Capital Punishment in the USA

[Jaime]

[quote name='White Knight' date='Nov 3 2005, 08:21 PM']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.
[right][snapback]778231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


This is a fallacy White Knight. This suggests that there is a rise in capital crimes. The real reason that prisons are being built is due to the rise of non violent crimes. Having a more aggressive stance on the death penalty will do nothing towards the building of prisons.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 4 2005, 07:37 AM']This is a fallacy White Knight.  This suggests that there is a rise in capital crimes.  The real reason that prisons are being built is due to the rise of non violent crimes.  Having a more aggressive stance on the death penalty will do nothing towards the building of prisons.
[right][snapback]778654[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Quite true. In some of the smaller counties in Indiana, their prisons are bursting at the seems with people arrested for meth-related crimes. Can't put all those folks to death just to "be balanced."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='philothea' date='Nov 3 2005, 10:33 PM']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?
[right][snapback]778311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Death Row Inmate Bolts From Texas Jail
Friday, November 04, 2005
HOUSTON — A Texas death row inmate somehow found some civilian clothing, changed out of his orange jumpsuit and used a fake ID badge to escape late Thursday from the Harris County Jail (search).

Charles Victor Thompson (search), 35, of Tomball, was in Houston after being re-sentenced last week to execution.

"He managed to get some civilian clothing. He had changed out of the orange jumpsuit that inmates ordinarily wear," Harris County sheriff's Lt. John Martin said in the online edition of the Houston Chronicle. "He may have been taken out of the cell block and put in the attorney booth in the guise of having an attorney visit."

Thompson also had an ID card suggesting he worked for the Texas Attorney General's office.

"It was convincing enough that the deputy let him out of the facility," Martin said.

Investigators were questioning jail employees.

"It definitely suggests that this was preplanned and strongly suggests he had help in making his escape," said Martin.

Thompson had been expected to be returned to the Texas prison system within 45 days, according to Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons.

Edited November 4, 2005 by cmotherofpirl

[Jaime]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 4 2005, 10:47 AM']Death Row Inmate Bolts From Texas Jail
Friday, November 04, 2005
HOUSTON  — A Texas death row inmate somehow found some civilian clothing, changed out of his orange jumpsuit and used a fake ID badge to escape late Thursday from the Harris County Jail (search).

Charles Victor Thompson (search), 35, of Tomball, was in Houston after being re-sentenced last week to execution.

"He managed to get some civilian clothing. He had changed out of the orange jumpsuit that inmates ordinarily wear," Harris County sheriff's Lt. John Martin said in the online edition of the Houston Chronicle. "He may have been taken out of the cell block and put in the attorney booth in the guise of having an attorney visit."

Thompson also had an ID card suggesting he worked for the Texas Attorney General's office.

"It was convincing enough that the deputy let him out of the facility," Martin said.

Investigators were questioning jail employees.

"It definitely suggests that this was preplanned and strongly suggests he had help in making his escape," said Martin.

Thompson had been expected to be returned to the Texas prison system within 45 days, according to Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons.
[right][snapback]778724[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I picked a lovely time to visit Houston!

[beatty07]

I'm with Philothea...it's hard to imagine a situation in the US today that meets the Catechism's criteria. And I think the Catechism's criteria are well stated.

The best I can come up with is this: imagine some extremely effective doomsday cult leader with dozens of followers. He bases his cult on heinous crimes (I don't care to imagine details here!) and has led them himself. The cult is such that his followers would certainly attempt to free him by terrorist means if he were imprisoned. It's not possible to round up the whole bunch, but we've got this leader in custody.

Quite a stretch, I know, but I'm saying that even now, even here, there might be circumstances that would meet the CCC's criteria for state executions.

[son_of_angels]

I would look more closely at the Catechism

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

Clearly the requirements lain out in 2267 are to be considered in light of the rights described in 2266, to "curb the spread of harmful behavior."

In my defense of the death penalty, my argument rested on the principle that a use of the death penalty should not be such that it overwhelms the possibility of reform.

However, just as the death penalty presents the possibility of reform because of the sight of freedom (namely the freedom of the soul in Heaven). I would argue it isn't the death penalty per se which presents such a problem, but punishments like "life imprisonment" which do so.

Moreover, while I would agree the faculties available to us in the modern world could very well outdo the need for the death penalty. But what would these methods be? Psychological modification, forced penitence, education? Perhaps. None of these equate with prison, which is merely a subjugation of a person with inner virtue to a life which demands none. I, and not most of the Popes, have been friends with those who have been in prison. It is not prison which changes them, but the hope of freedom (the love of family, friends, girls, etc.). These things make them able to suffer their trials and come out reformed.

Heaven shall do the same for the person in prison, but what shall be the reward for the long years of languish in prison for the murder? Only succumbing to the immorality, debauchery, rape, and evil of prison life. Lock prisoners together, and one only produces prisoners.

[beatty07]

Ok, I read it over again, and so far I'm not following you. Are you arguing that execution is preferable to life imprisonment, in terms of human dignity and hope for conversion?

I am sympathetic to your point, but what do you do with Evangelium Vitae par. 56?

[quote]It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. [/quote]

[beatty07]

Actually the next paragraph is also relevant:

[quote]"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must 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".[[/quote]

Edited November 4, 2005 by beatty07

[qfnol31]

At the risk of sounding anti-Catholic, I should like to point out the truly the statement "very rare if not practically non-existent" should stay out of this conversation as much as possible because it is a prudential statement not considering any strict morals but rather the application of such and many letters have been typed over this issue on this board.

[philothea]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 4 2005, 10:25 PM']At the risk of sounding anti-Catholic, I should like to point out the truly the statement "very rare if not practically non-existent" should stay out of this conversation as much as possible because it is a prudential statement not considering any strict morals but rather the application of such and many letters have been typed over this issue on this board. 
[right][snapback]779258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


C'mon, Zach.... you're going to spoil my fun.


I suppose I could go back to arguing about evolution instead.

[qfnol31]

I like evolution.

[son_of_angels]

One response I would have to such a document is that, while the findings of this council are indeed salutary, and the use of the death penalty must indeed be in a just way, this document simply does not deal with the justice that should be required concerning prison sentences, etc.

Another response is that the Holy See and the Vatican are ill-informed about the nature of the penal system, and its ability to reform people. I have seen people come in and go out, and they are often worse after than before. I, like this document, am still arguing for the just and rehabilitative use of the death penalty. Indeed the way it is carried out today is unjust, I would argue, because it doesn't help the prisoners prepare for death, but such is life.
The Vatican is simply ill-equipped for a civil/social problem like this. The Holy See used to vehemently both utilize and defend the right of nations for the use of the death penalty. That was when they were actually out there having to deal with criminals themselves and had more insight into civil/social life.
Yet I would argue that this is no reason not to generally obey the teachings of Holy Mother Church. If the pope ever says nations don't have the right to the use of the death penalty, then the death penalty is over. Period. Moreover the judgments of the Church should still be taken into account when such matters are at hand.

[beatty07]

From the document I just don't see any allowance for execution on rehabilitative grounds...only for the protection of society and only if there is no other way to do that. Of course you're right, the document by itself doesn't end the discussion, but I knew you'd appreciate it's weight. Especially from a Pope with such intimate experience in these matters.

I've seen interesting arguments that the deterrent effect is part of protecting society, and that the deterrent is necessary. This is one of those things where everybody throws contradictory statistics around...kinda tough to get a grip on it.

I've been wondering about something, maybe you can help me out. Do we have a coherent philosophy or approach to incarceration and sentencing? Is it punishment to achieve justice? Is is rehabilitative? Is it to protect society by isolating the dangerous? There are strong traditions for all of these, but what gets more weight when they conflict? Or is it asking to much to seek coherence here?

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 4 2005, 10:25 PM']At the risk of sounding anti-Catholic, I should like to point out the truly the statement "very rare if not practically non-existent" should stay out of this conversation as much as possible because it is a prudential statement not considering any strict morals but rather the application of such and many letters have been typed over this issue on this board. 
[right][snapback]779258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And yet the logical question asked is if it should be rare, when should it be applied?

And within all the discussions on that line, no one has ever answered that question.

[philothea]

[quote name='beatty07' date='Nov 5 2005, 11:22 AM']I've seen interesting arguments that the deterrent effect is part of protecting society, and that the deterrent is necessary.  This is one of those things where everybody throws contradictory statistics around...kinda tough to get a grip on it.

I've been wondering about something, maybe you can help me out.  Do we have a coherent philosophy or approach to incarceration and sentencing?  Is it punishment to achieve justice?  Is is rehabilitative?  Is it to protect society by isolating the dangerous?  There are strong traditions for all of these, but what gets more weight when they conflict?  Or is it asking to much to seek coherence here?
[right][snapback]779534[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have wondered for a long time about the motivations and effectiveness of applying certain penalties for for certain crimes.

As far as I recall, early on (say 200+ years ago) execution was used for nearly everything. Only people with possible influence might be imprisioned for a while.

The Quakers came up with idea of "penitientiaries" where criminals/penitents could be held to think about their crimes, and hopefully repent.

Nowadays, prison is part punishment and part warehousing, with a slim hope of rehabilitation offered through available education. It's not a real coherent vision, it just sort of averages out everyone's wishes in the matter -- but what else can we expect from democracy?

As for deterrence, there are many crimes for which severe penalties are a great deterrent, generally the crimes at which someone can make a lot of money: fraud, embezzling, blackmail, kidnapping, drug trafficking, smuggling, etc. A seriously harsh penalty (even execution) does dissuade people from those crimes. This is what is done in Japan, and other far east countries. They have very low crime.

As for things like murder and rape? At least in this country, capital punishment seems to have no deterrent effect. Maybe the criminals in this case are too far gone for the gravity of their actions to affect their thoughts? And, these are the only cases people (here) think deserve execution. So, you get the apparent statisic that it doesn't help.

I've just been talking about US practices. If there's a coherent Catholic ideal for how to deal with criminals, I haven't seen it. The best I can glean from modern documents sounds a lot like the Quaker idea of trying to reform people, but there is also a lot of deference to whatever governing body has responsibility.

(I am working from fairly old memories of prior research, so anything I say may be wrong! Sorry -- too lazy to start it over again, and it makes me depressed.)