Should The Death Penalty Be Made Illegal In The Us?

[flip]

Why or why not?

[HisChildForever]

I made a long thread about this in the debate table about two or three weeks ago, but got absolutely no where since people said it has been talked about numerous times already.

[Tinkerlina]

I believe the Death Penalty should be illegal. I can understand the need for the death penalty in the past, when there were really no sure ways of keeping a dangerous person separated from the rest of society. However, I think that, if we give appropriately strict prison sentences and provide prisons with adequate staffing, there is no need for the death penalty. I do not think we have the right to take a life when there is a clear and effective alternative. -Katie

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1714464' date='Nov 30 2008, 01:30 AM']I believe the Death Penalty should be illegal. I can understand the need for the death penalty in the past, when there were really no sure ways of keeping a dangerous person separated from the rest of society. However, I think that, if we give appropriately strict prison sentences and provide prisons with adequate staffing, there is no need for the death penalty. I do not think we have the right to take a life when there is a clear and effective alternative. -Katie[/quote]

This is from the [failed] thread I made (not all of it is on topic with this thread so I will bold the on topic parts):

According to the Church, she "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" and yet "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'" Since one can go either way on this topic - supporting the death penalty with appropriate restraint, as well as not supporting the death penalty - I wanted to open it for debate and discussion. For those who support the death penalty, why? And for those who absolutely do not, are you not technically going against Church teaching, which says that in extreme cases the death penalty is acceptable?

My opinion is as follows.

When the death penalty is raised during conversation, many people automatically dismiss it as immoral. In actuality, many do not trust the criminal justice system and may go as far to call it corrupt when, in reality, they just do not understand how the system functions; therefore, they are quick to judge and assume. [b]Not every criminal gets sentenced to the death penalty – only the most heinous, those identified as a threat to society - the system is trying to protect and safeguard society.[/b]

Furthermore, the criminal sentenced to death is not immediately executed as soon as he or she exits the court room. In fact, criminals can appeal the death penalty (and often do so numerous times), which inevitably prolongs their stay on death row. [b]Now in my opinion, the death penalty is not necessarily moral, but it is certainly the lesser of two evils. For instance, let us assume that a criminal – who should have been sentenced to death – instead is sentenced to life in prison without parole. This inmate has absolutely no motivation to behave him or herself; this inmate is a risk to his or her fellow inmates, correction officers, and other personnel. There is also the possibility of escape, which poses a great threat to society – remember, the inmate is violent and high-risk, and is most likely not receiving any counseling for reintegration. (But there is, surely, counseling for rehabilitation in terms of anger management and so forth. But then we must ask – does the criminal even care to listen, knowing that he or she will forever remain in prison? Again, there is no motivation for the individual to try and better his or her behaviors/personality.) So what are the other options? Sentencing the inmate to a life of solitary confinement? This may be beneficial to the other inmates, the staff, and society, (for the sake of their protection), but of what benefit is this to the criminal? Is this not cruel and unusual punishment, a sentence that preys on one’s sanity? (As the common argument is that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment).[/b]

[mommas_boy]

[indent]
CCC 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 the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal 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 more in conformity with 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 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."
[/indent]

In the US, the death penalty should only be used when no other option is available.

However, legitimate government has the responsibility to protect society, which includes those present in a prison, prisoners and guards, both. If a prisoner chronically threatens the life of other prisoners and guards, and no other legitimate means of restraining that prisoner are available, then society must use the death penalty.

The question with the death penalty that we as Catholics should be asking is not "when [b]can[/b] we use it", but rather, "when [b]must[/b] we".

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1714471' date='Nov 30 2008, 02:39 AM']This is from the [failed] thread I made (not all of it is on topic with this thread so I will bold the on topic parts):

According to the Church, she "does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" and yet "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'" Since one can go either way on this topic - supporting the death penalty with appropriate restraint, as well as not supporting the death penalty - I wanted to open it for debate and discussion. For those who support the death penalty, why? And for those who absolutely do not, are you not technically going against Church teaching, which says that in extreme cases the death penalty is acceptable?

My opinion is as follows.

When the death penalty is raised during conversation, many people automatically dismiss it as immoral. In actuality, many do not trust the criminal justice system and may go as far to call it corrupt when, in reality, they just do not understand how the system functions; therefore, they are quick to judge and assume. [b]Not every criminal gets sentenced to the death penalty – only the most heinous, those identified as a threat to society - the system is trying to protect and safeguard society.[/b]

Furthermore, the criminal sentenced to death is not immediately executed as soon as he or she exits the court room. In fact, criminals can appeal the death penalty (and often do so numerous times), which inevitably prolongs their stay on death row. [b]Now in my opinion, the death penalty is not necessarily moral, but it is certainly the lesser of two evils. For instance, let us assume that a criminal – who should have been sentenced to death – instead is sentenced to life in prison without parole. This inmate has absolutely no motivation to behave him or herself; this inmate is a risk to his or her fellow inmates, correction officers, and other personnel. There is also the possibility of escape, which poses a great threat to society – remember, the inmate is violent and high-risk, and is most likely not receiving any counseling for reintegration. (But there is, surely, counseling for rehabilitation in terms of anger management and so forth. But then we must ask – does the criminal even care to listen, knowing that he or she will forever remain in prison? Again, there is no motivation for the individual to try and better his or her behaviors/personality.) So what are the other options? Sentencing the inmate to a life of solitary confinement? This may be beneficial to the other inmates, the staff, and society, (for the sake of their protection), but of what benefit is this to the criminal? Is this not cruel and unusual punishment, a sentence that preys on one’s sanity? (As the common argument is that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment).[/b][/quote]

Interesting points. I do believe that solitary confinement for indeterminate lengths of time is wrong. I definitely believe that prisons need better staffing as the safety of the prison staff and other inmates is a huge issue. There are a lot of people who I can't help but think I'd like to see get the death penalty; however, from a strictly moral point of view, I think that we are in a position to relegate it unnecessary, although the system needs a lot of work. -Katie

[mommas_boy]

To further explain, I don't think that the death penalty ought to be illegal per se, but rather that government should re-evaluate its use. It should not be used as a penalty for capital crimes, but rather as a last option should "bloodless means" not be sufficient to protect society from an aggressor. As CCC 2267 mentions above, I cannot think of a situation where the death penalty could be legitimately applied to prevent an aggressor from harming others here in America. But, I would not want for it to be illegal should it prove necessary. The only situation that I can think of is the one that I alluded to where someone has been imprisoned, but no further security is possible in order to prevent them from harming other prisoners and guards. With the ability to put someone into solitary confinement, however, I do not see this as being a possible outcome, however, unless they have figured out a way to escape into the general prison population.

[flip]

Vatican City outlawed The Death Penalty in 1969. I would look to them for how our government should run.

Also, many less developed countries have outlawed the death penalty. If they can do it, why can't we?

Albania (2000)
Andorra (1990)
Angola (1992)
Armenia (2003)
Australia (1984)
Austria (1950)
Azerbaijan (1998)
Belgium (1996)
Bermuda (1999)
Bhutan (2004)
Bosnia-Herzegovina (1997)
Bulgaria (1998)
Cambodia (1989)
Canada (1976)
Cape Verde (1981)
Colombia (1910)
Cook Islands (2007)
Costa Rica (1877)
Côte d'Ivoire (2000)
Croatia (1990)
Cyprus (1983)
Czech Republic (1990)
Denmark (1933)
Djibouti (1995)
Dominican Republic (1966)
East Timor (1999)
Ecuador (1906)
Estonia (1998)
Finland (1949)
France (1981)
Georgia (1997)
Germany (1949)
Greece (1993)
Guinea-Bissau (1993)
Haiti (1987)
Honduras (1956)
Hungary (1990)
Iceland (1928)
Ireland (1990)
Italy (1947)
Kazakhstan (2007)
Kiribati (1979)
Liberia (2005)
Liechtenstein (1987)
Lithuania (1998)
Luxembourg (1979)
Macedonia (1991)
Malta (1971)
Marshall Islands (1986)
Mauritius (1995)
Mexico (2005)
Micronesia (1986)
Moldova (1995)
Monaco (1962)
Montenegro (2002)
Mozambique (1990)
Namibia (1990)
Nepal (1990)
Netherlands (1870)
New Zealand (1961)
Nicaragua (1979)
Niue (n.a.)
Norway (1905)
Palau (n.a.)
Panama (1903)
Paraguay (1992)
Poland (1997)
Portugal (1867)
Philippines (2006)
Romania (1989)
Rwanda (2007)
Samoa (2004)
San Marino (1848)
São Tomé and Príncipe (1990)
Senegal (2004)
Serbia (2002)
Seychelles (1993)
Slovak Republic (1990)
Slovenia (1989)
Solomon Islands (1966)
South Africa (1995)
Spain (1978)
Sweden (1921)
Switzerland (1942)
Turkey (2002)
Turkmenistan (1999)
Tuvalu (1978)
Ukraine (1999)
United Kingdom (1973)
Uruguay (1907)
Uzbekistan (2008)
Vanuatu (1980)
Vatican City (1969)
Venezuela (1863)

[Winchester]

Yeah, if someone jumps off a bridge, you should, too!

[BG45]

To add on to HCF's appeals section, in many states that still have the death penalty, your appeal is automatically filed as soon as you're sentenced due to state law. They want to make sure you're really guilty beyond even the normal shadow of a reasonable doubt and that there were no errors in the process of your trial if you're to die. That's part of why in California it's joked that the death penalty means you'll die of old age first...unlike Texas.

Back in Cesare Beccaria's time he theorized on a brutalization effect by sentencing people to death which still resounds in these sorts of debates today. He argued that if you're going to die, why not commit the biggest crimes you can? (Bear in mind in Beccaria's day there were quite literally dozens of reasons you could be put to death.) He felt that you could not deter people by threatening them with death; sure it's a specific deterrent to the person who is dead, he/she won't be doing it again, but as a general deterrent it just doesn't work that well.

Anyhow, I'm split on the death penalty. I can see cases where it is needed, and others where it is not.

[Justin86]

You should get the death penalty just for jaywalking.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1714543' date='Nov 30 2008, 09:50 AM']Yeah, if someone jumps off a bridge, you should, too![/quote]

That's really oversimplifying what he was saying. -Katie

[Justin86]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1714804' date='Dec 1 2008, 04:12 AM']That's really oversimplifying what he was saying. -Katie[/quote]
Would saying that flip said "we should follow the lead of less devloped countries just because it's what they do" be more accurate?

[CatherineM]

That's a great list. I was surprised at how long ago some countries outlawed it.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1714808' date='Nov 30 2008, 03:17 PM']Would saying that flip said "we should follow the lead of less devloped countries just because it's what they do" be more accurate?[/quote]

I think his point is that it's ironic that "more developed" countries still resort to the death penalty while countries we view as "undeveloped" have more respect for life than us? -Katie

[Justin86]

And what about respect for the innocent life of the victims? By refusing to excute perpertraturs of greusome murders, are we not telling society, at the very least, that there are worser things than their actions?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1714826' date='Nov 30 2008, 02:28 PM']I think his point is that it's ironic that "more developed" countries still resort to the death penalty while countries we view as "undeveloped" have more respect for life than us? -Katie[/quote]

I support the death penalty. Does this mean I respect life less compared to the person who does not support the death penalty?

[philothea]

The best argument against the death penalty [b]in the present day USA[/b], is that our police, and our elected prosecutors have been shown to frequently convict innocent people. They do it because it makes them look "tough on crime" which makes the voters and tax payers feel good.

Once an innocent person is executed, you can't release them, can you?

In Illinois, thanks to the investigations of Northwestern University journalism students, it was found that dozens of accused criminals (usually black men) had been tortured into confessing crimes that later DNA evidence proved, they did not commit. Those men were on Death Row, awaiting execution. At least one was executed, while his actual guilt was still under legitimate question.

Knowing that the system kills innocent people, how can we possibly consider it in any way "just"?

Edited November 30, 2008 by philothea

[Maggyie]

I do not think the death penalty should be used hardly ever. Simply because of the potential for executing the wrong man or woman. I would be [b]against [/b]it being made "illegal" or officially taken off the books, however. De jure vs. de facto. The right to execute has always been a right accorded to the state.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='flip' post='1714522' date='Nov 30 2008, 05:21 AM']Vatican City outlawed The Death Penalty in 1969. [b]I would look to them for how our government should run.
[/b][/quote]

So you're a monarchist