an odd thing about the anti death penalty crowd

[ggreg]

Recent Popes have been against the death penalty on the basis that it is possible but damned expensive to keep evil murderers and child abusers locked away and also on the basis that if they are found innocent they can be aquited.

Surely however with modern technology it would be possible to keep very close track of people awaiting trial. A very large number of whom  are not guilty. If it is an injustice to put a murderer to death then why is it not a huge injustice to keep "innocent until proven guilty" people in jail?

Has the Pope ever protested this?

[GottmitunsAlex]

In Mexico, you are guilty until proven innocent. They still use Roman law.
But of course, no death penalty......... Unless there is extradition and they take you to Texas.

[Habitual_Ritual]

In theory I have no problem with the death penalty but in reality I simply don't trust government not to abuse it so I favor it's abolition given the current status quo

[ggreg]

forget the death penalty for a second.  It is not more unjust to jail someone for 6 months to a year sometimes even longer before trial, when presumed innocent, when technology wise it would be easy to give them a tag and stop them going within .5 mile of their alleged victim.

Death Penalty prisoners have at least been judge guilty of murder.

[Adam_Michael]

1.  I don't like the Death Penalty because I don't trust the government with that kind of power.

2.  Mexico will not extradite if the prisoner face a death sentence.

3.  I have no problem keeping some people behind bars until their trial. We can't paint with a broad brush here, we must look at each case individually based on its own merits. Incarceration serves multiple purposes: Punish the criminal, keep society safe from the criminal, rehabilitate the criminal, make an example out of the criminal to deter others from committing crimes.

If there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe he may be a threat to society or if may be a flight risk then I have no problem with pretrial confinement.

Many people are released on their own recognizance prior to trial. Not everyone is confined prior to trial.

[Scriptorium]

Most people get out on bond.

[Tim]

Almost all the folks you'd know, but not the poor. Moreover I have more of a problem with jail or prison than any other part of the justice system. The institutions are ruled by the inmates. One isn't put away and spends time repenting, but scheming how to stay alive, in a concrete jungle, and pederasty is rampant. It's a scene from Hell. It by it's current nature is cruel and unusual punishment. Atleast it's like that here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

tim

[Starry Plough]

I believe in the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. However it seems that the system is weighted in favor of folks who can afford a good lawyer, and against the poor or certain minorities.
When that's the case then I don't think justice is served.

[Scriptorium]

Almost all the folks you'd know, but not the poor. Moreover I have more of a problem with jail or prison than any other part of the justice system. The institutions are ruled by the inmates. One isn't put away and spends time repenting, but scheming how to stay alive, in a concrete jungle, and pederasty is rampant. It's a scene from Hell. It by it's current nature is cruel and unusual punishment. Atleast it's like that here in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

tim

I agree. I think the things should be run like penal monasteries -- prayer, hard labor, and service to the poor. As for poor folks, depending on the crime, the bond could be waived, or they can be recompensed if found not guilty. But from a legal perspective, if someone is suspected of a serious crime, it is not smart to let them go because they can commit another crime, or they can run. If they are arrested, there is already probable cause that they committed a crime. I don't think it is unjust in theory, but there should be recompense for people found not-guilty, and also it should fit the crime which they are being charged with.

[Landelinus]

Recent Popes have been against the death penalty on the basis that it is possible but damned expensive to keep evil murderers and child abusers locked away and also on the basis that if they are found innocent they can be aquited.

Surely however with modern technology it would be possible to keep very close track of people awaiting trial. A very large number of whom  are not guilty. If it is an injustice to put a murderer to death then why is it not a huge injustice to keep "innocent until proven guilty" people in jail?
Has the Pope ever protested this?

ggreg,
It is unclear to me what the recent popes even mean when they talk about justice.  Certainly the recent teachings on the death penalty point to a strong aversion to punitive justice on the part of the Magisterium.  In speaking of penalties for crime, the current Magisterium emphasizes the therapeutic  character of the penalty and the pragmatic benefit for society of restraining potential criminal behavior.  My impression then is that the current pope, and some of our recent past popes would definitely protest detention of "innocent until proven guilty" folk (Benedict might have done this in the recent Iran case - I can't remember), but would emphasize the pragmatic aspects:  detention should be long enough to ascertain the danger to the public of releasing the potential criminal vs the abiltiy of law enforcement to keep tabs on the potential criminal, etc., etc.
In my opinion  - like the popes will really ask me - is that the Magisterium should stick to the abstract moral nature of punishment per se (i.e. death penalty is permissible as a just punishment for the taking of innocent human life. period.) and let government work out how it plays out in real life.