prisoners.

​

To your first point I don't really understand about your warnings about approaching eugenic thinking. It was just one study, just an example of the differences between one population and another. Not an end-all-be-all determinant of what makes a person a sociopath, and I didn't mean to imply that. I have anxiety and I'd probably fail a lie detector test 100 times while telling the complete truth. Couldn't you say that about any psychological study that is looking at a mentally ill population vs a "normal" one? (I only use "normal" in the context of the given study, which I didn't even cite because I'm sloppy, i.e. people who do not suffer from said mental illness). This is one study that stood out to me, in isolation it proves nothing, in combination with other information it lends evidence to the theory that some individuals empathize differently (in a negative way, or not at all) than most people. It doesn't mean that if you don't sweat bullets when you see a murder scene that you're a psychopathic killer, but in conjunction with a person's criminal history "hey these people have done horrible things and don't seem to care," it provides clues about what's going on internally.

I'm just not seeing eugenics-reasoning here.

To your third point, there are some people who can do horrible, horrible things to other people and seem to enjoy them and/or not feel any remorse. I didn't say these people can't change just that we have found no effective way of rehabilitating them (and that attempts to can just wind up teaching them how to better manipulate people), but I truly think it would be a miracle. Based on my experience and things I've learned (but mostly experienced) there are just some people who I feel are evil. Maybe deep inside they are tormented and feel all sorts of pain about the bad things they've done. I don't know 100%, I'm not God, and in fact I used to believe that these types of people do have a conscience somewhere, but now I just think some people are tapped and genuinely do not care about hurting others. Those who show no remorse for what they've done, I think it's more than fair recompense to give them an execution date and let them get their affairs in order. Whether it "prompts genuine remorse" or not is up to them and God, and besides the point really. Do you think an extended stay in a cage with other super-violent individuals is gonna make the person feel bad for what they did? Or just make them miserable for the remainder of their lives?

Why would God make psychopaths immune to grace? I don't know, I won't say they're immune but some seem pretty beaver dam averse to grace. Like I said I can't say 100% for sure, but just the way things seem, I don't know it's a struggle. I'd like to believe that everyone can change but there's a certain degree of wickedness that makes the chance of repentance seem so astronomically low it's practically zero

And to your second point, that most people executed are in a different demographic, I agree. I don't think that makes the hypothetical discussions useless as real-life monsters do exist. But yes I do not trust my government to dole out the death penalty with any real sense of justice. I said "for this reason alone" I would not advocate the death penalty. And until our legal system shows more parity (i.e. when hell freezes over) I will not. I think this is unfortunate because there are a limited number of cases (all the hypothetical cases you think are not worth discussing) when it is truly needed.

[CatherineM]

They took Gacy's brain out after his execution to study. The forensic psychiatrist who had studied him was convinced that there would be something abnormal about it. Completely normal. I got to talk to one of the Nuermburg prosecutors in law school. He got to interrogate Rudolf Hoss, one of the commanders of Auschwitz. He said the guy shocked him by how normal he was. 

[Ice_nine]

They took Gacy's brain out after his execution to study. The forensic psychiatrist who had studied him was convinced that there would be something abnormal about it. Completely normal. I got to talk to one of the Nuermburg prosecutors in law school. He got to interrogate Rudolf Hoss, one of the commanders of Auschwitz. He said the guy shocked him by how normal he was. 

​It doesn't strike me odd at all that there were no significant structural differences in Gacy's brain. That doesn't mean his brain was not abnormal in any way. There are probably millions of things that could be significantly different about his brain that wouldn't be evident in a post-mortem analysis. Are you saying that there was not something significantly warped about him? Or just that the differences were not in his head (doubtful, but possible--inconclusive either way).

Also most nazi war criminals were probably of a different type. I'm sure you've heard of the Milgram experiment right? There's a huge difference from doing horrible things because an authority figure tells you to (not that it makes it in excusable) and doing horrible things on your own initiative.

I am bit split on this, now from a secular point of view it makes sense, but when we are pushed to look at life through the eyes of Christ, it becomes harder, Christ had plenty of chances during his life to exact and support this type of justice but never did.  An even though who threw the first stone does in a legal sense make a very big difference are we as Catholics supposed to really say okay what Christ taught really only applies in such an such a circumstance, and then more over if I as a Catholic am called for Jury Duty to serve on a death penalty case, I can then disregard parts of my faith, to make sure this form of social justice is dealt fairly

Well we know Christ had to die to complete His mission on Earth and do His Father's will. So when people tried to impede this He resisted or rebuked them (He told Peter "get behind me satan" when he said "I will not let you die Lord" or something like that and he healed the ear of the soldier when one of his disciples cut him up with his sword). And he also forgave the woman who was to be stoned to death, for adultery though. Christ was a most merciful figure, but He still talked a lot about judgment and punishment.

I used to be total pacifist, but then I was thinking, "how would it be Christ-like, for example, to watch someone get raped/beated/killed, or allow someone to do that to you without attempting to tear the perpetrators eyes out?" I mean, yes, there are examples when laying down your life and not resisting the evil-doer are noble acts, but then there are times when passivity is evil, I think. 

It's not that Christ teachings only apply in certain circumstances, but that these principles are more nuanced than "ZOMG DON'T HURT ANYONE EVER." Life is precious. That is a principle. All that means is if I, or anyone is going to take someone's life, it must be grave. Killing a criminal does not mean his life is worthless, the amount of deliberation that goes into that decision proves that. The preciousness of the criminal's life must be measured against the egregiousness of his crime. With euthanasia there is no crime to measure against.

​