Atheism & the Death Penalty.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, so why were you refuting my initial comment about the Church's position on the death penalty by quoting a random passage from the bible to try to prove that the Church is ok with it?

EDIT to add: And as you pointed out yourself, the 1st edition of the CCC pretty much says the same exact thing with less words and going into less details. But still the same teaching. So I don't see what your objection is to my statements on this.

I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate the difference between the words "should" and "will".  (My kids do, by the way.)  The Catholic Church's "evolving" position on the death penalty is a perfect example of the Zeitgeist at work, "theologically speaking".  But, yes, "Welcome!"  I am glad that the Church is on board with respect to this issue at least.  

So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.

With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.

[Vincent]

I understand why the death penalty is used in certain cases, and I do not actively fight or debate against it. 

However, for personal, incredibly subjective reasons, I do not like it, and I wish our society would be rid of it. 

I don't find it justified to ever take a life unless in cases of immediate self-defense when someone else's life is in jeopardy. And even if I were in such a situation myself, I would only aim to wound, never kill. I place a lot of value on life, and I do not see taking the life of someone who took another person's life as a fitting punishment. The only thing that results is another life being lost. 

Also, what does a prisoner learn from being killed? What is the benefit of that? To me, forcing a person to spend the rest of the only life they have in a prison cell is a greater torment than just letting them die. That doesn't teach them any lesson. Allowing them to live also harbors a chance at some form of redemption, no matter how remote or unlikely that chance might be. And I believe that every criminal should have the chance to understand why their actions were wrong. 

Now, I know these are not logical points to debate the rightness or wrongness of the death penalty. I'm not seeking to do that. These are all just my personal feelings.

[Jehanne]

Catholic_Lady

I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate the difference between the words "should" and "will".  (My kids do, by the way.)  The Catholic Church's "evolving" position on the death penalty is a perfect example of the Zeitgeist at work, "theologically speaking".  But, yes, "Welcome!"  I am glad that the Church is on board with respect to this issue at least.  

So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.

With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.

Saying that a person should do something is different than saying that they must do something (as in "authority will limit itself to such means...").  It's a slight-of-hand shift to be sure, but when five of the United States Supreme Court justices are Catholic, such statements from the Magisterium mean something, don't they?  (Well, not to Us, at least! )

[Spooky]

Subjective. But I voted "Any violent crime should be punished by death."

Within reason of course. I don't believe life to be "Sacred".

[Jehanne]

Subjective.  But I voted "Any violent crime should be punished by death."

Within reason of course.  I don't believe life to be "Sacred".

Considering that there have been less than 15,500 executions since 1608, the US would need to build many more execution chambers:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/2159

[Aegon]

As people have probably said, the death penalty can be seen as an "easy way out," and in most circumstances I think life in prison would be worse. Beyond that, there's the expenses to consider:

"A Seattle University study examining the costs of the death penalty in Washington found that each death penalty case cost an average of $1 million more than a similar case where the death penalty was not sought ($3.07 million, versus $2.01 million). Defense costs were about three times as high in death penalty cases and prosecution costs were as much as four times higher than for non-death penalty cases. Criminal Justice Professor Peter Collins, the lead author of the study, said, “What this provides is evidence of the costs of death-penalty cases, empirical evidence. We went into it [the study] wanting to remain objective. This is purely about the economics; whether or not it’s worth the investment is up to the public, the voters of Washington and the people we elected.” (Although Washington's death penalty was reinstated in 1981, the study examined cases from 1997 onwards. Using only cases in the study, the gross bill to taxpayers for the death penalty will be about $120 million. Washington has carried out five executions since reinstatement, implying a cost of $24 million per execution. In three of those five cases, the inmate waived parts of his appeals, thus reducing costs.) The study was not able to include the likely higher yearly incarceration costs for death row inmates versus those not on death row.

(J. Sullivan, "Seeking death penalty adds $1M to prosecution cost, study says," Seattle Times, January 7, 2015; P. Collins, et al., "An Analysis of the Economic Costs of Seeking the Death Penalty in Washington State," Seattle University, January 1, 2015)."

[Bob Kelso]

I used to be staunchly against the penalty if only for two holdouts; 

• Innocent people can be -and have been- put to death for crimes they did not commit.
  
• Since it's my contention that death is the same thing as what pre-life was for us, nothingness, ending someone's existence before they can serve their due punishment is missing the point. 
  

I'm feeling more on the fence these days, but perhaps that's because I feel jaded. I deal with truly dangerous, homicidal people from time to time and I can't help but think that no one deserves to have to deal with these fuckers that would kill you at a mere whim.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Subjective.  But I voted "Any violent crime should be punished by death."

Within reason of course.  I don't believe life to be "Sacred".

Would you be willing to personally execute your family members if they committed violent crimes?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Subjective.  But I voted "Any violent crime should be punished by death."

Within reason of course.  I don't believe life to be "Sacred".

I believe that question is for a website where more people use that word "sacred", as well as invoke other supernatural concepts. What those who are willing to kill other people, for any reason, should be asking themselves:

1. How much do you really trust that the system, in all its corruption, will never be turned against you?

2. Just how arrogant are you not to believe you would never find yourself against powerful enemies?

[Reforged]

I'm sorry that you cannot appreciate the difference between the words "should" and "will".  (My kids do, by the way.)  The Catholic Church's "evolving" position on the death penalty is a perfect example of the Zeitgeist at work, "theologically speaking".  But, yes, "Welcome!"  I am glad that the Church is on board with respect to this issue at least.  

So what exactly is the difference between the 1st edition's teaching and the 2nd, other than the fact that they used a different word that doesn't even change the message? They both say that the DP is only ok if it is the only means to keep a society safe, otherwise the right thing is to take the route that does not kill the person.

With that being said, yes, the teachings do evolve over the course of 2,000 years. The official, doctrinal teachings don't change completely but they evolve and get added on as we come to a better understanding of things. However, on this particular issue, I see no "evolution" between the 1st and 2nd edition's stance. And I still don't understand why you objected to my initial post about this in the first place.

I find it curious that you don't seem to think changing the word of Gods disciples and through extension God is extremely relevant. After all, even if the change is only slight it can cause an entire divergence of interpretation. Given the nature of the text I would of thought the creator of everything would want it made very clear what he wants and choose his words very carefully as he would be more knowledgeable than a master linguist and thus more conscious of the potential pitfalls. Thats not even taking omnipotence into account. 
Did he make a mistake the first time? Is there predictive text in heaven? If so I totally get it.