Capital Punishment in the USA

[philothea]

Please keep in mind the process by which a person is convicted of a crime in the US: arrest by hired police. Prosecution by a popularly elected prosecutor (or someone his/her office has hired). Trial overseen by a political appointee or popularly elected judge. Evidence presented by paid, professional expert witnesses. Guilt or innocence determined by a carefully selected jury of ordinary people.

Also, note that there are extremely effective means of incarceration trivially available. And, Iocabus mentioned recently elsewhere, innocent people are routinely convicted and sentenced to death.

I think I understand what the catechism's teaching of when it is acceptable to use lethal means of dealing with criminals. I want to know who thinks that the modern day USA meets those criteria, and could you please explain your rationale to me?

[philothea]

Apologies for the typos. Sigh. Dumb preview doesn't show the actual poll....

[avemaria40]

Capital punishment is wrong. It's too much money (due to all the appeals), u can't combat murder with murder, and taking a human life, unless circumstances (such as self defense in a war zone) are present, is wrong. Jesus spoke of mercy, we would do well to obey Him in that. And the death penalty system in the US seems cruel, since even mentally handicapped and mentally ill ppl (who aren't even that culpable) get sentenced, and we also have death penalty for teenagers in some states, which is wrong, since we can't be treated like an adult in any other way except to be punished like one.

[Maria]

I'd say yes, because of the 'can' in the question. There is a possibility that it would be morally acceptable.

[philothea]

[quote name='Maria' date='Nov 2 2005, 08:18 PM']I'd say yes, because of the 'can' in the question. There is a possibility that it would be morally acceptable.
[right][snapback]777420[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Thank you.

Could you pose a theoretical instance where it would be morally acceptable to execute someone (given the modern day USA setting)?

[philothea]

My request for a theoretical morally-acceptable scenario goes for anyone who votes yes. I would be very grateful.

[Maria]

Haven't thought it through that much, but if there were a case where a criminal was a repeat offender, and was unable to be contained or prevented from commiting violent crimes (which I suppose is a possibility), then I suppose it would be morally acceptable.

[son_of_angels]

There is legitimate diversity on the matter of this issue.

I would offer that in order for the use of the death penalty to be "just," the term only means that the right process was used to decide the outcome. This process, reason would suggest, should include the discernment of actual evidence and an unbiased (as far as humanly possible) judge, whether the verdict be handed down by a magistrate or jury. Hence the argument, "but they might be wrong" just doesn't hold water. Is every person in the United States prison system, daily being subjected to rape, violence, and isolation, to be assumed guilty? If not, by the contrary argument, could any incarceration be considered just? Of course it can, because a good exercise of political power is based on PROCESS regardless of Truth. This cannot be changed, and the requirements on a process more capable of reaching truth may or may not be beneficial.

Secondly, while incarceration may at times be enough to prevent crime and defend the populace, nevertheless, on the whole, incarceration is a futile attempt to reform everybody. Somehow Americans, and many in the world, have got it in their head that if you lock up somebody, subject them to social torture, and let them converse constantly with other criminals, they will somehow become better people and more productive citizens. This is blatantly absurd. Even if they did become better people, what good would it do considering no employers will take that into account (other than low wage jobs)? These people will fall back into poverty, a wretched luxurious poverty, focused on what they do not have. The demons of their house will return tenfold what they were before.

Again there is the cost issue. Appeal after appeal does not usually reach at greater truth, only at greater expense, and the exposure of criminal minds to the delight of the public ear. Who can say that people are benefited from the barage of criminal celebrities allowed to flaunt their arguments on the evening news? Hence, the cost problem may be rightly solved by greatly reducing the appeal process in general, and execution would also greatly reduce the cost of the lifelong incarceration (which I submit as being a form of "cruel and unusual punishment").

So much for the practicals. The death penalty, despite the prevailing opinion, does NOT remove the possibility of reformation and salvation on the part of the individual, unless the civil punishment system unjustly denies sacramental ministry to those awaiting execution. It is for this appeal to the heavenly court, not to any earthly court, that should be the highest priority of the correctional system. Many more people, I suggest, have been saved in their last days by calling upon the blessed name of Jesus, entering their eternal reward without any need for Purgatory (for they have suffered to the greatest extent for their imperfections already), from the despair of condemnation, than from the long, slow execution of prison life.

And it must be remembered that these persons who die in the Lord are part of our heritage as Christians, a way in which the mystery of the cross is extended to our time. For did not the thief, who, mayhap, had done nothing worthy, in our system, of death, yet say "we receive the just rewards of our deeds," and die with the knowledge of his salvation? Here we believe, and we must confess that the cross in this man's life, which he received because of his sin, however slight, nonetheless became sanctified as that of a martyr (though not a martyr per se) that on it he might make a perfect penance to God.

Edited November 3, 2005 by son_of_angels

[philothea]

Thank you for the detailed reply.

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 2 2005, 09:26 PM']I would offer that in order for the use of the death penalty to be "just," the term only means that the right process was used to decide the outcome.  This process, reason would suggest, should include the discernment of actual evidence and an unbiased (as far as humanly possible) judge, whether the verdict be handed down by a magistrate or jury.  Hence the argument, "but they might be wrong" just doesn't hold water.  Is every person in the United States prison system, daily being subjected to rape, violence, and isolation, to be assumed guilty? If not, by the contrary argument, could any incarceration be considered just?  Of course it can, because a good exercise of political power is based on PROCESS regardless of Truth.  This cannot be changed, and the requirements on a process more capable of reaching truth may or may not be beneficial.
[right][snapback]777450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Do you believe, then, that in the United States, the process used to determine guilt is as unbiased as humanly possible?

Personally, my primary concern is that elected prosecutors use capital convictions as a trophy to prove to a frightened populace that they're "tough on crime." They are motivated to convict and execute people, not to discern any particular truth. The election process has that side effect.

This behavior is not conjecture.

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 2 2005, 09:26 PM']Secondly, while incarceration may at times be enough to prevent crime and defend the populace, nevertheless, on the whole, incarceration is a futile attempt to reform everybody.  Somehow Americans, and many in the world, have got it in their head that if you lock up somebody, subject them to social torture, and let them converse constantly with other criminals, they will somehow become better people and more productive citizens.  This is blatantly absurd.  Even if they did become better people, what good would it do considering no employers will take that into account (other than low wage jobs)?  These people will fall back into poverty, a wretched luxurious poverty, focused on what they do not have.  The demons of their house will return tenfold what they were before.[right][snapback]777450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I understand your point, I think. However, I don't know if that is really a moral justification. Practical or expedient is not the same as good.

Which crimes would you consider worthy of execution?

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 2 2005, 09:26 PM']Again there is the cost issue.  Appeal after appeal does not usually reach at greater truth, only at greater expense, and the exposure of criminal minds to the delight of the public ear.  Who can say that people are benefited from the barage of criminal celebrities allowed to flaunt their arguments on the evening news?  Hence, the cost problem may be rightly solved by greatly reducing the appeal process in general, and execution would also greatly reduce the cost of the lifelong incarceration (which I submit as being a form of "cruel and unusual punishment").
[right][snapback]777450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
But what about the large number of people wrongly convicted? (Note aforementioned motivation of prosecutors.)

[quote name='son_of_angels' date='Nov 2 2005, 09:26 PM']So much for the practicals.  The death penalty, despite the prevailing opinion, does NOT remove the possibility of reformation and salvation on the part of the individual, unless the civil punishment system unjustly denies sacramental ministry to those awaiting execution.  It is for this appeal to the heavenly court, not to any earthly court, that should be the highest priority of the correctional system.  Many more people, I suggest, have been saved in their last days by calling upon the blessed name of Jesus, entering their eternal reward without any need for Purgatory (for they have suffered to the greatest extent for their imperfections already), from the despair of condemnation, than from the long, slow execution of prison life.

And it must be remembered that these persons who die in the Lord are part of our heritage as Christians, a way in which the mystery of the cross is extended to our time.  For did not the thief, who, mayhap, had done nothing worthy, in our system, of death, yet say "we receive the just rewards of our deeds," and die with the knowledge of his salvation?  Here we believe, and we must confess that the cross in this man's life, which he received because of his sin, however slight, nonetheless became sanctified as that of a martyr (though not a martyr per se) that on it he might make a perfect penance to God.
[right][snapback]777450[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No argument with this. I am primarily concerned for the people who seek their own vengeance or fame, and knowingly condemn innocent or incompetent people. It is, here and now, a large flaw in our system.

I understand the ideal concept of enacting justice, but that is not what I was asking about.

Thank you again!

[son_of_angels]

First of all, I pointed out that justice is blind to the concept of Truth, it only knows the things that the process of justice points out to it, for this is how the Law must experience the world. Hence, whether or not someone is wrongly convicted is immaterial to the process itself and also worthless in working against a given punishment. I would offer that a person is not executed because he IS guilty, but because he has been FOUND guilty.

The only thing remaining to criticise is, indeed, the bias of the participators in a given process. Note what I said when I said "as far as humanly possible." That means that somehow the process recognizes the need for unbiased magistrates, and overt bias is indeed a cause for possible appeal. Yet one approaches justice, being a process-based inquiry of human reason, not in dealing with pure concepts nor pure science to determine the absolute truth of a situation, but mainly to assign fault to a given person. The objects rendering such a judgment are themselves people, not computers, etc. Indeed this is appropriate as it encourages the moral civil behavior of the people rendering judgment.

Now, when one assigns fault for a given event, that judgment is based primarily on A.) custom, B.)apparent causality, or C.)the fact that someone is somehow "conjoined" to the event at hand. All of these things are inherently subjective. Our society proceeds as though someone who kills another in revenge has committed an act of free-will, yet psychologists and many scientists will tell us that some principle, his exclusion, his inability to cope with anger, etc. led us to the crime. In order to definitely assign culpability to him, however, we simply assume free will and free action. Yet in another society, where such things were not regarded as being so, the method of assigning punishment would be quite different. The step from assigning guilt from a concept to a person is therefore generally subjective, even if objectively true.

My point is that justice, whenever humans are the agents of it, and it is morally necessary that they are, will always have a tinge of subjectivity and, to a certain extent, bias. Consider this, concerning a woman who was raped because she wasn't wearing her veil in an Islamic country, the same's husband would be blamed and not the rapists because he hadn't prevented her from being an object of lust. You see the dilemma. Guilt is mostly subjective, for to what cause shall we assign guilt? Who may be punished for a given crime?

So, to answer your question, indeed, I do think America in general does the best it can in terms of judges and juries, but perfection is not possible nor desirable (for it would make something other than humans to be the leaders of society). I also think that the Roman Empire generally did the best it can, and also many other nations with abhorrent judicial practices.

As to the moral question, regarding the nature of reform. It seems to me to be morally unacceptable to incarcerate people for life, without giving them useful employment and the right to some level of self-support and determination. Otherwise at the pronouncement of a life sentence a judge, more or less is saying "You will die under our care."

It is a death sentence, but one which does not bear the moral imperatives of a death sentence.

I was, in the paragraph you mentioned referring to morality, not just expediency.

I would suggest the following for the death penalty: armed robbery, assault with intent to kill/rape, rape, multiple murder, murder, treason, social heresy (where an affront against national religion is used to prevent the exercise of legitimate power/legal process), attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder/rape, pedophilic rape, robbery of more than either the yearly income of an individual (against private citizens) or a more significant amount (regarding corporations) or any major theft from government funds while in a position of public trust, malicious stalking.

[White Knight]

To put one to death to protect others in the community, yes it is justifed, at all costs, we as Americans cannot keep building prisons to load them up with more prisoners, we need a way to be balanced, and the Death Penality is justifiable.

[Socrates]

I really fail to see what is so radically different about the legal system in America today that makes the morality of capital punishment in principle completely different that all previous times and places.

Were courts and courts and judges ever perfect and incorruptible?

It seems the main issues here are legal corruption, which needs to be cleaned up, but this is seperate from arguing that captial punishment itself is intrinsically wrong.

And if the law is so screwed up and unjust that it has no right to capital punishment, why stop there? Why not do away with ANY punishment for crime, including jail time and fines?

[philothea]

First, I have never claimed that capital punishment is intrinsicially wrong.

I also appear to have combined two issues. I apologize.

(1) In the modern USA we have prisons sufficient to keep dangerous people out of society. This is, as far as I understand, the criteria given in the catechism for using capital punishment: If you can keep the criminal safely incarcerated, don't execute him. This is the theoretical scenario I was wondering about: who is so dangerous that we have to kill him?

(2) Obviously, it is possible to have a wholly inadequate system of justice. Flipping coins would not suffice as a reasonable way to decide to take someone's life away. Having a crazy magistrate who hates all people who are X isn't just either. I bet voting by a TV audience wouldn't meet most people's idea of fair. Trial by combat (while the predecessor of our legal system) is not real popular anymore.

Our current justice system rewards prosecutors for convictions and executions -- regardless of the justice of their trials. Is that good enough?

Given that we can keep people safely incarcerated, and we frequently convict innocent people, why is it still just [i]in the modern USA[/i] to have capital punishment?

[philothea]

FWIW, son_of_angels, White Knight, Socrates, and anyone else who thinks that the use of capital punishment is just in its current implementation in the USA, [b]I fervently hope that you are right[/b].

I can't reconcile my conscience to it. I hate being part of something I can only see as wrong.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Maria' date='Nov 2 2005, 09:18 PM']I'd say yes, because of the 'can' in the question. There is a possibility that it would be morally acceptable.
[right][snapback]777420[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

One must be careful to base their answer on 'can'. 'can' is qualified with the phrase before it, "as practiced in the United States". In this case, to carry your logic to the fullest extent, you must apply the current practice of the US in matters relating to the death penalty and in that sense can the practice be morally acceptable.

I would argue not, as did the last Holy Father, of happy memory. The current practice of the death penalty in the UNited is 1) not uniform, 2) not effective, 3) costly. The evidence for the 1st is intuitive by the fact that the states, themselves, regulate the administration of the death penalty. it isn't effective because crime rate, though going down, is still much higher than countries w/o the death penalty. secondly on this point, it fails to adequately evaluate the rehabilitative aspects of incarceration. Not to mention it neglects to hold to the premise that other means must be exhaustively employed before resorting to the death penalty -- in most cases, this is not what is happening. Finally, the third point -- it costs more to execute than it does to incarcerate for life. this is a point that is generally accepted....