Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Voco_proTatiano]

Why? The two are hardly synonymous. Money is not evil. Trying to evaluate proper use of money, especially in the service of life is not evil. It is the love of money and the pursuit of money as an end and not a means that is evil.

For example, it is surely not Satanic to see feeding the hungry, housing the poor and improving the lot of the innocent as a greater good than making prisons a plush environment. I am saying that you are doing so, just that all economic choices have consequences.

No, money in itself is not evil. That is not what I was saying.
However, setting ecconomic rules above the charity of G_d is what Our Lord meant by serving Mammon.
He was talking of monetarism as a religion, which in a very real sense it is.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

No, money in itself is not evil. That is not what I was saying.
However, setting ecconomic rules above the charity of G_d is what Our Lord meant by serving Mammon.
He was talking of monetarism as a religion, which in a very real sense it is.

So when a the citizens of a region do not have the resources to feed and to protect the innocent if it also had to safely and comfortably house the guilty, which should they do? Should they allow the innocent to starve, or to be at the mercy of the criminal element, or utilize execution to eliminate the risks associated with the most irredeemably violent and serve as an deterrent to others against contemplating similar crimes? What is your choice in the real world, where resources are **not **infinite?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It is so inhumane that inmates will take desperate risks to escape.
Prison is not about confining humans in conditions in which you would not be permitted to keep animals, it is about keeping villains off the streets, and persuading them that another future is open to them.

Quick hint: do some research on escape and recapture rates for US and European prisons. One does not have to take desperate measures to escape if doing so is easier and effective pursuit less certain…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So when a the citizens of a region do not have the resources to feed and to protect the innocent if it also had to safely and comfortably house the guilty, which should they do? Should they allow the innocent to starve, or to be at the mercy of the criminal element, or utilize execution to eliminate the risks associated with the most irredeemably violent and serve as an deterrent to others against contemplating similar crimes? What is your choice in the real world, where resources are **not **infinite?

That argument was used by Germany to justify the treatment of political prisoners, and by Japan to justfy the treatment of POWs.
If the US is bankrupt, why is it yet involved in an unwinable illegal war?

 

[pnewton]

If the US is bankrupt, why is it yet involved in an unwinable illegal war?

You get the Oscar for the biggest redirection of an discussion to an unrelated hot topic. Maybe it is a legal, winable and totally necessary war. Do disagree? If so, start another thread and don’t go waaaaayyyy out on a new tangent.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If the US is bankrupt, why is it yet involved in an unwinable illegal war?

Though people often accuse folks in the States of failing to comprehend things not done in the American fashion, you are very effectively demonstrating the equivalent total lack of comprehension or how things work in this federated republic, in particular, which taxing authority gets to divide part of its share for war versus which one is responsible for housing the bulk of the prison population. Even without getting into how inappropriate it was to make such a brazen attempt to change the subject without answering the question posed, you are showing that you have never bothered to even look at how prisons work in the US before making criticisms that anyone with the least bit of actual knowledge on the subject can clearly see do not apply in the way you suggest they do.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Though people often accuse folks in the States of failing to comprehend things not done in the American fashion, you are very effectively demonstrating the equivalent total lack of comprehension or how things work in this federated republic, in particular, which taxing authority gets to divide part of its share for war versus which one is responsible for housing the bulk of the prison population. Even without getting into how inappropriate it was to make such a brazen attempt to change the subject without answering the question posed, you are showing that you have never bothered to even look at how prisons work in the US before making criticisms that anyone with the least bit of actual knowledge on the subject can clearly see do not apply in the way you suggest they do.

Gitmo is perhaps a good example of humane treatment of prisoners?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Gitmo is perhaps a good example of humane treatment of prisoners?

Are you capable of on-topic responses? It is looking more and more like the “thinking man” persona is just a front to try to substitute for an abject failure to research and running like a madman from having to commit to a position…

 

[pnewton]

Gitmo is perhaps a good example of humane treatment of prisoners?

WOW!! Two major redirections back to back!!! This thread is about the death penalty not the US and the war on terrorism.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Are you capable of on-topic responses? It is looking more and more like the “thinking man” persona is just a front to try to substitute for an abject failure to research and running like a madman from having to commit to a position…

My main objection to the death penalty is because of the utterly useless waste of life.
If the offendor is utterly unrefomable, and too dangerous to be allowed to live, then more useful means of expending the otherwise useless life should be considered.
Medical experimentation comes to mind.
This does not to be nearly as inhumane as experimentation carried out on innocent monkeys.
Most experimentation can be carried out under anesthesia.
Not all experimentation is painful or deleterious, and use of human subjects is infinitely better than using even monkeys.
Note I am not calling for inhumane treatment at any time. Inhumane treatment of ANY creature is an abomination, whether for high security prisoners, or detainees.
These abominations seem to come too easily from a nation pretending to be civilized.
You accuse Old Europe of Hubris.
Take a look in the mirror.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Another look at the DEATH PENALTY.

Consider the way that the death penalty is used by organized crime, the drug cartels and the inner city gangs.

It is VERY effective.

You don’t cross these guys!

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Another look at the DEATH PENALTY.

Consider the way that the death penalty is used by organized crime, the drug cartels and the inner city gangs.

It is VERY effective.

You don’t cross these guys!

So you classify yourselves as their equals?
Very appropriate.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If the offendor is utterly unrefomable, and too dangerous to be allowed to live, then more useful means of expending the otherwise useless life should be considered.
Medical experimentation comes to mind.

Then I suggest you first take that up with the UN, which aside from a few wildcards resoundingly condemns the use of prisoners for medical experimentation.

These abominations seem to come too easily from a nation pretending to be civilized.

You really, really need to learn how to post without resorting to trying the cheap shots so frequently if you want to be taken seriously.

You accuse Old Europe of Hubris.

No, I have not. Your repetitive misstatements about what I and other posters have said has grown quite tiresome

Take a look in the mirror.

Do you really think stuff like this causes people to not notice how desperately you are avoiding the questions that have been posed to you that you have repeatedly used desperate or absolutely rotten measures to try to avoid answering directly?

 

[Lou_F]

Isn’t banning the death penalty the same as banning the “Just War” doctrine? The problem with the death penalty debate is not “if”, but rather, “when”. People need a decisive situation when the death penalty should be implemented. The Church states it should be used rarely, if at all. But should the “Just War” doctrine also be used rarely, if at all? “Rarely, if at all” has nothing to do with the use of a Just War or legitimate defense. Either the war is just or not, either the defense is legitimate or not. We don’t say if someone attacks me, rarely should I defend myself. In regards to self defense, the catechism points out that more than necessary defense will be unlawful (2264). When knowledge that someone is trying to kill you (during self-defense) is clear and present, the catechism supports the taking of that aggressors life in order to preserve one’s own during self defense. “When” the death penalty becomes more than necessary defense to save lives, it also is unlawful. But when necessary, it is not. There is one clear and decisive time when the death penalty should be used - the killing of a police officer. The problem today is criminals have no decisive circumstances when the death penalty will be used. They chance it. If the death penalty was automatic for killing a police officer, criminals won’t chance to shoot to escape arrest knowing the implications. Thus, the death penalty becomes a “necessary violence” to save the lives of cops. Do not those who put their lives on the line for our protection deserve to gain our support for their “necessary” protection? When debating a murderer’s right to life, we can’t brush aside the life of the cop. An automatic death penalty for cop killers is a clear and decisive situation for criminals to comprehend and avoid. The death penalty defends life when it is used to protect cops. You support that somtimes a cop has to take a life to defend you, but you won’t support that sometimes we have to support the taking of a life to defend a cop? Pray to Saint Micael the Archangel, the patron saint of police officers.

 

[Al_Masetti]

There are two or three arguments against the death penalty:

1. The Roman Catholic Church forbids it.
2. The death penalty doesn’t work to prevent capital crimes.
3. The death penalty is uncivilized.

The first argument is false. The Roman Catholic Church wants it minimized, but the death penalty is not forbidden.

The second argument is also false. Putting aside the fact that the facts and statistics support that the death penalty in reducing the frequency of capital crimes, criminal enterprises employ the death penalty effectively.

The third is a phony argument. The death penalty can be imposed without cruelty, pain and suffering. The argument that it is uncivilized stems from arguments that give Communism a free pass when they take power and liquidate political opposition in the thousands and tens of thousands and millions.

 

[melensdad]

There are two or three arguments against the death penalty:

1. The Roman Catholic Church forbids it.
2. The death penalty doesn’t work to prevent capital crimes.
3. The death penalty is uncivilized.

The first argument is false. The Roman Catholic Church wants it minimized, but the death penalty is not forbidden.

The second argument is also false. Putting aside the fact that the facts and statistics support that the death penalty in reducing the frequency of capital crimes, criminal enterprises employ the death penalty effectively.

The third is a phony argument. The death penalty can be imposed without cruelty, pain and suffering. The argument that it is uncivilized stems from arguments that give Communism a free pass when they take power and liquidate political opposition in the thousands and tens of thousands and millions.

I am opposed to the Death Penalty, at least as it is carried out in the US. But I am broad minded enough to know that your 3 points are exactly correct.
[indent[POINT 1: The Catholic Church specifically ALLOWS for the death penalty and the CCC of the Church says so. But as you say, just because it is allowed does not mean that it should be frequently employed.

POINT 2: That is EXACTLY the reason that I started this thread. There does seem to be some credible evidence to show that the death penalty does prevent some amount of capital crime.

POINT 3: You are correct that claiming the death penalty is uncivilized is a false argument that cannot be statistically refuted or confirmed. It is an emotional statement with no basis in fact.[/indent]
All that said, I still am opposed to the death penalty but I question my opposition.

 

[melensdad]

There are two or three arguments against the death penalty:

1. The Roman Catholic Church forbids it.
2. The death penalty doesn’t work to prevent capital crimes.
3. The death penalty is uncivilized.

The first argument is false. The Roman Catholic Church wants it minimized, but the death penalty is not forbidden.

The second argument is also false. Putting aside the fact that the facts and statistics support that the death penalty in reducing the frequency of capital crimes, criminal enterprises employ the death penalty effectively.

The third is a phony argument. The death penalty can be imposed without cruelty, pain and suffering. The argument that it is uncivilized stems from arguments that give Communism a free pass when they take power and liquidate political opposition in the thousands and tens of thousands and millions.

I am opposed to the Death Penalty, at least as it is carried out in the US. But I am broad minded enough to know that your 3 points are exactly correct.
POINT 1: The Catholic Church specifically ALLOWS for the death penalty and the CCC says so. But as you say, just because it is allowed does not mean that it should be frequently employed.

POINT 2: That is EXACTLY the reason that I started this thread. There does seem to be some credible evidence to show that the death penalty does prevent some amount of capital crime.

POINT 3: You are correct that claiming the death penalty is uncivilized is a false argument that cannot be statistically refuted or confirmed. It is an emotional statement with no basis in fact.
All that said, I still am opposed to the death penalty but I question my opposition.

 

[juliamajor]

No, money in itself is not evil. That is not what I was saying.
However, setting ecconomic rules above the charity of G_d is what Our Lord meant by serving Mammon.
He was talking of monetarism as a religion, which in a very real sense it is.

• It’s also an idol- just like being blind to the faults of one’s government can be"my country right or wrong mentality" As for the death penalty- the Gospel doesn’t ask us to be practical( christianity being the least practical) it asks us to just, it asks us to be loving(remember even to those who hate us)- it asks us to do many things that the world considers “silly”.That the Church wants the death penalty to be minimized( to the point of extinction) it leaves a crack in the door open- for the sake of society(serial killers lets say)but not “kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality

 

[Ender]

As for the death penalty- the Gospel doesn’t ask us to be practical( christianity being the least practical) it asks us to be just …

Yes, and it is justice alone that validates punishment, and it is to satisfy the requirements of justice that the death penalty is still required.

That the Church wants the death penalty to be minimized( to the point of extinction) it leaves a crack in the door open- for the sake of society(serial killers lets say)but not “kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality

No one has argued for such an approach. You weaken your own position by disparaging those who support capital punishment. It indicates a lack of familiarity with the topic if that’s the strongest comment one can make.

Ender

 

[TMC]

The first argument is false. The Roman Catholic Church wants it minimized, but the death penalty is not forbidden.

This is correct, but its a little like saying the Catholic Church does not forbid birth control. In fact the circumstances under which the death penalty is acceptable are more limited than those under which birth control is acceptable. Its use is limited to when it is the “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” And the Church teaches that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”