Death Penalty

[Iacobus]

I don't like the DP, personaly. I know it isn't always evil, but my fear lies with someone being wrongly convicted. It does happen... it was a huge precentage of the IL death row. Some courts want to use the DP too much. Moreover, no legal system is 100% fair. We try to be fair in ours, and do a decent job.

The big names get the big laywers (O.J. got Cochran) and rarly get convicted. If O.J. was a normal person and he got a normal lawyer and not the "dream team" would he have got off?

So until God is the only judge, jury, and lawyer, I don't think I will support the DP because those unfairly convicted could be killed.

[Phazzan]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Oct 16 2004, 01:10 PM'] I don't like the DP, personaly. I know it isn't always evil, but my fear lies with someone being wrongly convicted. It does happen... it was a huge precentage of the IL death row. Some courts want to use the DP too much. Moreover, no legal system is 100% fair. We try to be fair in ours, and do a decent job.

The big names get the big laywers (O.J. got Cochran) and rarly get convicted. If O.J. was a normal person and he got a normal lawyer and not the "dream team" would he have got off?

So until God is the only judge, jury, and lawyer, I don't think I will support the DP because those unfairly convicted could be killed. [/quote]
I agree for the most part.

In my opinion, the death penalty should only be used in the case of 1st degree murder, and when there is 100% satisfaction among the jurors that the accused committed the crime, which may actually require an admission of guilt on behalf of the accused. This "beyond reasonable doubt" business is not good enough IMO.

[the_rev]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 16 2004, 01:02 PM'] o ok, let's take a page out of the soviet handbook... instead of the death penalty how bout we try creul and unusual punishment! errr... maybe not so much.. [/quote]
Let's see, Amendment 8 of the constitution takes that out...


Though the death penalty could be considered cruel and unusal.


Moderator: I think this should be moved to the debate section.

[Guest Aluigi]

no i don't think the death penalty is creul and unusual.

[the_rev]

nor do I, but some find it that way. In their opinion

[Noel's angel]

[quote]2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God. [/quote]

catechism

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Oct 16 2004, 02:59 PM'] Well, we did have the money, until we wasted it on Iraq.  And we are the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Yes, we can lock them up, we just need better security guards.  It surprises me how well the Soviets could run the Gulag, and although they probably had problems with prisoners every now and then, the guards ruled with force.  I talked to a former prison guard, who now works as a security guard at our school, and the only reason why guards get hurt is because they become too lax.  They start becoming friendly towards the prisoners, start having regular conversations with them, and then the guards start letting their guard down (funny play on words), and then that is when prison riots happen.  He told me one story where he was working and the prisoners got out and killed other prisoners and prison guards.  He lived.  But he said the reason it happened was the guards just became too lax.  It was their own fault for not making sure that they were strict with the prisoners.  Maybe the prisons should hire people who just have no personality at all, and just hate the guts out of people like murderers, because then there would be no tendancy for laxness.  Just some thoughts. [/quote]
Right.....


I'm sure the problem of prison reform was doing fine until then. We just took every penny we had and threw it at Iraq ....yeah

Edited October 16, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[Noel's angel]

[quote]Capital Punishment
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68] [/quote]

[Noel's angel]

it says it all really.....

[StMichael]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Oct 15 2004, 06:42 PM'] The Church is not against the death penalty and neither am I.

You take a life, you forfeit your own. [/quote]
"The Church's commitment to the value and dignity of human life leads us to oppose the use of the death penalty. We believe that a return to the use of the death penalty is further eroding respect for life in our society. We do not question society's right to protect itself, but we believe that there are better approaches to protecting our people from violent crimes. The application of the death penalty has been discriminatory toward the poor, the indigent, and racial minorities. [b]Our society should reject the death penalty and seek methods of dealing with violent crime that are more consistent with the gospel visions of respect for life and Christ's message of healing love.[/b] This principle is set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Church is, in fact, AGAINST the Death penalty.

[Enda]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 15 2004, 07:46 PM']I am 100% in favor of the death penalty for all crimes, including, but not limited to, speeding tickets and jaywalking.[/quote]
Come here to Virginia. We execute more people then Texas now, even minors. You'd be in good company.

I think the death penalty is not justified in modern America. As a Virginian it seems like we're executing a prisoner every week and if you read the people who support it (ie the family members of the victim and the victim's friends) the entire justification is revenge. It's just to "make him pay for what he did to my daughter." [i]The death penalty is not justified when its used for those reasons[/i]. I don't understand why Catholics who still support the death penalty can't see this. How can you justify this? Cmom, yes you, made a good point when Drew said the reason why the prison gaurds can't do their jobs was because of Iraq, but that was only one sentence in his post. You totally disregarded everything he said about his experience with prison gaurds. How can you justify it's usage when it's modern purpose is nothing but revenge?

Edited October 16, 2004 by Enda

[Socrates]

I'm personally for the death penalty, though I think of course, it should only be used when it is absolutely certain the perp is guilty. This is up to the courts, of course.

I understand the Pope's personal position (which is not, by the way a magisterial teaching) and respect those who oppose the death penalty, though I tende to disagree with them.

What gets me are those numerous liberal Catholics who use the "death penalty" issue to justify supporting pro-abortion political candidates. ("Yeah, Candidate X is for abortion, but Candidate Y is pro-death penalty. They both go against the Church on life issues, so I can vote for Candidate X.")
The Church has does not and never has put abortion on the same level as the death penalty! Even John Paul II says the state has the right to use the death penalty, but that there is not a good reason for it in modern societies. He has never said anyone has the right to perform or have abortions!

The Old Testament Hebrew Law commanded the death penalty for many crimes, and Catholic monarchies in medieval Europe have always exercised the death penalty, and the Church has never spoke against this. The Church has allowed the death penalty throughout 2000 years of her history, but has never, ever, at any time, allowed for abortion. This false equivicating of the two issues is just typical liberal mucking up the issues to justify one's own wrong stance.

[Enda]

Socrates I agree with everything you say except your support of the death penalty.

[IcePrincessKRS]

The Church is NOT completely [b]against[/b] the death penalty. She argues for the [b]proper[/b] USE of it. The Pope's opinion is that it is rarely necessary in modern society. (note the use of the term "practically non-existant", "practically" does not equal "completely")

[quote]Capital Punishment - The Pope's Position

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Church's teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. Nations have the right to just war and individuals have the right to self-defense. Does that means that any and all uses of force to defend oneself against a criminal, or a criminal nation, are justified? No, and  most people understand that.
To be good every moral act must satisfy three elements
1) The act itself must be good.
2) The intention of the one doing it must be good.
3) The circumstances must be appropriate.

1. Capital punishment is the right of the state. This is the principle taught by the Church. The Pope does not deny it, but neither St. Thomas or any Magisterial text presumes this gives the state an unlimited right to make capital laws and carry them out. It is inherent in a just capital punishment law that there be proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good. A law, for example, that takes no account of factors such as repentance, mental age and so on is unjust. States have  executed the mentally retarded, who could be of no conceivable future threat to society, and in one case a woman whose evident conversion even the state admitted. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2267  Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.
2. Intention. The motive of the state is good when it follows a just law, that is, its decision is motivated by the requirements of the common good and not by motives of vengeance. This is probably not usually a problem of the state, though some officials evidence it, but it is clearly the mind of many in the public, a fact every execution seems to bring out.

3. Circumstances. There are, of course, individual circumstances related to the particular capital case which, as I noted, a just law takes into account. Here I want to consider, however, certain general circumstances. The Pope has noted that in the developed countries the possibility exists to incarcerate criminals for life, removing definitively any threat to society. Thus, the Catechism continues in paragraph 2267,

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority should limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Another circumstance, and one related to "the concrete conditions of the common good," is the nature of our society. We have become a culture of death. The question really arises as to whether we have just laws, and whether we can execute those we do have justly. Abortion has worked a truly horrible corruption of our country, for which we are beginning to pay the price, not just in demonic violence but in the "corruptio mentis" (corruption of mind and heart) of people in general. This is manifested in the malfeasance of justice, by police, juries, prosecutors and judges at all levels of the justice system. In the early Church a similar situation existed. During the time of pagan Rome, Catholics could not hold civil or military office if they could be obliged to judge capital crimes or execute capital punishment. Only after the Church was legalized and the state influenced by its teaching would Catholics be allowed such offices. As the state becomes less influenced by the truth the Catholic finds himself returning to the quandary of the early Christians. Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (EV 56)
So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that  capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it's use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances. Ultimately, the laity who are responsible for these judgments in political society must make them in the individual cases. In doing so, however, they have a grave obligation to apply all the principles taught by the Church to the cases before them, as taking a human life is always grave matter if done unjustly.
[/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm[/url]

[quote]Another Death Penalty Question
Question from Gary in Illinois on 01-12-2003: 
I've reread excerpts from the Catechism (2267) and Evagelium Vitae in light of our governor's commutation of all death penalty sentences in Illinois. While many Catholics may argue that the governor's act of mercy is consistent with both 2267 and EV, I still maintain that the death penalty is not morally wrong in and of itself; that the State may authorize its use and be on the "right" side of canon law. Yet I read quotes in the news from so-called Catholic experts that claim the death penalty is inherently morally wrong...many link it (I believe incorrectly) to the abortion debate. Please help me sort out this mess!
JMJ, Gary

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 01-12-2003: 
It is unfortunate that in recent times the Church's teaching on capital punishment has been presented so unclearly, both by members of the Church as well as of the media and other sectors of society. The Church's teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church's teaching on this matter remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is "rare, if not virtually nonexistent." The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty *disproportionate* to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a "rare" case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching. 
[/quote]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=296154&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=death+penalty&pgnu=1&groupnum=1"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=1[/url]

[qfnol31]

Just use of the death penalty falls under the Just War Doctrine. I'll say more later.