The list of horrors for which no sane person could think a jail term, no matter its length, is proportionate punishment, continues to grow. The latest came out today, in this CBS story titled, "ISIS Video Purports to Show Jordanian Pilot Burned Alive." This kind of barbarism has not been seen in, what, 400 years?
I'd like to ask those among our readers who oppose the death penalty in all circumstances to watch the tape (I haven't and I'm not going to). Then I hope they'll explain why the death penalty is undeserved in this instance, and what other punishment consistent with civilized (and generally Eighth Amendment) standards fits this crime.
If they believe that the punishment should not fit the crime, contrary to the accepted view in every other aspect of criminal law, that's fine -- they're entitled to that position -- but I hope that, in the future, they'll say up front and loudly that that is the position they want the country to adopt.
Do you think, Bill, were we to capture these criminals, that we should execute them by burning them alive? Isn't that arguably the only way the punishment will truly "fit the crime"? Similarly, doesn't a prison term for any crime other than kidnapping not really "fit the crime"? Also, on this "fitting" front, are you saying you agreed with the Supreme Court's decisions prohibiting capital punishment for anything but murder because executions are not "fitting" absent a crime that involves a death?
I ask these questions in good faith and with sincere interest in your views (and others of others). I have never fully understood modern retributivist talk about punishment "fitting" a crime when we typically use only one type of punishment (incarceration) for a wide variety of serious crimes. Put another way, Bill, unless you genuinely think we should, e.g., punish rapists by subjecting them to rape and punish drunk drivers who run over folks by running over them, I think you (like everyone else) thinks that modern punishment is not ever really about "fit."
Doug --
1. "Do you think, Bill, were we to capture these criminals, that we should execute them by burning them alive?"
No. And no serious retentionist thinks so, as you couldn't help knowing when you wrote the question.
2. "Isn't that arguably the only way the punishment will truly 'fit the crime'?"
Yes, arguably it is, but as I noted, the penalty applied must be one that is "consistent with civilized (and generally Eighth Amendment) standards."
No one could misconstrue my post, or the views of retentionists generally, to mean that we should do exactly the same thing to killers they did to their victims. I mean, please. We are required to conform to civilized and legal behavior; killers observe no such requirement.
The death penalty as currently administered in this country complies with such standards.
3. "Similarly, doesn't a prison term for any crime other than kidnapping not really 'fit the crime'?"
It fits in the sense normal people use in any intelligent discussion of this topic, i.e., it's proportionate. It is for that reason that not even die-hard Leftists oppose jail sentences for armed robbery, rape, massive swindles of old folks, etc.
4. "Also, on this "fitting" front, are you saying you agreed with the Supreme Court's decisions prohibiting capital punishment for anything but murder because executions are not "fitting" absent a crime that involves a death?"
First, SCOTUS has not said that the DP must be confined only to murder. Espionage in war is still out there.
Second, no, I think Kennedy v. Louisiana was wrongly decided and that the DP should be available as proportionate punishment for at least aggravated or multiple child rape. Do you disagree?
5. Your discussion of the use of the word "fit" is literal to point of silliness. No one is talking about "fit" in the way a suit should "fit." "Fit" in this context means "having an overall seriousness and punitive quality proportionate to the evil and harmfulness of the crime."
6. In that sense, do you think the death penalty as administered in this country fits for the crime of burning to death a hostage?
Bill,
As horrific as this conduct is, I must disagree that similar atrocities have not been seen for 400 years.
Rather, the world remained silent 70 years ago as 6 million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered.
As I see it, the question the civilized world faces at this moment in history is what will be done to eradicate this evil from the earth.
And in answer to your question: The DP as presently administered in this country does not provide justice for the type of conduct at hand -- far too many unjustified delays and procedural safeguards designed to ensure due process.
The only due process that should be afforded ISIS savages who have declared war against civilization is the same due process the Allies gave to the Nazis and the Emperor during WWII.
paul,
Good points, all.
It's well worth asking whether present-day abolitionists think that the Allies erred in executing Nazi war criminals. Perhaps some will chime in.
When I said "death penalty as presently administered," I was referring to the method used (mostly lethal injection). I fully agree that unconscionable delays and manufactured procedural hurdles are serious flaws that ought expeditiously to be removed.
I also think there is no little weight to the view that ISIS terrorists should be treated under the ancient Enemy of the State doctrine and afforded such process as is necessary only to establish that we have the right guy.
I would note in addition that, although quite a few abolitionists and DP agnostics read this blog, we do not yet have an answer to the question I asked of Doug Berman: "Do you think the death penalty as administered in this country fits for the crime of burning to death a hostage?"
The reason I wrote this post to begin with is to illustrate that abolitionism is a Fact-Free Zone. No normal person could think that a jail sentence is true justice for this hideous act. But the facts of this mind-bending murder, now on videotape worldwide, simply will not matter. They will not matter, that is, to the same people who otherwise loudly insist on "evidence-based" this and "evidence-based" that. When forced to confront ACTUAL evidence, they have but one answer.
Silence.
My understanding is that, for many fanatic or radical Muslims, dying in the service of the "cause" is a noble goal to be aspired to. In other words, it's entirely possible that executing these people is what they want. Should that play a role in the death penalty decision? Is it counterproductive to reward killers with exactly what they want, and make martyrs of them to boot? If my assumption is correct, wouldn't it be a much graver punishment to lock them up for the rest of their lives?
- Victor
Victor --
Thank you for your direct response.
1. "My understanding is that, for many fanatic or radical Muslims, dying in the service of the "cause" is a noble goal to be aspired to. In other words, it's entirely possible that executing these people is what they want. Should that play a role in the death penalty decision?"
No. The wants of society, not the criminal, determine the punishment.
2. "Is it counterproductive to reward killers with exactly what they want, and make martyrs of them to boot?"
First, the point of criminal punishments is not to "produce" anything. The point is to mete out justice proportionate to the offense. Imprisonment for this grotesque deed does not come close (a point I note you don't dispute).
Second, do you really think the people who did this seek martyrdom? If so, why are they wearing masks? Why do they not reveal (indeed, boast of) their location? Was Osama seeking martyrdom when he hid out for years? Was Zohkhar Tsarnaev seeking martyrdom when he had a shootout with the Boston police to avoid capture?
3. "If my assumption is correct, wouldn't it be a much graver punishment to lock them up for the rest of their lives?"
As if you were really seeking the gravest punishment, after consistently taking the opposite position in almost all your posts.
But for however that may be, it falls to my first objection. The point is not to adopt or be influenced by their sick value system; the point is to impose ours. Under ours, this is the "worst of the worst" by any measure, and thus deserves the maximum penalty as judged by Western values and law.
Finally, forgive me for being suspicious, but your reply seems to have a whiff of opportunism. That is: You very likely agree that imprisonment is not proportionate to the crime; you nonetheless, for ideological reasons, continue to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances; and therefore want to come up with retributivist bait to avoid it notwithstanding that these grisly sadists have earned it.
Is that about the lay of the land?
Bill -
Thank you as well for your responses.
I don't know if these people in particular seek martyrdom or not. It's my understanding from what I've read that some Islamic religious fanatics do seek martyrdom. I couldn't speak to the desire for martyrdom of these people in particular, Osama bin Laden, or Tsarnev.
As to your larger point about the death penalty in this case, it's a complicated question. Since this crime appears to have been committed in Syria with possibly Iraqi criminals and a Jordanian victim, I don't see why "Western values and law" should determine the penalty. You also suggest we should "impose our" value system. Are you saying that the United States should intervene to punish the people involved, even though there are no US ties to the crime? Would this mean a US invasion of Syria?
Finally, I see both sides of the death penalty debate, and while I'm probably slightly against the death penalty as currently administered in the US, I can also understand why barbaric acts like this prompt a call for its use.
-V
Bill, I am glad others have engaged you on this front and I am only now finding time to do so. Let me begin by seeking to respond to your question: "Do you think the death penalty as administered in this country fits for the crime of burning to death a hostage?"
As I said initially, I have never fully understood modern retributivist talk about punishment "fitting" a crime, and thus I really do not have an answer about what "fits ... the crime of burning to death a hostage." Candidly, I am not sure anything really "fits" when it comes to punishment in this context or many others and I am always eager to hear others' opinions on punishment fitting so I can try to better understand this intuitively appealing concept. So: Do you think 55 years in federal prison was a fit Weldon Angelos's crime for selling some marijuana while possessing a gun? How about 80 years for Christopher Williams for roughly the same offense? How about 15 years for Edward Young possessing some shotgun shells as a felon?
You assert that "the point of criminal punishments is not to 'produce' anything. The point is to mete out justice proportionate to the offense." If you really think that is the point, why are you not more vocal in seeking to condemn these sorts of disproportionate federal punishments and/or the federal mandatory minimum statutes which help produce them?
I am inclined to accuse you of being the opportunist unless/until you explain why you think these kinds of extreme punishments for the nonviolent offenses of Angeles, Williams and Young are defensible if not proportionate. Moreover, if you really think the point of punishment really is to "mete out justice proportionate to the offense" and not "to 'produce' anything," how can you (and did you) justify as a prosecutor giving cooperators sentencing breaks to reward their substantial assistance? Aren't those sentencing discounts as a quid-pro-quo for cooperation only justified based on utilitarian goals and isn't it often the case the cooperators often get sentenced well below other comparable defendants in the federal system?
Please understand, I am not trying to attack your retributivist vision or advocacy, I am just trying to see why it does not lead you yo be more critical of obviously disproportionate punishment or other sentencing realities that seem largely about producing some utilitarian benefit from a punishment.
One last point: many abolitionist, such as the Pope, I do not "occupy a Fact-Free Zone," rather they simply think certain values should be more important than certain facts. "Thou shall not kill (except perhaps for immediate self defense)" is a value-statement, not a fact-free assertion. (Do you accuse devout evangelicals of "occupy[ing] a Fact-Free Zone" when they assert that gay marriage or premarital sex is morally wrong?)
[Editor's Note: A portion of this comment has been deleted as beyond the pale. -- KS]
Victor --
"As to your larger point about the death penalty in this case, it's a complicated question. Since this crime appears to have been committed in Syria with possibly Iraqi criminals and a Jordanian victim, I don't see why 'Western values and law' should determine the penalty."
You correctly point out that I was insufficiently clear about my question, which I should have phrased as what the punishment should be had this crime been committed within United States jurisdiction.
I would note, however, that, while the death penalty remains popular in American law, it certainly seems to be much MORE popular in the law of Middle Eastern countries, and carried out with nothing approaching the due process requirements that prevail in the USA.
I differ with you, however, as to whether this case is complicated, no matter which law is used. The calculation and sadism -- indeed, the braggadocio -- of this murder make the death penalty the only even remotely proportionate punishment consistent with the constraints of the Eight Amendment and its underlying values.
Although I edited Doug's comment a bit, I do agree with him in part.
There is an enormous amount of disinformation in the anti-death-penalty movement. There is an entire operation funded by George Soros et al. that does nothing but disseminate misleading half-truths. The lack of diversity of viewpoint in academia has turned our schools into institutions dangerously close to indoctrination camps.
Despite all that, there are many informed people who disagree with us on this issue. I know dedicated capital case prosecutors who are married to people who want to abolish the death penalty. Surely they are in a position to correct misinformation. Ignorance is a contributing factor but nowhere close to a full explanation.
Let's turn the heat down a notch on both sides, folks.
Bill -
Thanks for an enlightening exchange. While it's true that the death penalty is more popular in Middle Eastern countries, I hardly think that's a model we want to aspire to, where one can be executed for "heresy" or blasphemy. I also don't support cutting off hands to punish theft, so I guess I'm a little soft on crime.
-V
Victor --
The reason I noted that the DP is more popular in the Middle East than here was to explain that the values prevailing in that part of the world are more likely, not less, to support its imposition. I didn't say, and I don't believe, that "it's a model we want to aspire to," just as I don't believe the 100% abolitionist model in Western Europe is one to aspire to.
There is a balance between wild-eyed retributivism and ill-advised indulgence. In my view, the USA strikes that balance in about the right place, although we go too far in allowing delay and manufactured procedural challenges having nothing to do with actual guilt or innocence.
One is not "soft on crime" because he opposes cutting off hands. But one may well be soft of crime if he thinks theft results only from poverty, and that the correct legal response is therefore to provide social services to the offender. In my many years as a prosecutor, not one single time did I encounter a Jean Valjean defendant. No one, zero, stole for subsistence. The reasons defendants stole were (1) they wanted something without working for it, (2) they had no, or insufficient, personal values against stealing, and (3) they had no empathy for the person whose money or property they took, and (4) they thought they could get away with it, or, even if caught, that nothing very serious would happen, so it was worth the risk.
Such people do not deserve to have their hands chopped off. But they do deserve some time in jail, for punishment and deterrent purposes, and to send the message that their behavior is not acceptable and is going to have to change.
"[M]any abolitionist[s], such as the Pope, I do not 'occupy a Fact-Free Zone,' rather they simply think certain values should be more important than certain facts. 'Thou shall not kill (except perhaps for immediate self defense)' is a value-statement, not a fact-free assertion."
False dichotomy, Doug, and wrong even taken on its own mistaken terms.
It's a false dichotomy because "Thou shall not kill" is BOTH a value-statement AND the demarcation of a fact-free zone. Indeed, its WHOLE POINT is to demark a ground where facts will not be allowed to count: "No killing no matter what the facts."
It's mistaken because, as you correctly amend the value statement, it DOES INDEED admit of facts, to wit, when there is an immediate need for self defense -- a factual question if ever there was one.
This in turn admits of yet more factual questions. How immediate does "immediate" have to be? Must the apprehension of the need for self defense be objectively reasonable, or only subjectively reasonable? Will a defense of a helpless child also work, or must it be only self defense?
My point is that those who claim to be "pure" abolitionists on "Thou shalt not kill" grounds are indeed demanding a fact free zone (at least fact free in the adjudication of a punishment for capital crimes) while very quietly admitting that facts DO count. They simply differ with retentionists about which facts are allowed to count.
Basing an anti-death-penalty argument on the Biblical passage "thou shalt not kill" is also basing it on an erroneous translation.
The King James Version is a great work of the Golden Age of English literature, but as a translation it has some issues. This is one of them. I went looking a while back, and every modern translation I could find said something like, "Do not commit murder."
I do not think any religious arguments should be the basis for or against the death penalty (or any policy for that matter). Personally, I think the merits of the death penalty have nothing to do with divine permission but rather more practical matters like public safety and justice (I have officially adopted Kents terminology for what I learned in law school as "retribution").
Bill, since I answered as best I can your questions about crimes, punishments and "fitting," I hope you will respond to my questions above. I will repeat them here:
You assert that "the point of criminal punishments is not to 'produce' anything. The point is to mete out justice proportionate to the offense." If you really think that is the point, why are you not more vocal in seeking to condemn these sorts of disproportionate federal punishments and/or the federal mandatory minimum statutes which help produce them?
If you really think the point of punishment really is to "mete out justice proportionate to the offense" and not "to 'produce' anything," how can you (and did you) justify as a prosecutor giving cooperators sentencing breaks to reward their substantial assistance?
Why would you think you could get useful answers from someone whose values are so suspect as to spark a fear that he shares common ground with the thugs in the ISIS video?
I personally would stay as far away from such a person as I could get. Sounds like an awful human being.
There are always circumstances where I think justice takes a back seat to perhaps more pressing concerns. Someone in an earlier comment in this thread made reference to Nazi war criminals, and famously (or infamously) the US looked the other way as to the misdeeds of various rocket scientists as we (correctly in my mind) made a judgment that rocketry was more important than justice for those individuals.
The same logic goes for mob informants and using captured spies as double agents. Sometimes, the greater good is more important than justice - this doesn't bother me at all, but I can see an argument where one can say the whole justice argument is a sham as it really has to do with whether the criminal is useful in some other capacity.
Matt --
I agree that the DP should neither be justified nor opposed based on religion. This is a secular country with secular law. Religion informs morality for many people, and morality is the petri dish of criminal law, but that's as far at it should go in a pluralistic country. Not every religion teaches the same thing, and some people simply are not religious.
I also agree with the notion (surprising as this may sound) that justice is not everything. This was brought home to me in a death penalty debate I had recently at a law school. My opponent asked me whether true justice for some horrible, sadistic killer wouldn't be torturing him to death. I said that it might indeed, but that, while justice was the single most important thing we want the system to provide, it's not the only thing.
We also want, for example, to confine ourselves to the bounds of civilized life regardless of what the criminal has earned. That's why we cannot use torture as punishment.
Same general principle in other contexts, including the one you note. von Braun may have been a war criminal (although I don't know that), but we were engaged in a potentially life-or-death struggle with a nuclear armed Soviet Union, and his expertise was very important to our winning. The stakes don't get higher than that.
Matt, I agree. Yet I do hear the "thou shalt not kill" argument frequently, so I raise the translation point to answer the argument on its own terms for those who do consider Biblical text relevant to the debate.
Bill, perhaps unlike you, I am much more interested in talking to people and hearing perspectives from peoples whose values are much different than mine. I would be eager to hear about what kind of religious values drive persons involved with ISIS to be so cruel and sadistic and to be so disrespectful and violent toward those with distinct values.
For the same reason, Bill, I remain very interested to hear about what kind of (secular? religious?) values lead you Bill to be so dismissive and disrespectful to those whose values lead them to the conclude that the death penalty is categorically morally wrong in all settings. I believe this is the modern view of the Catholic Church, which is why I brought up the Pope in a prior comment.
What for me defines the evil of ISIS --- and seemingly others who have historically done sadistic and seemingly evil things in the name of religion or ideology --- is a disrespect for other views and beliefs (and an eagerness to censor and/or exterminate those with such views/beliefs).
One of the (many) things that makes America great, in my view, is a continuing eagerness to permit and even foster disagreements without disrespect (although the last few decades have seem political discourse two often include disrespect as well as disagreement). In any event, I hope you Bill and the host here know I meant no disrespect with my ISIS reference --- I was just trying to connect the main part of this post to your criticisms of abolitionists.
If I crossed a line, I am sorry and sincerely apologize. And it is because I respect your views, Bill, that I remain interested in hearing your responses to my question. With this lead up, let me ask them one more time:
You assert that "the point of criminal punishments is not to 'produce' anything. The point is to mete out justice proportionate to the offense." If you really think that is the point, why are you not more vocal in seeking to condemn disproportionate federal punishments and/or the federal mandatory minimum statutes which help produce them?
If you really think the point of punishment is to "mete out justice proportionate to the offense" and not "to 'produce' anything," how can you (and did you) justify as a prosecutor giving cooperators sentencing breaks to reward their substantial assistance?
Douglas stated: "For the same reason, Bill, I remain very interested to hear about what kind of (secular? religious?) values lead you Bill to be so dismissive and disrespectful to those whose values lead them to the conclude that the death penalty is categorically morally wrong in all settings. I believe this is the modern view of the Catholic Church, which is why I brought up the Pope in a prior comment."
You believe wrong. Do not equate the personal opinions of specific Popes with that of the Church.
From the Catechism: "2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
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."
Now, it does go on to say that these instances are very rare, however, there can be a lot of electrons wasted debating what is "rare."
You are also incorrect, as Kent points out, regarding "Thou shalt not kill." The word used is "ratsach", which is not "kill." It is not quite murder either but closer to a combination of murder/manslaughter/negligence.
Correct.
There are a number of conundrums here.
First, I believe the Pope sets church doctrine only when he speaks ex cathedra, which he has not done on the issue of the death penalty. Otherwise, he is an influential but not a 100% authoritative voice.
Second, while existing church doctrine supports the DP in only rare instances, it is, in fact, IMPOSED in only rare instances -- about 35 times a years out of more than 14,000 murders. So that would seem to satisfy the rareness requirement.
Third, just as with contraception, it is thought that the actual practice of lay Catholics in the United States differs considerably from any official Church hesitancy. As best I know, American Catholics support the DP by the same big majority other citizens do (slightly over 60%), if not slightly more. If there is any contrary evidence, I have never seen it.
Fourth, whatever happened to the vaunted "wall" of separation between church and state that liberals and libertarians screech about in every other context? Why does that now disappear in favor of the (implicit but unambiguous) view that the teaching of a particular Christian church should have an especially prominent place in the public death penalty debate. I must have missed that in the liberal yelping about Hobby Lobby.
Fifth, whatever happened (once again) to "evidence-based" punishment? If punishment theory is to be based on evidence -- which is to say, facts -- then it simply does not permit of a priori injunctions like "no DP, ever." One cannot, with any degree of intellectual consistency, maintain in one part of sentencing theory that we must examine facts, and in the part next door, that we must NOT.
Sixth, as both Kent and you have noted (and Adamakis, before he too abandoned SL&P), the whole debate is a non-starter, because it's based on (an almost certainly deliberate) mistranslation. The Biblical injunction is, "Thou shalt not murder," and an execution ordered by a judge, consistent with the Eighth Amendment and after required due process, is not murder ("murder" being the UNLAWFUL taking of life).
I am pleased to be corrected about official Catholic teachings by people who clearly know a lot better than me. But these corrections still do not answer for me why Bill seems to be so dismissive and disrespectful to those whose values lead them to the conclude that the death penalty is categorically morally wrong in all settings. That is what I am trying to better understand in this context.
Bill's latest comment suggesting "that punishment theory is to be based on evidence -- which is to say, facts" has me still confused. This is because earlier Bill says that "the point of criminal punishments is not to 'produce' anything [but] to mete out justice proportionate to the offense." If this is the point of punishment, I struggles to understand where "facts" fit in (other than, of course, facts about the offense).
Let me see if I can clearly explain my confusion about Bill's philosophy in light of his various comments: I see Bill making a retributivist VALUES-BASED claim for having the death penalty given his many comments about this punishment "fitting" a horrible crime and about it being "deserved" and the point of punishment being to "mete out justice proportionate to the offense." This is a sound -- and historically well regarded --- basis for supporting the death penalty, but it does not seem to have anything to do with "facts." Kant famously said justice demanded that a society execute all its murderers even if it were about to disband because contingent "facts" about the impact on society are not pertinent to the question of justice.
But at the same time Bill seems to be propounding a VALUES-BASED claim for having the death penalty, he also seems to be assailing those who are drawn to a VALUES-BASED claim for not having the death penalty. Thus I am struggling to understand where Bill stands on the appropriateness of judging punishments based principally on whether they "mete out justice proportionate to the offense."
As for my own views, I am always drawn ONLY to "evidence-based" punishments because I have never fully understood how to have a rational debate over any VALUES-BASED claim for or against any particular punishment.
I read the initial post here as Bill's claim that anyone sensible in the US would have to, on a VALUES basis, support the death penalty for evil ISIS killers. I asked follow-up question because I was trying to better understand all the implications and applications of Bill's seemingly VALUES-BASED claims. And, after two dozen comments, I now know more about Catholic doctrine but still do not have an answer to the main follow-up questions I keep hoping to have Bill answer. Just for kicks, and because Bill is still engaging with some of that I am saying, I will try yet one more time:
You assert that "the point of criminal punishments is not to 'produce' anything. The point is to mete out justice proportionate to the offense." If you really think that is the point, why are you not more vocal in seeking to condemn disproportionate federal punishments and/or the federal mandatory minimum statutes which help produce them?
If you really think the point of punishment is to "mete out justice proportionate to the offense" and not "to 'produce' anything," how can you (and did you) justify as a prosecutor giving cooperators sentencing breaks to reward their substantial assistance?
The Catholic Church is rife with hypocrisy and should spend more time getting its own house (i.e. pedophile priests) in order than attempting to dictate social policy whether it has to do with contraception, death penalty, abortion etc....
And, Bill is correct nobody really listens to the Pope anyway. Catholics use contraception just like everyone else because well, having 6 kids just isn't as affordable as it once was. Easy for the unmarried Pope to say don't use it, but he isn't footing the bill.
Finally, I understand the point about the correct translation (from Greek, I think) it is "Thou shall not Murder" as opposed to "Thou shall not kill" but it still opens up an argument as to "what is murder" as applied to the death penalty, war etc, etc... There is no need to have this debate because it doesn't matter what the Bible says as us mere mortals can make our own determinations as to what the best policy is.
Matthew Faler stated:"The Catholic Church is rife with hypocrisy and should spend more time getting its own house (i.e. pedophile priests) in order than attempting to dictate social policy whether it has to do with contraception, death penalty, abortion etc...."
Off topic but nonsense. The RCC has always had a lower rate of "pedophile priests" (in reality, very few were pedophiles and most were ephebophiles) than families, schools, youth groups, and Protestant denominations. There are roughly 500,000 members of the clergy, so having some "pedophiles" in that group is not a scandal, it is a statistical certainty.
The biggest difference between it and other denominations is stature and money. It is the oldest and most prominent of the Christian faiths and is structured in a manner that allows bigger fish to be sued (diocese). The local bible church guy just closes shop and moves out of town. The RCC has no such convenience. They get sued for big bucks and it remains a story for weeks rather than days.
I recommend you read the full study on "pedophile priests" done by the John Jay School of Criminal Justice.
The rest is just poor critical thinking. Hypocrites in a church of 1.2 billion? Who wudda thunk? Catholics may have Christ's true Church but they are the first to admit to be fallen like everyone else.
And, in what ways does the RCC "dictate" social policy? It has been hundreds of years since that model. What it does do is instruct its members in its teachings and expects them to act in a manner in accordance with its values. That has been true of every organization I have ever been involved with, whether work or social.
As far as Catholics "not listening", sure it is true that there are bad Catholics just as there are bad Protestants, lawyers, doctors, etc. You have the logical dilemma of implying in the same message that the Pope is a dictator and impotent. I will let you sort through that logical nightmare.
Doug --
I will not continue a conversation with a person who insults me. I'll just walk away. Continuing the conversation under those circumstances is demeaning and rewards behavior best discouraged.
Life is short. From now on, I will not engage in a conversation with anyone who is, in my estimation, disrespectful, no matter how cleverly the disrespect (or anger or superiority or what have you) is dressed up. I have numerous intelligent, courteous, good-faith people and projects competing for my attention. I have neither the need nor, at this point, the time or the patience, to talk to anyone who wants to be demanding, aggressive, high-handed or unpleasant.
How did I insult or disrespectful to you, Bill, more than your suggestions that any and all DP abolitionists must be abnormal and uncivilized?
The thread started, it seems, because you Bill were demanding, aggressive, and high-handed in saying that only the death penalty fits for a terrible tortuous killing. After I asked follow up questions and sought to respond to your demands to address punishment fit, I asked you genuine good-faith questions about the meaning and implications of your assertions for key elements of the federal sentencing system. I remain interested in how you would respond to these questions, and I am surprised and disappointed that you expect others to respond to your demands, but are not willing to continue engaging when someone follows up in kind.
I am genuinely sorry my behavior here does not apparently live up to your standards, Bill. Issues I raised strike me as important concerns for the modern federal sentencing system, and I continue to be interested in your perspective on such matter. But it seems you have no answers that you are willing to share.