50
4 votes
Mar 31, 2015

As a practicing Catholic, I will not support the death penalty as this goes against the Church's teaching, which essentially states that "the case in which an inmate should be executed is very rare if not completely nonexistent." So, if the prisoner is guilty of an especially heinous crime, then yes, the death penalty might be acceptable. But, we also have to take in the family of the inmate. Did they do anything wrong? What about his little daughter who is ten years old. What did she do to deserve this? Or the inmate's brother or sister? Why is the family being punished while the family of the victim just gets to see the inmate suffer, along with his family who did nothing wrong? While I can sympathize with the victim's family to some extent, we should never wish another human to suffer death so that we can feel some fulfillment. Also, if the person is innocent, that just contributes to the suffering on our planet.

I would, however, recommend a more strict prison system. If an inmate is justly convicted of murder, then they should be given solitary confinement for many years, with very limited social interaction.

Reply to this opinion
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
main reply
2 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

"What about his little daughter who is ten years old. What did she do to deserve this? "

And what of the family of the person who they killed, did they deserve to die? Did they even get a trial, a lawyer a jury or a judge? We gave that and almost endless appeals to the killer, while the victim got none of that.

Also along those same lines, little daughter etc. wouldn't they also be "punished" if you lock the person up in solitary, after all she can't see her father, can't interact with him, same with wife, brother etc. What you're suggesting is perhaps even more cruel than the death penalty.

Now as a catholic you should know that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party.

Yes there are many victims when someone commits a crime, yet we as a society must punish and deter people from committing crimes, and in some cases the only way to do that is the death penalty.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Mar 31, 2015

Hello again. You have some very good points here.

While the victim most certainly did not deserve to die, what does more bloodshed solve? We are essentially using murder (for lack of a better term) to show that murder is wrong. That is like someone's parents swearing to show that swearing is wrong. It just seems like a vicious cycle to me; where if we kill someone to show that killing is wrong, then what have we accomplished besides causing more death?

About solitary confinement, have you seen the National Geographic documentary "Russia's Toughest Prisons"? You might recall that the convict was in a sort of solitary confinement where they were cut off, but allowed to see their family, and speak to them without a pane of glass or bars between them. I believe they were even allowed to dine together. That is what we need; a prison system that is tough, yet not truly cruel (as the justice system is probably seen as "cruel" by at least a few convicts).

I am familiar with CCC 2267; in fact, I just finished a project on the Church's stance on the death penalty. But, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also says (in the same "verse", again, fir lack of a better term) that "...the 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." (CCC 2267) That said, the Church will only agree with the use of the death penalty if there is not other way.

While sadly we do have to resort to the death penalty, there main problem I have with it is that it seems that the death penalty is too easy for the convict. In other words, they don't have to live with that decision for too long. If we kept the convict alive and had had a slightly harsher prison system (not to say it isn't harsh to begin with), I feel that this would deter other cases from occurring because they would have to live with that decision for the rest of their life.

Also, from a strictly religious standpoint, we could also say that God is the Master of life and death, as He is the Creator of all things. God gave us life, and He alone has the power (and the right) to take it away. We as humans do not have this power. This goes back to the old phrase "God giveth and God taketh away." Again, this is from a strictly religious standpoint and is just another reason why I don't support the death penalty in extreme cases.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
1 vote,
Mar 31, 2015

What does more bloodshed solve? Well we know for certain that the convicted person will never kill again.

While I haven’t seen the National Geographic documentary what you’re describing isn’t solitary confinement, what you’re describing is basically jail, a high security jail, but a normal jail in the US.

We have people on death row, who have little or no compassion for other people. I heard of a case where a killer buried a person alive and begging for their life. What would you do with a person like that? I personally feel a people like that can never be reformed, and can never be trusted to be out in public again and if LWOPP meant that I would say fine we can get rid of the death penalty. But even LWOPP is under attack, we have people who are saying LWOPP is cruel and that everyone should be given a chance of parole, they are even say twenty years is too long. So a mass killer, think Norway, who killed 77 people and was sentenced to 21 years in prison, is that justice? Is that fair to the victims?

"...they don't have to live with that decision for too long...."

Given the amount of time a person spends on death row they have plenty of time to reflect, before they are put to death. After all we need to make sure the person is guilty, had no mitigating circumstances and we do change about 60% of death sentences are commuted to LWOPP because of the reviews and appeals.

Now even assuming we have LWOPP what do we do if they kill again while in jail? November 9, 1983 Associate U.S. Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen told a Senate subcommittee that it is impossible to punish or even deter such prison murders because, without a death sentence, a violent life-termer has free rein "to continue to murder as opportunity and his perverse motives dictate." In another words what else could we do to them they are in jail already and won’t get out.

Maybe I look at this differently than you, I look at like this a person who has already killed someone has proven they will kill, said person is given a trial, given a lawyer, has a jury to judge them, and if the crime falls within those where the death penalty is an option, the jury not only have to find the person guilty, but they feel the person is such a danger or the crime was so heinous that this person need to die. Then the person almost endless appeals.

“Also, from a strictly religious standpoint,..”

So do I get to pick the religion? You should also ask what religion before you use that for laws and punishment, as we have seen from all over the world, religion and government don’t mix well. Once you let religions leads take charge and can overrule the government then it’s not long before draconian laws are in place.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
linked reply
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

Hello.

I highly recommend that documentary, it seems like you would enjoy it very much (it's on Netflix if you're interested). Back to the issue at hand:

"We have people on death row who have..." As I said, the death penalty is acceptable in some circumstances. I feel that that might be one such circumstance, seeing as the crime is especially heinous. I can agree with you when you say that LWOPP meant just that, it would be acceptable. However, why it is "cruel and unusual", I will never understand. Crucifixion is cruel and most certainly unusual, but life in prison? No, the person in Norway did not receive a just punishment. Remember, I am against the death penalty and believe that our prison system isn't hard enough on the people who were found guilty of murder, but are not executed. While we shouldn't treat them as anything less than human, I think life without parole and very limited human contact is perfect, but sadly, this is not the case.

"what if they kill again in jail?" I believe the death penalty is acceptable in this scenario, as we know that they won't stop. But, obviously we should look at his motivation. Obviously if he was acting in self defense, then he shouldn't be executed. So, I can agree with you for the most part on this part of the issue.

"So I get to pick the religion?"
I meant Catholicism; I probably should have said that. Sorry. As far as draconian law goes, I'm not so sure that that would happen. Of course, it depends on the religion and the leader of said religion. Take Pope St. John Paul the Great, who visited his shooter while in prison so he could forgive him. The shooter was also present at his canonization. Then again, there is a reason why he is a saint. But still, Vatican City doesn't have extreme punishments for broken laws. But, the Muslim world does. While I realize that Vatican City is extremely small, it has been around for centuries. (Since the Donation of Pepin, I believe).

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes, because I don't believe this study.
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

So basically you're not anti-death penalty, but you want to restrict it more. Fair enough, I'm betting the two of us could come to common ground, mass or multiple killers, those who kill the very young, etc.

To be honest it's been a long time since I looked at canon law, but many of those would be considered draconian laws.

Look at church law and marriage, the church's stand on women, after all not all religions forbid same sex marriages, or forbid women from performing certain function in the church. Currently under canon law you need permission to marry a person of another faith, or to someone who isn't in good standing in the church. That's why I asked if I got to pick the religion. It's not that you're catholic, it's that others have differing religions and to pick one and say this is our standard would make us look like many Muslim countries. So I could see where Catholics could be given special standing in government, or that you must be Catholic to be in government. Or that you must be Catholic to receive a marriage license, etc. It's that religion, any religion, shouldn't be the only reason a law exists.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

Hello.

"So basically..."
Yep. There are some circumstances where the death penalty should be administered, but they are very few and far between. I don't think the Catechism contains too many draconian laws as none of them say that the only punishment for a certain act is death or any physical punishment (my understanding of a draconian law is that an excessive punishment is issued).

"Look at Church law..."
Exactly, but the reason they have you ask permission is because when a couple is married, they need to help their spouse reach Heaven. If they are of another faith or not in good standing with the Church, they could have a detrimental effect on the person's spiritual well being. That's my understanding, at least. I agree with your saying that a law shouldn't be based entirely on religion, as that would essentially make the country a theocracy. America shouldn't be a theocracy (even a Catholic one) as there are people of all faiths here. If we sponsor one, then we wouldn't be able to include everyone in the voting process or allow anyone to run for office as they wouldn't have a fair chance. While a law shouldn't be based entirely off of someone's religious beliefs, a little input from the Church never hurts. That's how I arrived at my opinion; the Church says this, but these are good reasons as well.

I think we can come to an understanding! Or at least agree to disagree.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

I respect your religious objections but while we are a fundamentally Christian (founded) nation, we are also not governed under "sharia law". And if "heinous crimes" are the benchmark, who then decides the definition of what that means since, in my opinion, every murder is "heinous". Although you mention them,, the one group you neglected to "ask" is the family of the victim whom you apparently feel have no say in the debate if death is the answer! If you are advocating that the "rights of the victims family" be included, then so too should it in every case and not just death penalty eligible since a family "suffers" when a tax cheat (aka "the provider") goes to jail. I recognize that there have been cases where DNA have exonerated some who (emphasis the following) "were sentenced using the best evidence available at the time" but I think that, based on this, it is better to improve evidence gathering rather than commute everybody; let DNA both free them from being convicted and exonerate those convicted using 'antiquated' evidence. Finally, there are those whom would consider solitary "cruel and inhuman punishment" also so that alternative is debatable. If you notice, this argument is rapidly beginning to sound like the abortion debate... no winners with a segment unhappy with the final results.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 31, 2015

Does the family of the inmate suffer? Sure, but it provides a strong lesson for violating the most sacred laws of one's society. The family of the inmate recognizes the value of the penal system, that punishment for wrongdoing is important to maintain a stable society. Yes, it hurts to see their family incarcerated/executed, but they also understand why that individual is being punished.

You argue against the death penalty for an inmate as inhumane to the inmate's family but then, in the same breath, call for solitary confinement of the inmate. What's more inhumane to the inmate's family: to execute a murderer, making visitation *impossible*, or putting the inmate in solitary, making visitation *possible* but *inaccessible*?

subscribe
Challenge someone to answer this opinion:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: