Execute Them!

[KizlarAgha]

I'm tempted to say that the death penalty is wrong and that we should all have mercy on those who would do us harm and forgive them their sins.

However, I just realized something that is making me question my death penalty views again. We can't expect five year olds to forgive those who wrong them. Jesus calls me to turn the other cheek when I'm attacked, and to be martyred if necessary. He doesn't call those who are younger than the age of culpability to do the same.

As such, I say: "Caedite eos, novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

[Jaime]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='May 14 2005, 01:08 PM'] Agian this is false logic, the death penalty was not "reinstated " in the since that it had ever left either the books or the culture of the states in question. The supreme court interfered with the legal workings of the State, and in result the Legislators altered the Laws to bring it in line with the new federal demands, secondly numbers of this sort are quite meaningless and an obvious attemp at manipulation, I would argue that in fact the muder[i] rate[/i] went down, look at the explosion in the Population of Texas during the time in Question more than theat look at the exodus to the Urban centers both from rural Texas and out of state, murder is always more prevelent in urban settings, particularly in a Boom town enviornment ( Houston of the late 70's and early 80's). But all of those social thing mean little when compared to the population increase during that time frame. [/quote]
Follow the stats as long as you want Don. Go back as early as you want to go. Pick any state you want. You cannot escape the fact that murders increased and continue to increase in Texas. And as far as your "population exlosion" in Texas, Texas has had the same rate of growth consistently for the past 40 years. (Just checked the Census records) No big boom in the 70s.

This is not false logic nor is it a twisting of statistics. Anyone can go to the DOJ and the census and find the exact same information.

The death penalty is not a deterrent for capital crimes. Criminals simply don't care.

[sxtncndles]

First of all, the death penalty does not make people think about what they are doing. When people are committing murder, they are not in their rational mind, and most have a personality or mental disorder (such as antisocial disorder) that makes them have disregard for both punishment and human life.
Secondly, people in maximum security prisons are not hanging out in urban housing. They are in a tiny, cramped "room" with no privacy, and the only exercise they get is a 15 minute walk in a cage. I'm sure the large amount of time spent in these rooms or solitary confinement is punishment enough, and enough time to possibly repent.
Not to mention that it costs a large amount of money to execute someone, and the "overcrowded jails" arguement can be solved by sending minor drug offenders to rehab, or at least, give them a lighter sentence than rapists (which is sometimes not the case).
Not to mention that even with evidence, there is always a possiblity of innocents being executed.
Justice is easily carried out without killing. Yes, its killing and its murder.
Ever seen Dead Man Walking? That movie is brilliant..

[KizlarAgha]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 14 2005, 03:42 PM'] Follow the stats as long as you want Don. Go back as early as you want to go. Pick any state you want. You cannot escape the fact that murders increased and continue to increase in Texas. And as far as your "population exlosion" in Texas, Texas has had the same rate of growth consistently for the past 40 years. (Just checked the Census records) No big boom in the 70s.

This is not false logic nor is it a twisting of statistics. Anyone can go to the DOJ and the census and find the exact same information.

The death penalty is not a deterrent for capital crimes. Criminals simply don't care. [/quote]
It does prevent repeat offenses. Of course life in prison without parole does as well.

[Good Friday]

[quote]The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.  Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.  Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.  When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation.  Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

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 the unjust aggressor.

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

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 definitely 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 nonexistent ([i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], #2267).[/quote]
This is not merely the opinion of Pope John Paul II, but the teaching of the [i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], which bears the infallible authority of the Church's ordinary and universal magisterium. In addition to bearing the authority of ordinary universal magisterium, the [i]Catechism[/i] also bears the highest authority of ordinary papal magisterium, because it was issued by way of apostolic constitution and declared "a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion" (Pope John Paul II, [i]Fidei Depositum[/i], #3, para. 1).

Bearing in mind what the [i]Catechism[/i] says about punishment and the death penalty, I believe that it would be best to give life sentences without the possibility of parole to pedophiles. This would assure that society is protected from the offenders, it would give the offenders the possibility of redeeming themselves until natural death, and it would exclude recourse to the death penalty, which should only be used in the absolute gravest of circumstances.

[cmotherofpirl]

Yep.
Reserve the death penalty for murderers.

[Aloysius]

you're probably right GF. However, those that kidnap children rape AND murder them... I think they should be executed.

however, the catechism's comment about how the cases are now rare if non-existant do not have infallible force because the Magisterium's expertise does not extend over knowing every individual case in the whole world. that portion is about as binding as, for instance, a pope in the past assuming that all the protestants are guilty of material heresy and as such have committed mortal sins and are hell-bound. he does not have teaching expertise to understand every individual case.. where his authority comes in is saying "if they have committed the mortal sin of material heresy, they are hell-bound"

so too "if non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to these means"

but to say that throughout the modern world in every case non-lethal means are sufficient is to step outside of the expertise of the Magisterium.

Anyway, Aquinas answers the idea that we should give them time to repent until their natural death

"The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers."

it seems to me more people would repent in face of death than in face of a lifetime of living with other criminals. personally, if I were put in prison I'd probably end up bitter and take on more and more criminal charecteristics... but if I were faced with execution you better believe I'd be in confession every day pouring my heart out.

[Guest jdawg83]

Whoa!

You're probably right actually, but there's no way it can be justified. To think the idea of salvation as a motive for capital punishment is pre-historic thinking. Should we therefore execute theives, burglars, prostitutes and whoever does wrong in the hope they will come to repentance? It seems unfair then, that the baddies are set a date for their death, they they have the opportunity to repent of their sins, and that the majority of good semaritans do not.

[Aloysius]

so Aquinas is pre-historic now is he? this is a classic case of what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery".-- thinking that the way we do things and see things in modern times is automatically better than the way they did it or thought it in the past. that's not necessarily true, and we ought to give more credit to our ancestors than that... Aquinas was a very intelligent man and to chalk that up to "pre-historic" thinking is somewhat ignorant... no offence

anyway, the baddies are set a date for their death because justice demands their death and the state has the authority to administer that justice. justice does not demand the death of good people and so we must persevere until the end.

See, I'm not saying the reason we should execute them is to give them a better chance at heaven, I'm saying the reason we should execute them is because according to the natural law in their committing homicide they have also fofeited the right to their own life. But then the Catholic idea of expiation, following the Good Theif on the cross and saying to his fellow inmate on death row "You and I deserve this death, but Christ did not. Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom". That's our first example of expiation, the Good Theif admitted he deserved the punishment and accepted it and died. That's the model for death row inmates... the model for death row inmates if they actually did their crime should not be countless appeals, but acceptance of punishment, repentence, and the expiation of their sins.

[cmotherofpirl]

what Al said

[Carnanc]

just wondering, what if someone who has a severe mental illness kills someone and they are not as at fault? should they be executed as well?

I think to some extent this is true of some people on death row.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 14 2005, 03:42 PM'] Follow the stats as long as you want Don. Go back as early as you want to go. Pick any state you want. You cannot escape the fact that murders increased and continue to increase in Texas. And as far as your "population exlosion" in Texas, Texas has had the same rate of growth consistently for the past 40 years. (Just checked the Census records) No big boom in the 70s.

This is not false logic nor is it a twisting of statistics. Anyone can go to the DOJ and the census and find the exact same information.

The death penalty is not a deterrent for capital crimes. Criminals simply don't care. [/quote]
I can't make a full respose to this now though I will today, still briefly in 1960the poulation of texas was 9,579,677 in 1970 11,196,730 an increase of 1617053 or 14.44% in 1980 the population was 14229191 or a differance of 3,032,461 a growth of 27.08% doesn't look the same to me, maybe you are using some sort of new math.


Now if 27% growth in 10 years isn't a population explosion please tell me what is?

numbers come from the US Census bureau here: [url="http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/tx190090.txt"]texas population[/url]


I'll give a full response later where I go over statistical changes in texas over that same period but just a taste, murder had an over all increase of 1093 cases over that 10 years an increase of 84% but rape had an increase of 4371 or 182.88%

[Good Friday]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl']Yep.
Reserve the death penalty for murderers.[/quote]
I don't agree with this notion, either. If society can be protected from the offender -- which it can, by life imprisonment without the possibility of parole -- then there is no just reason to execute the offender.

[quote name='Aloysius']you're probably right GF. However, those that kidnap children rape AND murder them... I think they should be executed.[/quote]
My gut instinct is the same, Al, but the difference is that my conscience should not be guided by my gut, it should be guided by the teaching of the Church. The teaching of the Church, whatever authority it may carry with it, is that offenders should only be executed if there is no other way to protect society. There is no instance in our society, with the possible exception of terrorism, in which society cannot be protected from the offender through means other than capital punishment.

I don't know how much authority this teaching carries with it, but I haven't seen any good argument for not following this teaching presented on this thread. If one wants to execute a person for a criminal offense, then the burden is upon that person to prove that there is a just and compelling reason for doing so. Otherwise, it is a simple act of vengeance which is not ordered toward the highest good of either the criminal or the executioner(s). Depending upon one's culpability, it may even be a mortal sin in the absence of a just and compelling reason for execution.

[quote name='St. Thomas Aquinas']The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.[/quote]
I don't disagree with Aquinas, given the context in which he was writing. One has to remember that the penal system in his time was quite different from the penal system in our time, and it was much more difficult in the time of Aquinas to protect society from an offender than it is today. Thus, it enables Aquinas to say that "the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement." While that was the case in the time of Aquinas, that is not the case today. Once imprisoned, the good expected from their improvement outweighs the danger posed to society, because their threat to society has been greatly reduced by the modern prison system.

Thus, I don't think that the Thomist argument applies to the modern situation.

The teaching of the Church is that punishment must redress the wrong done, but also that it must contribute to the rehabilitation of the offender. This is justice tempered by mercy, and civil justice can only be ordered to man's highest good when it is tempered by mercy. The crime committed can be effectively redressed by taking away the freedom of the individual for the remainder of his natural life, and this also allows for the rehabilitation of the offender. This rehabilitation should be left in God's hands, and so should the taking of the offender's life.

[Aloysius]

as either pspx or don john (I forget which one.. what's the difference? lol) once pointed out, in those times it was not that hard to protect society from the agressor through non-lethal means either. it's not like there were high escape rates at dungeons and such, and for real high secuirity prisons they shipped criminals off to obscure islands and far away lands.

also, I do not see prison as a fruitful place for conversions... well, except to Islam. prison tends to breed more criminal people than it takes in. basically you're saying "okay, you killed someone? as your punishment we're going to make you live with a bunch of other killers, theives, and criminals until the end of your life. oh, and there's the possibility of" okay I'll cut it off there, I think we all know the types of bad things that go on in prisons so fill in the blanks with your imagination.

anyway, I am letting my conscience be informed by the Church, and what it says is in cases where it is SUFFICIENT to protect society. I do not believe it is necessarily sufficient to protect society and administer justice when some are not executed.

anyway, the CDF did clarify that Catholics may have a legitimate diversity of opinion in regards to the APPLICATION of the death penalty, not the doctrine of it. Therefore we must all agree on things like: it is the just recourse of the state; and the principle of forfeiture means that a murderer would always receive execution justly (though an authority may sin in administering it, it would still be received justly); and that authorities should consider non-lethal means available if they are sufficient... now I can say that many cases today apply... those who would remain violent in jail for instance, or those who would currupt others in jail hurting the entire jail's possibility of conversion... we need to protect other prisoners as well and we can't just lock em up in solitary for the rest of their lives that's unreasonable..

anyway, I see many cases today when the death penalty would be applicable. also, as a matter of faith and morals I see that anyone who is actually guilty of a capital crime, their life is justly taken. if there are vengeful motives or the authority is abusing it by not considering the non-lethal means at all, then the authority commits sin but the death is still correct. I'm not sure I'd ever classify the execution of a guilty person by the state as murder; though it could sometimes be classified as imprudence, negligence, abuse of power, hatred and revenge. It is never, however, murer, because by the principal of forfeiture that person already forfeited the right to his own life by using his life to cause another's death.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aloysius']also, as a matter of faith and morals I see that anyone who is actually guilty of a capital crime, their life is justly taken.[/quote]
I'm not going to take issue with the rest of your reply because, while I disagree with it, there is not really any debate there. We can debate all the live-long day, but there is no one position that [i]must[/i] be taken according to Church teaching. You mentioned the fundamental doctrinal elements which must be accepted, and we both accept them, so it seems pointless to go any further since we both have good points for believing what we do.

I did want to address the above quote, though. While the punishment of the offender, even capital punishment, may be [i]received[/i] justly, it is not necessarily [i]given[/i] justly. Your assertion that the lives of capital offenders are justly taken is not, in my opinion, consistent with Church teaching. Christ abolished the concept of eye for an eye justice. The fact that the offender took someone else's life does not necessarily mean that the offender's life should be taken in return; such a mentality is not consistent with Christian moral theology and ethics. I think there are just reasons for capital punishment, even if those reasons are few and far between; but I don't think "an eye for an eye" -- that is, vengeance -- is a just reason.