Against the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CHESTERTONRULES
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CHESTERTONRULES

Guest
Then you should be willing to allow those that most of us deem worthy of death to live in your home.

If not, then you are subjecting innocent prison guards and fellow prisoners to risks that you are not willing to take yourself.
 
Come on now, that doesn’t make any sense. Do you believe in executing robbers? No? Allow them to live in your home, then.

Besides, many are against the death penalty not because they are opposed to it in principle, but because we can’t do it right. Its better to let one hundred guilty murderers live out their lives in prison than to execute a single innocent man.
 
Then you should be willing to allow those that most of us deem worthy of death to live in your home.

If not, then you are subjecting innocent prison guards and fellow prisoners to risks that you are not willing to take yourself.
This rates right up there with the argument made by those who favor abortion. “If you don’t want women to have abortions then you should be willing to adopt dozens of children.”

What about morality for morality’s sake?
 
😃
Then you should be willing to allow those that most of us deem worthy of death to live in your home.

If not, then you are subjecting innocent prison guards and fellow prisoners to risks that you are not willing to take yourself.
You’re right, I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk. But this is why I don’t choose to be a prison gaurd. They understand what their job is and they choose to do it. As for the other prisoners, they know what prison is like before they enter it.
 
Then you should be willing to allow those that most of us deem worthy of death to live in your home.

If not, then you are subjecting innocent prison guards and fellow prisoners to risks that you are not willing to take yourself.
That’s like saying, “Against Abortion? How many kids are you willing to adopt?”

I am gladly against the death penalty (and abortion). It’s just a weak position, through my eyes.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood
 
This rates right up there with the argument made by those who favor abortion. “If you don’t want women to have abortions then you should be willing to adopt dozens of children.”

What about morality for morality’s sake?
How is subjecting others to murdering neighbors a moral decision?
 
😃

You’re right, I wouldn’t be willing to take that risk. But this is why I don’t choose to be a prison gaurd. They understand what their job is and they choose to do it. As for the other prisoners, they know what prison is like before they enter it.
Those who oppose the death penalty help increase the number of murders.

It that moral or just?
 
Those who oppose the death penalty help increase the number of murders.

It that moral or just?
It sounds like you think the entire Catholic Church is complicit in increasing the number of murders due to the Church’s opposition to capital punishment.

From the Catechism:

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.
Code:
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—**the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."**68
From John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:
  1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

From the US bishops:

Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty
 
Those who oppose the death penalty help increase the number of murders.

It that moral or just?
Well, I think you think that I am making this stuff up. There is this guy, his name is JESUS, he says it is no longer eye for an eye, he says to turn the other cheek, he does not say punish, he says FORGIVE! Where does JESUS say that it is ok to kill who has killed? He doesn’t say turn the other cheek unless that person killed somebody, he says turn the other cheek. He doesn’t say it is no longer eye for an eye unless somebody has killed somebody, he says it is no longer eye for an eye. No exceptions. You are stating YOUR opinion, I am stating Jesus’ word.
 
Well, I think you think that I am making this stuff up. There is this guy, his name is JESUS, he says it is no longer eye for an eye, he says to turn the other cheek, he does not say punish, he says FORGIVE! Where does JESUS say that it is ok to kill who has killed? He doesn’t say turn the other cheek unless that person killed somebody, he says turn the other cheek. He doesn’t say it is no longer eye for an eye unless somebody has killed somebody, he says it is no longer eye for an eye. No exceptions. You are stating YOUR opinion, I am stating Jesus’ word.
Jesus was speaking of interpersonal relationships.

Jesus was not in favor of the killing of innocent people.

Do you think Jesus would have opposed the killing of Hitler in 1939?
 
Well, I think you think that I am making this stuff up. There is this guy, his name is JESUS, he says it is no longer eye for an eye, he says to turn the other cheek, he does not say punish, he says FORGIVE! Where does JESUS say that it is ok to kill who has killed? He doesn’t say turn the other cheek unless that person killed somebody, he says turn the other cheek. He doesn’t say it is no longer eye for an eye unless somebody has killed somebody, he says it is no longer eye for an eye. No exceptions. You are stating YOUR opinion, I am stating Jesus’ word.
“Some reject retribution on the ground that the New Testament portrays God as a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness.
However, God practiced retribution in both Old and New Testament times. In fact,
sometimes, as in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and Herod (Acts 12:20-23),
God directly killed people in response to crimes we would not consider capital offenses.
Moreover, if God did not practice retribution, no one would suffer eternal punishment for
rejecting Christ, but of course, that contradicts biblical teaching” (e.g. Rev. 20:11-15).

By Steven W. Cornell
 
Can you proove that statistically?
The reverse is true. Those who do not oppose the death penalty end up spending more of tax-payer’s money.

The early Christians would have supported the death penalty. Afterall, they loved putting their heads into the lion’s mouth, enjoyed warming their tushies on iron chairs and loved getting scrubbed on the back with whiplash. Sure, murderers are not exactly pious people, but they too deserve a second chance to life. Who is really to be blamed? The murderer or the sick society we live in - with all the corruption going on in politics, the media, novels, games and new wave culture? If everyone lived in a box, would we still be murderers and fornicators?
 
The reverse is true. Those who do not oppose the death penalty end up spending more of tax-payer’s money.

The early Christians would have supported the death penalty. Afterall, they loved putting their heads into the lion’s mouth, enjoyed warming their tushies on iron chairs and loved getting scrubbed on the back with whiplash. Sure, murderers are not exactly pious people, but they too deserve a second chance to life. Who is really to be blamed? The murderer or the sick society we live in - with all the corruption going on in politics, the media, novels, games and new wave culture? If everyone lived in a box, would we still be murderers and fornicators?
A murderer has time to repent before his execution. That is his second chance.

As a society our duty is to protect innocent life.

We can demonstrate our great love of life by punishing with execution those who deem it worthless.
 
A murderer has time to repent before his execution. That is his second chance.

As a society our duty is to protect innocent life.

We can demonstrate our great love of life by punishing with execution those who deem it worthless.
As a society, our duty is indeed to protect innocent life. Unfortunately, any human court system is flawed and subject to prejudice. Rare indeed are the cases where we are 100% certain we have the right man.

If we sentence someone to life and prison, and find out later that we got it wrong, that’s reversible. We have a second chance. If we execute someone, and later learn that he’s innocent, there’s no turning back. We just killed an innocent man, and his blood is on our hands.
 
A murderer has time to repent before his execution. That is his second chance.

As a society our duty is to protect innocent life.

We can demonstrate our great love of life by punishing with execution those who deem it worthless.
z
 
A murderer has time to repent before his execution. That is his second chance.
And if a murderer has truly repented, then what are we saying by executing him? Had this logic been in place, Moses, King David, and the Apostle Paul - all murderers - wouldn’t have been around to testify and prophesy to the redeeming nature of God.

As several Catholic leaders have noted - including the Pope as well as the Catechism - in this day and time, the justification for the death penalty is on pretty thin ice, especially in a criminal justice system prone to error and in a corrections system designed to incarcerate.
 
“Some reject retribution on the ground that the New Testament portrays God as a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness.
However, God practiced retribution in both Old and New Testament times. In fact,
sometimes, as in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and Herod (Acts 12:20-23),
God directly killed people in response to crimes we would not consider capital offenses.
Moreover, if God did not practice retribution, no one would suffer eternal punishment for
rejecting Christ, but of course, that contradicts biblical teaching” (e.g. Rev. 20:11-15).

By Steven W. Cornell
Ok, that is perfect, God killed people for crimes that we would not consider capital offenses. So does that mean we should consider those crimes punishable by death also? If God himself took the lives of people, even in the New Testimant then don’t you think we should just leave it up to Him? If somebody truely was a threat to society, don’t you think that God would take of you? I find it hard to keep responding to your responses, I understand that God does things that we do not do, but He is God and we are not. He created even the killers and rapists, and He loves them all the same. The world we live in is definately a messed up one, but it’s the one we got. We can’t start making up our own rules and ignore what we were told just because some people are breaking those rules. Would you help somebody who was walking on the side of the road at 3 a.m. even though it would be possible he MIGHT harm you? Cuz God would want you to. Would you claim your faith if somebody had a gun to your head? Have you ever come across a murderer? You seek the death penalty out of revenge, it is easy to kill somebody you don’t know, what if it was your brother on deathrow? In all reality it is your brother, and yet you would be willing to turn your back on him because you don’t know him. It’s not right.
 
As a society, our duty is indeed to protect innocent life. Unfortunately, any human court system is flawed and subject to prejudice. Rare indeed are the cases where we are 100% certain we have the right man.

If we sentence someone to life and prison, and find out later that we got it wrong, that’s reversible. We have a second chance. If we execute someone, and later learn that he’s innocent, there’s no turning back. We just killed an innocent man, and his blood is on our hands.
There is no proven case where an innocent person has been executed in America since the death penalty was reinstated.

There are hundreds of innocent people who have been murdered by someone previously convicted of murder.
 
You seek the death penalty out of revenge, it is easy to kill somebody you don’t know, what if it was your brother on deathrow?QUOTE]

If he deserved the death penalty, it would be a tragedy, but it wouldn’t change my opinion.

I don’t support the death penalty for revenge. In fact, I think you could consider it a lesser burden than life behind bars.

The death penalty, aside from being a just punishment, saves lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top