Catholic publications call for end to capital punishment

[One Bad Pig]

Prisons are far more reliable in modern times than in the past: we can be quite certain of our capacity to indefinitely prevent the imprisoned person from harming anyone else.

No, we can't. People still manage to escape from prisons, and early parole often lets criminals loose before their sentence is complete (and our prison system is terrible at reforming prisoners).

Under this general theory, capital punishment is only ultimately justifiable (whatever secondary social benefits it may have) as an act of collective self-defense. Just as we would not want a police officer to use a gun when a taser will suffice, we should not want our judicial system to employ the noose when cells and shackles will suffice.

Since when was capital punishment an act of collective self-defense?

[Sparko]

Because Sparko's conversation style reminds me too much of FOX News. As I've said, if someone else is willing to re-present the arguments in a manner that is less obnoxious to my disposition, I'd be perfectly willing to enter an in-depth discussion.

This after you spent several posts arguing with Paprika over one word in the article.

I merely questioned your use of evil, and then pointed out some flaws in the OP articles arguments.

I think it is you who is not being honest here. I shall go away and leave you alone.

[Spartacus]

Sounds like Sparko's approach is honest and valid. Your rejection holds no answer. Why are you unwilling to deal with a very real question?

Because Sparko's conversation style reminds me too much of FOX News. As I've said, if someone else is willing to re-present the arguments in a manner that is less obnoxious to my disposition, I'd be perfectly willing to enter an in-depth discussion.

[Jedidiah]

I still have no confidence that you're approaching this conversation in good faith. Same idea as above. If someone else wants an answer to these questions, say so and I'll see what I can do by way of explanation, but I have no intention of responding personally to Sparko in this thread unless he can manage to demonstrate a willingness to understand these arguments in greater depth than you'd see out of a cable news host.

Sounds like Sparko's approach is honest and valid. Your rejection holds no answer. Why are you unwilling to deal with a very real question?

[Spartacus]

Our penal system is virtually useless for changing criminals. And it is way too over crowded. This is not a viable argument.

I agree that our penal system is deeply flawed, particularly with respect to rehabilitation and reconciliation (the editorial invokes restorative justice), but even with that aside, executing at most couple dozen criminals a year doesn't come anywhere close to addressing overcrowding.

[Jedidiah]

I am not personally acquainted with any pro-life organizations that do not offer resources to mothers and children after birth. The talking point you raise refers most directly to nominally anti-abortion (Republican) politicians who also favor austerity with respect to welfare, and to a certain extent, I can grant that point. Politicians, most particularly on the right, don't all take the implications of an anti-abortion stance to heart, but in my own experience, people on the ground are quite willing to give of their own time, talent, and treasure to support young women and their children.

Private organizations do a great deal to help escapees from abortion. The government will never do an efficient job of taking care of these people. I agree with your "anti-abortion politicians" with the idea of cutting welfare, cutting taxes overall, and allowing Christian people (and other sympathizers) to do the job they are already doing, and be able to so it better.

[Jedidiah]

The stance on the death penalty is a prudential one: because we have the means to reliably prevent criminals from causing any further harm to society without killing them, we should rely on those means rather than taking a life. It is no longer necessary for the defense of the common good for the government to take the lives of criminals it has apprehended such that it is able to put them on trial, therefore it is no longer moral for them to claim that right.

Our penal system is virtually useless for changing criminals. And it is way too over crowded. This is not a viable argument.

[Sparko]

I still have no confidence that you're approaching this conversation in good faith. Same idea as above. If someone else wants an answer to these questions, say so and I'll see what I can do by way of explanation, but I have no intention of responding personally to Sparko in this thread unless he can manage to demonstrate a willingness to understand these arguments in greater depth than you'd see out of a cable news host.

You are the one who linked the article as your argument, and then called the death penalty evil. If you are unable or unwilling to answer objections to that, then it is you who is avoiding the issue and I would think that you grasp that your argument is weak and so you would rather use some ad hom against me rather than try to defend your views.

So be it.

[Spartacus]

Just so we're all perfectly clear on this point, I don't think I'd be psychologically capable of responding to Sparko even if I wanted to. Or, as the cliche goes, "It's not you, it's me."

[Spartacus]

I was just objecting to your categorizing the death penalty as evil.

Also, in the first article linked in the OP...

It argues that the Catechism and the Pope are against the Death Penalty.

1. The Catechism they linked to says no such thing. It just talks about defending yourself or others and killing the attacker. It says that is allowed.
2. The article that they link to that says the Pope is against the Death Penalty says that he is also against Life Sentences (and calls them a “concealed death sentence”)

So what to do? Just let murderers out on the street? Slap them on the wrist and say "Bad Boy!!"??

I still have no confidence that you're approaching this conversation in good faith. Same idea as above. If someone else wants an answer to these questions, say so and I'll see what I can do by way of explanation, but I have no intention of responding personally to Sparko in this thread unless he can manage to demonstrate a willingness to understand these arguments in greater depth than you'd see out of a cable news host.

[Sparko]

Present a facile argument, get a facile response.

Honestly, I have no confidence that you're approaching this thread in good faith. If someone whose bona fides is already established in this thread thinks that this presents a serious obstacle, raise the question and I'll put together a serious response.

I was just objecting to your categorizing the death penalty as evil.

Also, in the first article linked in the OP...

It argues that the Catechism and the Pope are against the Death Penalty.

1. The Catechism they linked to says no such thing. It just talks about defending yourself or others and killing the attacker. It says that is allowed.
2. The article that they link to that says the Pope is against the Death Penalty says that he is also against Life Sentences (and calls them a “concealed death sentence”)

So what to do? Just let murderers out on the street? Slap them on the wrist and say "Bad Boy!!"??

[Spartacus]

God actually commanded the death penalty. Moses allowed the divorce, not God.

Matt 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

But if the death penalty is evil then you are saying that God is evil because he commanded it.

Present a facile argument, get a facile response.

Honestly, I have no confidence that you're approaching this thread in good faith. If someone whose bona fides is already established in this thread thinks that this presents a serious obstacle, raise the question and I'll put together a serious response.

[Sparko]

God also allowed divorce under the mosaic law, and I seem to recall Jesus having said some words about that.

God actually commanded the death penalty. Moses allowed the divorce, not God.

Matt 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

But if the death penalty is evil then you are saying that God is evil because he commanded it.

[Spartacus]

a necessary evil????

God commanded the death penalty in the Mosaic Law for various crimes. If it is evil, then you are calling God evil.

God also allowed divorce under the mosaic law, and I seem to recall Jesus having said some words about that.

[Sparko]

When a necessary evil is no longer necessary, it is simply an evil, and we can regard it as abhorrent.

a necessary evil????

God commanded the death penalty in the Mosaic Law for various crimes. If it is evil, then you are calling God evil.