Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[vern_humphrey]

So what are you saying?

I’m saying it is possible for criminals to destroy the justice system. Here are some real-life examples:

• A multiple murderer in the Supermax at Marion, Ill, put together a plot where two Corrections Officers were killed in the same day.
• An inmate at another prison handed a Corrections Officer a photograph – which showed the officer’s six-year old daughter playing in the back yard.
• Inmates in a prison in New Mexico seized tools used by workmen renovating the prison, drove Corrections Officers out, then used those tools to break into the Isolation Area where informers and special prisoners were kept segregated, and tortured those inmates to death.

Now, if those prisoners were already serving life sentences, what additional sentences could they be given. Why should they not act as they did, if they saw it as beneficial to themselves?

 

[Amolibri]

[failures of the penal system do not, IMO, call for murder by the state.]

TRENTON, N.J. – New Jersey became Dec. 17 the first state to abolish the death penalty since it was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976 – a historic move praised by the state’s Catholic leaders.

“The church recognizes the rights and duties of the state to punish criminals and protect its citizens from crime. But we cannot teach respect for life by taking life,” said Trenton Bishop John M. Smith, who represented the state’s Catholic bishops at the bill signing.

“The issue of the death penalty carries with it deeply felt emotions, particularly among those who have had a loved one taken from them through violent crime. We must continue to be sensitive to the feelings people bring to this issue, and offer effective, ongoing assistance to the loved ones of victims,” Smith said.

“Today New Jersey evolves,” Gov. Jon S. Corzine said prior to signing the law. “This is a day of progress for us and for the millions of people across our nation and around the globe who reject the death penalty as a moral or practical response to the grievous, even heinous, crime of murder.”

“We have seized the moment and now join the ranks of other states and countries that view the death penalty as discriminatory, immoral and barbaric,” said Assemblyman Wilfredo Caraballo. “We’re a better state than one that puts people to death.”

At the bill signing the governor was flanked by half a dozen legislators and Sr. Helen Prejean, an advocate for abolishing the practice, who has said by getting rid of the punishment New Jersey would be a “beacon on the hill.”

The next day, the U.N. General Assembly ratified – 104 to 54, with 29 abstentions – a resolution calling for a moratorium on executions “with a view to abolishing the death penalty.”

According to Amnesty International, 133 countries have abolished capital punishment, and last year 91 percent of executions took place in six countries: China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the United States.

 

[mapleoak]

A person facing a life sentence may choose to threaten or kill police, witnesses, prosecutors, jurors or judges to escape punishment, secure in the knowledge that he cannot get a worse punishment than the one he already faces.

Such a person may also be motivated not only just to escape punishment by revenge as well.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Such a person may also be motivated not only just to escape punishment by revenge as well.

Perfectly true – Tommy Silverstein (who concocted a plot in Marion to carry out multiple killings of Corrections Officers – and which succeeded in killing two) was motivated solely by revenge.

 

[Ender]

How do you get from “an instrument of God” to “correctly entrusted to the Courts?” If the court sentences you to death for being a Christian, I would argue (correctly I think) that that Court is most certainly not being “an instrument of God.” I don’t see how your citation proves otherwise.

I’m not sure I understand your objection. I am saying that duly authorized governments serve as God’s ministers, and whether they serve well or badly doesn’t change that. The only reason to continue to belabor this small point is that it is necessary to understand that the state’s authority is different from the individual’s; it is the state’s obligation to punish the wicked and that the authorization to do so is from God. I didn’t think I was doing any more than casually observing what the Church teaches. It seems that your objection is that if a minister acts badly he cannot possibly be God’s agent but I think that cannot be so as Jesus himself recognized that Pilate’s authority to execute him came from God.

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not sure I understand your objection. I am saying that duly authorized governments serve as God’s ministers, and whether they serve well or badly doesn’t change that. The only reason to continue to belabor this small point is that it is necessary to understand that the state’s authority is different from the individual’s; it is the state’s obligation to punish the wicked and that the authorization to do so is from God. I didn’t think I was doing any more than casually observing what the Church teaches. It seems that your objection is that **if a minister acts badly he cannot possibly be God’s agent **but I think that cannot be so as Jesus himself recognized that Pilate’s authority to execute him came from God.

Ender

The bolded section is a concise statement of the Donatist Heresy. Clearly at odds with what the Church teaches.

 

[Ender]

• A multiple murderer in the Supermax at Marion, Ill, put together a plot where two Corrections Officers were killed in the same day.
• An inmate at another prison handed a Corrections Officer a photograph – which showed the officer’s six-year old daughter playing in the back yard.
• Inmates in a prison in New Mexico seized tools used by workmen renovating the prison, drove Corrections Officers out, then used those tools to break into the Isolation Area where informers and special prisoners were kept segregated, and tortured those inmates to death.

There is simply no doubt that society is more secure with these individuals dead than alive. Given that the protection of society is now the primary criterion that determines whether a person should be executed, it seems to me that we would be better protected by executing more rather than less. What am I missing?

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

There is simply no doubt that society is more secure with these individuals dead than alive. Given that the protection of society is now the primary criterion that determines whether a person should be executed, it seems to me that we would be better protected by executing more rather than less. What am I missing?

Ender

That is a question that could be answered empirically. I would recommend:

• A clear definition of those who are eligible for execution – those who murder in prison, or who kill or attempt to kill corrections offices, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and jurors.
• A clear definition of proof for these crimes.
• A swifter imposition of the penalty.
• A feedback mechanism – we need to be able to say definitively if it is working or not.

I would expect the number of executions to fall under these conditions – fewer people would be eligible for the death penalty, and as it works, fewer people would meet the criteria for the death penalty.

 

[vz71]

[failures of the penal system do not, IMO, call for murder by the state.]

The Chruch would disagree. Not just with your vocabulary, but with the premise.

The teaching is that the death penalty may be used if it is the only means of insuring the safety of the public from the criminal.

Flawed penal systems have been around as long as there has been crime. Yet the church never once decided to place that exception there.

Perhaps because it knows human systems will fail.

 

[Margarite]

I’m saying it is possible for criminals to destroy the justice system. Here are some real-life examples:

• A multiple murderer in the Supermax at Marion, Ill, put together a plot where two Corrections Officers were killed in the same day.
• An inmate at another prison handed a Corrections Officer a photograph – which showed the officer’s six-year old daughter playing in the back yard.
• Inmates in a prison in New Mexico seized tools used by workmen renovating the prison, drove Corrections Officers out, then used those tools to break into the Isolation Area where informers and special prisoners were kept segregated, and tortured those inmates to death.
  Now, if those prisoners were already serving life sentences, what additional sentences could they be given. Why should they not act as they did, if they saw it as beneficial to themselves?

Well, I am sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I said that if the evil person was deemed too great a risk, if it was judged that he was too dangerous to keep locked up, then the Church has said it is OK to use the death penalty.
My point is that it should be used rarely and never if possible, because we are taking away the years in which that person might change his ways and convert.
If you think about St. Maria Goretti(sp?), her murderer was sentenced with life in prison, and because he had that time, he repented. Wouldn’t that have been horrible if he had been sentenced to death, and had not had the time to repent?
I am sorry for not being clear earlier.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I am sorry if I wasn’t clear, but I said that if the evil person was deemed too great a risk, if it was judged that he was too dangerous to keep locked up, then the Church has said it is OK to use the death penalty.
My point is that it should be used rarely and never if possible, because we are taking away the years in which that person might change his ways and convert.
If you think about St. Maria Goretti(sp?), her murderer was sentenced with life in prison, and because he had that time, he repented. Wouldn’t that have been horrible if he had been sentenced to death, and had not had the time to repent?
I am sorry for not being clear earlier.

That is the Church position.

The death penalty would be justified not against people who are ordinary murderers, and ordinary prisoners. It would only be justified for those depraved individuals who try to destroy the justice system by attacking Corrections Officers, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and juries.

And we should keep careful watch over the system – both to insure the innocent are not convicted, and to insure that it is effective in achieving its goal – to protect society.

Under those circumstances, actual imposition of the death penalty would be extremely rare – but the law permitting it would remain in existance.

 

[Margarite]

That is the Church position.

The death penalty would be justified not against people who are ordinary murderers, and ordinary prisoners. It would only be justified for those depraved individuals who try to destroy the justice system by attacking Corrections Officers, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and juries.

And we should keep careful watch over the system – both to insure the innocent are not convicted, and to insure that it is effective in achieving its goal – to protect society.

Under those circumstances, actual imposition of the death penalty would be extremely rare – but the law permitting it would remain in existance.

EXACTLY!

 

[whatevergirl]

That is the Church position.

The death penalty would be justified not against people who are ordinary murderers, and ordinary prisoners. It would only be justified for those depraved individuals who try to destroy the justice system by attacking Corrections Officers, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and juries.

And we should keep careful watch over the system – both to insure the innocent are not convicted, and to insure that it is effective in achieving its goal – to protect society.

Under those circumstances, actual imposition of the death penalty would be extremely rare – but the law permitting it would remain in existance.

So a police officer’s life, in this example, is somehow higher than say…a civilian? I am against the DP, although, in some rare circumstances as the Church highlights it makes sense, because if we start evaluating who should receive it based on the ‘role’ the person plays in society…yikes…isn’t that somewhat of an elitist mentality? Suppose a man kills a prostitute…he shouldn’t be eligible for the DP, but if that same man killed a police officer, that transcends him into DP status? I might be missing something, but that’s how this looks to be portrayed. No one’s life is greater than another’s. Now, if the person IN PRISON kills people around him…tries to escape and kills guards, etc…that is a different ballgame, because for the safety of everyone–this person might be best to be removed from society altogether. But, I don’t see that as taking place in high numbers. It still would probably fall into the rare category, as the RCC highlights.

 

[Margarite]

So a police officer’s life, in this example, is somehow higher than say…a civilian? I am against the DP, although, in some rare circumstances as the Church highlights it makes sense, because if we start evaluating who should receive it based on the ‘role’ the person plays in society…yikes…isn’t that somewhat of an elitist mentality? Suppose a man kills a prostitute…he shouldn’t be eligible for the DP, but if that same man killed a police officer, that transcends him into DP status? I might be missing something, but that’s how this looks to be portrayed. No one’s life is greater than another’s. Now, if the person IN PRISON kills people around him…tries to escape and kills guards, etc…that is a different ballgame, because for the safety of everyone–this person might be best to be removed from society altogether. But, I don’t see that as taking place in high numbers. It still would probably fall into the rare category, as the RCC highlights.

No, what we are saying is that if the person is already in jail for murder, or if he is a serial killer or if he shows that he is too dangerous to keep alive, only then should he receive the death penalty. We were mentioning guards and people like that because if in jail, after already committing at least one murder, this person threatens the people who are working at the jail or the judge, then that person, may be too great a risk.
I hope that is more clear.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So a police officer’s life, in this example, is somehow higher than say…a civilian?

No.

Read the Catechism – the death penalty cannot be justified on the “worth” of the victim (however that might be measured.) It can be justified only on the need to protect society.

If criminals can kill corrections officers, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and jurors, they are doing more than murder. They are attacking a fundamental institution of society – the justice system.

The death penalty would be applied as a measure of preventing the criminals from taking over the justice system.

 

[whatevergirl]

No.

Read the Catechism – the death penalty cannot be justified on the “worth” of the victim (however that might be measured.) It can be justified only on the need to protect society.

If criminals can kill corrections officers, police, witnesses, prosecutors, judges and jurors, they are doing more than murder. They are attacking a fundamental institution of society – the justice system.

The death penalty would be applied as a measure of preventing the criminals from taking over the justice system.

criminals taking over the justice system? lol I understand what you’re driving at, but that just seems extreme. I agree with the RCC’s stance–rare occasions…it shouldn’t be used unless there is absolutely no other way to contain a dangerous criminal, in my opnion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

criminals taking over the justice system? lol I understand what you’re driving at, but that just seems extreme.

There are plenty of countries where criminals have done exactly that.

They have even done it in parts of the United States – how else could people like Al Capone have escaped justice so long? And were finally taken down, not by local or state law enforcement, but only by a hand-picked Federal task force?

I agree with the RCC’s stance–rare occasions…it shouldn’t be used unless there is absolutely no other way to contain a dangerous criminal, in my opnion.

No argument there.

 

[whatevergirl]

There are plenty of countries where criminals have done exactly that.

They have even done it in parts of the United States – how else could people like Al Capone have escaped justice so long? And were finally taken down, not by local or state law enforcement, but only by a hand-picked Federal task force?

No argument there.

aaahhh–ok, I see what you’re saying…mafia, yes, I could see that. I can see David Karesh (sp?)–remember that guy? I think that extreme force/death was necessary in that case, as well. In cases where lives are threatened, and the person has shown that even the best of restraints won’t help, then there would be no other choice. I can’t speak to what other countries do…I think they are too quick to execute someone for minor infractions (minor to us) but much of that is based on their religious tenets intertwined with law…

 

[frankadams]

criminals taking over the justice system? lol I understand what you’re driving at, but that just seems extreme. I agree with the RCC’s stance–rare occasions…it shouldn’t be used unless there is absolutely no other way to contain a dangerous criminal, in my opnion.

The Holy Father stood on our country’s soil and called for an end to the death penalty. This is the stance that I agree with. Ban it. Now.

Others call for a continuation or even an increase in the death penalty in America. That is their right. I stand with the Pope and the American bishops in calling for it to be abolished.

You wrote of those who claim that criminals will take over the justice system if we heed the call of our Catholic leaders and abolish the death penalty. History, fact, and logic do not support them. The European Union provides an excellent example. Dozens of other countries have banned the death penalty, and I know of none of them in which the result has been criminals taking over the justice system.

 

[vern_humphrey]

aaahhh–ok, I see what you’re saying…mafia, yes, I could see that. I can see David Karesh (sp?)–remember that guy? I think that extreme force/death was necessary in that case, as well. In cases where lives are threatened, and the person has shown that even the best of restraints won’t help, then there would be no other choice. I can’t speak to what other countries do…I think they are too quick to execute someone for minor infractions (minor to us) but much of that is based on their religious tenets intertwined with law…

I’d say David Koresh is a bad example – first of all, there were no death penalty cases from that incident. Secondly, the people killed were killed in the process of capturing them – in an irresponsible manner (why were there no firetrucks and ambulances on hand), and finally, the government has steadily refused to allow the guns in question to be X-rayed, which would prove the case one way or the other.

The Mafia is a good example, however, along with other organized crime gangs.