76-yr old man executed in California

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

Don’t play the fool, Mike. We both know the fallacy in your argument. Its cut from the same cloth as the argument that you can keep elephants away by strewing mothballs on your lawn – and the proof is that there are no elephants within ten thousand miles.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

I fail to see the difference in this particular case. If this man is so nasty and horrible and has people on the outside willing to kill other people for him, it seems perfectly possible to me that he’s said if he is executed that such people should go after and kill maybe the judge, or some of the jury, or his lawyer, or… as revenge for his death.

Mike

 

[walstan]

QUOTE=Ani Ibi]And you are quoting what source?

Never studied Moral Theology?

Obviously not carefully enough to catch onto the fact that the original language of the 10C meant “Thou shalt not murder.”

Legitimate self-defence may be killing, but it is not murder. But – hey – we’ve explained this numerous times on this forum.

Try an excerpt from a biblical commentary:

****The sixth commandment forbids murder. The ethical theology that lies behind this prohibition is the fact that all men and women have been created in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27; 9:6). While Hebrew possesses seven words for killing, the word used here-- rasah --appears only forty-seven times in the OT. If any one of the seven words could signify “murder,” where the factors of premeditation and intentionality are present, this is the verb. Recently, however, some have complained (see Childs, Exodus p. 420, for the bibliography and argument) that many of the instances of this verb relate to blood vengeance and the role of the avenger (go’el in Num 35; Deut 4:41-43; 19:1-13; Josh 20:3). Without exception, however, in the later periods (e.g., Ps 94:6; Prov 22:13; Isa 1:21; Hos 4:2; 6:9; Jer 7:9) it carries the idea of murder with intentional violence. Every one of these instances stresses the act or allegation of premeditation and deliberateness–and that is at the heart of this verb. (My emphasis)

Yep. That’s called observing reality. Your spiel on phone monitoring, p(name removed by moderator)ointing threats to national security, bombing targets are all false analogies.

So… you can use eavesdropping to take life but, not to save it! Or is it simply the numbers game?

Order their deaths maybe?

Haven’t you figured it out? He has NO POWER when inside, what is he going to threaten people with or, what is he going to reward them with? mailbags.

Counselling fear, walstan? Fear in the face of doing nothing to correct the danger? Hmmm…

Nope, suggesting efficiency.

The evidence that all other avenues have failed: more murders ordered from prison.

So we have the evidence that all avenues were tried? Ain’t seen it.

What do you mean by saying “but”? The idea would be that mercy hinges on being able to keep society safe. In this case, society could not be kept safe except by exacting the death penalty.

It may be safer from one man but, society is now a little more coarsened, a liitle more hardened and a little further down the road of thinking that killing is the answer to all societies problems. Insidious really, like the abortion debate, promote it often enough and eventually it becomes the norm.

Where does it say that God will want to know this?

I thought Jesus taught us that every hair on our head was counted, or does that only go for those whom society likes?

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

I fail to see the difference in this particular case.

We know.

MikeWM:

If this man is so nasty and horrible and has people on the outside willing to kill other people for him, it seems perfectly possible to me that he’s said if he is executed that such people should go after and kill maybe the judge, or some of the jury, or his lawyer, or… as revenge for his death.

Mike

It’s perfectly possible that alien lunch-eaters from the Planet Zolgarsh may come down and enslave all of humanity, too – but don’t bet money on it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

We know.

We?

It’s perfectly possible that alien lunch-eaters from the Planet Zolgarsh may come down and enslave all of humanity, too – but don’t bet money on it.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I won’t. It’s unlikely. It’s about as equally unlikely as him ordering the death of anyone else if he had been left alive, given he hadn’t for the last 26 years.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

I won’t. It’s unlikely. It’s about as equally unlikely as him ordering the death of anyone else if he had been left alive, given he hadn’t for the last 26 years.

Mike

And it’s a risk you’re willing to take – given that you live in another country and are not likely to be one of his chosen victims.

 

[MikeWM]

vern humphrey:

And it’s a risk you’re willing to take – given that you live in another country and are not likely to be one of his chosen victims.

Following God’s teaching isn’t always the path that makes us feel safest.

Mike

 

[rlg94086]

walstan:

That would then be his choice to die and his explanantion to God. Moral teaching is simple, any intentional act carried out by man that breaks the law of God is simply wrong. No “exceptions” no excuses. I have looked very carefully at the ten Commandments, I cant find anywhere where it says “Thou shalt not kill… unless”

Have you gone fundamentalist on us? You might try the Catechism. What about killing in war, self-defence, etc.?

I heard an Orthodox Jew once explain that the word really is murder, not kill. There is a big difference there.

 

[vern_humphrey]

MikeWM:

Following God’s teaching isn’t always the path that makes us feel safest.

Mike

Which paragraph of the Catechism says those in authority must abdicate their responsibility to protect the public?

 

[AmyS]

MikeWM:

I fail to see the difference in this particular case. If this man is so nasty and horrible and has people on the outside willing to kill other people for him, it seems perfectly possible to me that he’s said if he is executed that such people should go after and kill maybe the judge, or some of the jury, or his lawyer, or… as revenge for his death.

Mike

Mike, I have read all of your post on this thread… And, my response to you on them where made so well by other posters. I just have one point to make. A lot of your arguments are made with assumptions. You have assumed he could have found God, you have assumed he hasn’t made other orders for death, you have assumed, then, that he could have now made such order (your post above) for revenge…

This man’s sentence was made and carried out of the facts of what he did. One thing I can say for a fact because I have worked in the judicial system for so long, is that there is A LOT of information the general public does NOT know about these cases. Things, that might not make people second guess the decision as much.

I have mentioned on other threads before that in order for someone to receive the death penalty in California, their crime/s have to fulfill certain requirements. There is a list of criteria that has to be met before Death is even sought, then a Jury decides if that is the proper sentence to be carried out. It is NOT an on a whim decision. It is not something that is taken lightly.

 

[koda]

MikeWM:

Following God’s teaching isn’t always the path that makes us feel safest.

Mike

Mike is correct once again.

And to AmyS - you too are making assumptions. You’re assuming he couldn’t find God, etc.

IMO the death penalty should be outlawed.

 

[AmyS]

koda:

Mike is correct once again.

And to AmyS - you too are making assumptions. You’re assuming he couldn’t find God, etc.

IMO the death penalty should be outlawed.

Koda, I never made an assumption either way… Read what I posted again.

The only thing I said that could be construed as an assumption is that there is a lot about these cases that the public knows NOTHING about… That is a fact though.

 

[katewithak]

AmyS:

Koda, I never made an assumption either way… Read what I posted again.

The only thing I said that could be construed as an assumption is that there is a lot about these cases that the public knows NOTHING about… That is a fact though.

The Resurrection is not something that we, ourselves, should deny anyone. It is our very great gift from God and gratitude alone demands that we do not want it denied to anyone. Having said that, the 76 year old man could very well repent of his sins. This is what we should hope for. This is what we should pray for. Not that he will receive the death penalty. Death without repentance means no eternal life. We would prefer, I hope, that he have time to repent of his actions and ask for forgiveness with a truly contrite heart. Consider the case of St. Paul who spent his early years severely persecuting Christians. If he had received the death penalty before his conversion, much would have been denied us. We do not know what God’s plans are for anyone on death row. It is udnerstandable that we would want these people in a controlled atmosphere where they cannot inflict further harm. But the death penalty is not something any of us should attempt to make a case for, no matter the circumstances. We are not justified using the death penalty as we have other means at tour disposal to keep the criminal secured.

 

[AmyS]

katewithak:

The Resurrection is not something that we, ourselves, should deny anyone. It is our very great gift from God and gratitude alone demands that we do not want it denied to anyone. Having said that, the 76 year old man could very well repent of his sins. This is what we should hope for. This is what we should pray for. Not that he will receive the death penalty. Death without repentance means no eternal life. We would prefer, I hope, that he have time to repent of his actions and ask for forgiveness with a truly contrite heart. Consider the case of St. Paul who spent his early years severely persecuting Christians. If he had received the death penalty before his conversion, much would have been denied us. We do not know what God’s plans are for anyone on death row. It is udnerstandable that we would want these people in a controlled atmosphere where they cannot inflict further harm. But the death penalty is not something any of us should attempt to make a case for, no matter the circumstances. We are not justified using the death penalty as we have other means at tour disposal to keep the criminal secured.

Again, that is an assumption. Which honestly I pray to God he did.

The thing is, like i mentioned before. It is not a simple, no thought to it decision… There is ALOT of things that have to have happend in a case before it can even be TRIED as a death penalty case. It is not something law makers take lightly, as some people might think.

There are people on here who say it has to do with revenge, and thing like that. I have seen posters, post with more anger towards the victim’s families, than the defendents.

Again, I pray that this man found God, and was at peace with what he did when he died. But, I am not going to assume anything either way. Like it was mentioned more than once. When he orginially went into prison he was in their for life. His actions changed that.

I don’t have a problem with some sentences being changed from death to life. I don’t have a problem with anyone not approving of the death penalty. I just think that people should stick to facts to make their point.

Their are some people in the world we need to protect other innocent people from. Those people and their safety should come first. Now I am talking in generalisations with that, just so no one reads into what I said differintly.

 

[CatholicCid]

rlg94086:

Have you gone fundamentalist on us? You might try the Catechism. What about killing in war, self-defence, etc.?

I heard an Orthodox Jew once explain that the word really is murder, not kill. There is a big difference there.

Murder is always wrong. The act itself is evil. It can, however be justifiable in such cases as self-defence, war, ect…
I believe the dire necessity affects the culpability, but the act itself is still wrong.

As for this particular case… The fact that we can protect society but failed to do so is what worries me. Executing this man does nothing to fix the system that allowed him to order 1 more murder (and cause the death of 2 bystanders).

Of course, changing the system is hard. But what happens if we have 1 more man like him? Execute him because it is easier then correcting the system?
What about 10? 100? 1,000?

In the US, we have more than the means to protect society from this man. If we fail to do so, we should solve the problem permanently to protect all. These short term solutions of executing the trouble maker does nothing but covers up the problem till it rears it’s ugly face in someone else.

 

[AmyS]

CatholicCid:

As for this particular case… The fact that we can protect society but failed to do so is what worries me. Executing this man does nothing to fix the system that allowed him to order 1 more murder (and cause the death of 2 bystanders).

This is another thing that really gets to me. Why is it so easy for you to blame the system, and not this man for what he did? He decided to do that. Could you imagine the outrage some people would have if he was completely cut off form society too? No contact with anyone… It is a double edged sword for “the system.” Saying that they allowed him to order the other murder, leads to the thought that they knew about it, and did nothing about stoping it. And, that I take great offence to. I don’t get it. “The system” might not be perfect. But, the people who work in it are trying to do more than the majority of the population. And, do you realize that they put their own lives in jepordy by doing the work they do?

If you don’t agree with the death penalty that is fine. I know your heart is in the right place. But, making statements like that about “the system” makes it personal. This man murdered those people. He made that decision. He did it…

 

[CatholicCid]

AmyS:

This is another thing that really gets to me. Why is it so easy for you to blame the system, and not this man for what he did? He decided to do that. Could you imagine the outrage some people would have if he was completely cut off form society too? No contact with anyone… It is a double edged sword for “the system.” Saying that they allowed him to order the other murder, leads to the thought that they knew about it, and did nothing about stoping it. And, that I take great offence to. I don’t get it. “The system” might not be perfect. But, the people who work in it are trying to do more than the majority of the population. And, do you realize that they put their own lives in jepordy by doing the work they do?

If you don’t agree with the death penalty that is fine. I know your heart is in the right place. But, making statements like that about “the system” makes it personal. This man murdered those people. He made that decision. He did it…

The man ordered the murders and he is at fault. I hope he repented for his sins before we ended his life.

But he ordered those murders while in the hands of the system designed to protect him from society.

I respect those who risk their lives daily to work in prisons and help protect the system. A few members of my family do such services. I do not think they are at fault for allowing those at all. I think we could just do more or improve the current system.

But, to be blunt… The system did fail.
This man was incarcerated to rehibilitate him and protect society from him. But he was able to harm society even from inside prison.

I do agree with the death penalty in extreme cases when the means to protect society CANNOT be met.

Now, CANNOT and ARE NOT are different things.

Ideally, Our Prison System would rehibilitate all criminals and protect society in the process. But, as all things in reality, it is not perfect.

God Bless the men and women who work in our prison systems, but in the matters of life one must be blunt, even if it is personal. The system failed to protect the public from an inmate entrusted to it. Are our mistakes or failures worth a life?

If this man was able to ochestrate murders from inside prison, what is stopping others?
If we do not try and improve the system so this cannot happen again, then we are, as you said, allowing people to order murders with knowledge that it is possible. We have seen enough bloodshed, now is the time to do something about stoping it.

 

[AmyS]

CatholicCid:

The man ordered the murders and he is at fault. I hope he repented for his sins before we ended his life.

But he ordered those murders while in the hands of the system designed to protect him from society.

I respect those who risk their lives daily to work in prisons and help protect the system. A few members of my family do such services. I do not think they are at fault for allowing those at all. I think we could just do more or improve the current system.

But, to be blunt… The system did fail.
This man was incarcerated to rehibilitate him and protect society from him. But he was able to harm society even from inside prison.

I do agree with the death penalty in extreme cases when the means to protect society CANNOT be met.

Now, CANNOT and ARE NOT are different things.

Ideally, Our Prison System would rehibilitate all criminals and protect society in the process. But, as all things in reality, it is not perfect.

God Bless the men and women who work in our prison systems, but in the matters of life one must be blunt, even if it is personal. The system failed to protect the public from an inmate entrusted to it. Are our mistakes or failures worth a life?

If this man was able to ochestrate murders from inside prison, what is stopping others?
If we do not try and improve the system so this cannot happen again, then we are, as you said, allowing people to order murders with knowledge that it is possible. We have seen enough bloodshed, now is the time to do something about stoping it.

I think overall we agree with eachother.

Trully, when it comes to this,something has to give. I pray for this mans soul… And, my heart aches for his victims, and their families. Ideally we wouldn’t have the death penalty… We very on my opinion from some posters on the necessity of it. I just think it is VERY important that people realize that when it comes to crimes, the ball is in the defendants court. And, getting a death penalty case to actually be carried out is difficult. I don’t have a problem with life in prision. As long as the general public, and the people that work throug out the system are safe. That can’t be guaranteed. There is more than one case in the county I live in where the prision worker was murdered by an inmate.

 

[Al_Masetti]

CatholicCid:

Murder is always wrong. The act itself is evil. It can, however be justifiable in such cases as self-defence, war, ect…
I believe the dire necessity affects the culpability, but the act itself is still wrong.

As for this particular case… The fact that we can protect society but failed to do so is what worries me. Executing this man does nothing to fix the system that allowed him to order 1 more murder (and cause the death of 2 bystanders).

Of course, changing the system is hard. But what happens if we have 1 more man like him? Execute him because it is easier then correcting the system?
What about 10? 100? 1,000?

In the US, we have more than the means to protect society from this man. If we fail to do so, we should solve the problem permanently to protect all. These short term solutions of executing the trouble maker does nothing but covers up the problem till it rears it’s ugly face in someone else.

How would you feel if we paroled him — but he would be living in your house, in a spare room… and you would be responsible for his actions while in your care?

 

[katewithak]

AmyS:

Again, that is an assumption. Which honestly I pray to God he did.

The thing is, like i mentioned before. It is not a simple, no thought to it decision… There is ALOT of things that have to have happend in a case before it can even be TRIED as a death penalty case. It is not something law makers take lightly, as some people might think.

There are people on here who say it has to do with revenge, and thing like that. I have seen posters, post with more anger towards the victim’s families, than the defendents.

Again, I pray that this man found God, and was at peace with what he did when he died. But, I am not going to assume anything either way. Like it was mentioned more than once. When he orginially went into prison he was in their for life. His actions changed that.

I don’t have a problem with some sentences being changed from death to life. I don’t have a problem with anyone not approving of the death penalty. I just think that people should stick to facts to make their point.

Their are some people in the world we need to protect other innocent people from. Those people and their safety should come first. Now I am talking in generalisations with that, just so no one reads into what I said differintly.

No, you cannot assume either way whether he repented or not before death. That is between him and God. However, you definately can assume you denied him more time to repent if you uphold the death penalty and he dies and that will also be between him and God. You can definately make assumptions abut your own desires. Also, one of the reasons murder is wrong is because it is an attempt tp take control of a person’s life away from God. That is the first reason we hold murder as a serious crime. In the same way, the death penalty when other means are available is a rationalized version of the same thing. An attempt to take control from God.

 

[CatholicCid]

Al Masetti:

How would you feel if we paroled him — but he would be living in your house, in a spare room… and you would be responsible for his actions while in your care?

Let me put it this way. I’d feel safer in a society with 100,000 brutal murders in prison then in one that executes 1 murder because they could not stop him from harming others when in their custody.