Appropriate Punishment: Please read before voting.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Isidore_AK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
jeffreedy789:
so you hold this position even though the RCC teaches that capital punishment should be avoided unless it’s not possible?
Click to expand...
Dear jeff,

In support of the pro-death penalty people, I think the point at which it’s “not possible” to use other means it a bit subjective. If we could really be sure that a prison can contain any particular human being with 100% reliability, then I would say to follow the Church’s teaching we must abolish the death penalty. As it is, prison breaks do occur, and violent offenders do get a chance to repeat their crimes. Not often, but then how often is often enough to warrant keeping the death penalty around.

In practice, I don’t think it really works this way. Theoretically, though, I don’t think the Church’s caveat can be objectively dealt with.
and i think it’s dangerous to ‘remember’ what you’ve stated. i think that we should not divorce our personal morality from our legislative morality. when we do so, we create a true monster.
Click to expand...
As a long time conservative and one who used to make the point that laws are derived from morals, I have now come to believe that there are clearly ways in which laws should not necessarily reflect morality.

For example, I agree with the Supreme Court that sodomy laws should not be in place. That said, I saw absolutely no logical reason – other than that it is part of the liberal agenda – that the striking down of sodomy laws then led to insitutionalizing gay marriage.

Why not anti-sodomy laws? Because laws are not intended to be our moral conscience, or we should have laws against being angry with one’s brother. Oh, wait, I forgot. We already have hate crime legislation, so I guess we’ve crossed that boundary. :rolleyes: On a realistic note, I don’t think threats of force are the correct way of dealing with such behavior, any more than putting someone in jail helps a person with a drug addiction. (side issue alert!) Plus, when it comes right down to it, I don’t want my tax money paying for police to watch what we do in our bedrooms. If some guys down the street are doing something I can’t see, then I don’t consider it my business to pay somebody to go arrest them.

The government is not God, and I don’t believe it’s role should be to play like it is. The government needs to protect us physically from violent and destructive crimes we perform against each other and from foreign invasion, not behave as proxy for our spiritual director.

Alan
 
40.png
Isidore_AK:
OK, we have a few debates going on the viability of the death penalty. I would like to know what punishment people think is appropriate for this crime…we’ll use something recent. Assume that the criminal is actually guilty of the crime (100% GUILTY).

A 9 year old girl is abducted from her bed in the middle of the night, raped, and then murdered. The person who comitted this crime is found to be a repeat sexual offender/child molester. He has confessed this crime to the authorities.

What is the proper punishment?

Please post any arguments in favor of your choice.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
minimum of 50 years to life…
…i tend to side with Rome… death is not the answer, no matter how you and I feel personally…
IMHO
 
Life in prison, no parole, rehab.

As a surviving victim of this crime, I would have more satisfaction that the murderer is suffering along with me. Death is a short burst of vengeance and then I am still here to suffer alone. I can understand the emotions of those who with such anger wish death, but it results in healing for no one.

I also hope for rehab. His suffering is much more meaningful if someday with great sorrow he takes responsibility for his actions and asks for forgiveness. This greatly increases my chances of being able to forgive him which is my only hope for any sense of healing.

I suggest watching Mystic River. A trial with judge and jury may decrease the chances of a wrong conviction, but in the end wrong convictions DO happen and the end result is no different than what happened in this movie.
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
so you hold this position even though the RCC teaches that capital punishment should be avoided unless it’s not possible?

and i think it’s dangerous to ‘remember’ what you’ve stated. i think that we should not divorce our personal morality from our legislative morality. when we do so, we create a true monster.
Click to expand...
I do. The death penalty is not completely excluded as a moral punishment. Also the statement above represents the Church’s current position, which can change. This is not an infallible doctrine issue.

Also, I am not saying we divorce our personal morality from our legislative morality. I am saying that we should divorce our immediate emotional response with our thought out moral response.
 
If you believe the criminal justice system in America is about justice, you’re jejune. “Rehabilitation” is a joke. We put people in prison for one reason only, to keep them away from society.

Child molesters have proven to be the most resistant felons. It is not a question of will they repeat but when and what tricks will they have learned in prison to make convicting them that more difficult.

People found guilty of forcible child rape should be sent to an island surrounded by sharks from which there is no escape. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/26/26_11_10.gif http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_3_6.gif
​
%between%
Let them prey on each other.

I do not believe the death penalty is appropriate because we have the means to safely keep these monsters away from society, we just don’t choose to do so.

I can only think of a couple of cases where the death penaly even came close to meeting the definition of justifiable. Remember those drug king pins who used to rule the posses in the 80’s. It seemed like the only was to keep them from ordering the murders of judges and witness was to put them to death. It seemed that their threat was imminent and certain and that the death penalty would not result in harm to other innocent parties.But then the FBI got good at closing down the king pins lines of communication, thus removing the threat.

This is a really extreme case. Certain terrorists might also fit the case for justifiable use of the death penalty.

By in large, the death penaly in this country is overused, used incorrectly and given the history of wrongful conviction, police misconduct and prejudice, this country needs to take the death penalty off the table and keep it off!

%between%
 
you see, in the US we are lucky and have sturdy prisons, so the death penalty should be null and void. It was only started to help protect the population from people who could escape and continue to be harmful… however since this is no longer an issue… life in prison should require more reflection, thinking, and a possiblity of reform
 
40.png
jeffreedy789:
i don’t mean that what this person did is not atrocious. i don’t mean that he is not guilty of a horrendous crime.

i mean that, even though he DID do these things, he is a human being, and needs the grace and forgiveness of God as much as i do. maybe more. maybe not.

to whom much is given, much is expected. to whom little or nothing is given, what can be expected?

a person who kills for drugs, while doing something evil, is less culpable than someone who slanders their neighbor in cold blood and destroys their reputation. why? because of the ability to NOT do the sin. the drug addict has little or no self-control. is he guilty? sure. will he pay? beyond what he can imagine.

does he need our love, mercy, and forgiveness?

i know i do.
Click to expand...
Anyone who is capable of the kind of crime described at one time in his life was an innocent child who no doubt was himself abused and/or neglected. It breaks your heart to consider the evil men can do to one another. The commission of the crime takes him out of the innocent category and as adults we must answer for our conduct, which is why I voted to keep him in jail with no possibility of parole. The slightest chance that he could reoffend, having committed such a heinous act, prevents giving him the chance to do so ever again.

However, we never know how or when God may work in a person’s life, no matter how pitiful. A sinner can sincerely repent and return to God. He might be a catalyst to leading other criminals to repent. Who are we to interrupt this process? As long as society is protected, why kill again?
 
First - human life is not ours to take.

Second - he WILL receive a just punishment, even if it is not on earth.

However, while he is on our earth he should be locked up until he dies a natural death. Period.
 
I have seen several of the posters here state that we can safely lock people up for life. Is everyone who is stating this aware that this is an opinion and not a fact? I know it makes common sense to think that we should be able to accomplish this in our day and age, but yet it has been elusive in practical application. Yes, we could safely lock people up for life, except for:

a) permissive judges
2) human element

First, the level of cruel and inhuman punishment has been so defined by the courts as to grant even the most dangerous and vile of offenders liberties that put a strain on controlling them. I do not see this ever changing, short of a revolution in which all judges are sent to the island described above, surrounded by lawyers,er, sharks.

Second, whether through carelessness or corruption, some in charge of keeping us safe will fail in that duty. Inmates have 24/7 to think of ways to get to officers in charge of them. Some will succeed.

I will not say this justifies the death penalty, but let us not kid ourselves into thinking there is a free lunch here. There will be a cost in lives to society to abolishing it, just like there is a cost in retaining it.
 
Pnewton is right here.

When we say society, we seem to be excluding the guards and other prisoners as part of that society. If we include them, then we must execute to protect them

Keeping them locked up sounds good, but who’s to say that some governor won’t pardon a killer, or that prison overcrowding will require early release for some killers.

“life in prison” sounds great, but history has shown us that “life” is not the end of a criminal’s killing. Only death is.

Keep in mind that for 1900 years, the Church allowed killing in three instances: War, self defense and Capital Punishment. It is only in the last 70 years or so, that Capital Punishment has begun to be rejected by orthodox Catholics.
 
Life in prison. But then there is that little part of me that just screams “Put him in a room with me for just a minute, then lock him up.” But I know that would be wrong, so we’ll just ignore that little part.

Eamon
 
Island Oak:
Anyone who is capable of the kind of crime described at one time in his life was an innocent child who no doubt was himself abused and/or neglected. It breaks your heart to consider the evil men can do to one another. The commission of the crime takes him out of the innocent category and as adults we must answer for our conduct, which is why I voted to keep him in jail with no possibility of parole. The slightest chance that he could reoffend, having committed such a heinous act, prevents giving him the chance to do so ever again.

However, we never know how or when God may work in a person’s life, no matter how pitiful. A sinner can sincerely repent and return to God. He might be a catalyst to leading other criminals to repent. Who are we to interrupt this process? As long as society is protected, why kill again?
Click to expand...
How 'bout evil women too?
 
qmvsimp said:
Keeping them locked up sounds good, but who’s to say that some governor won’t pardon a killer, or that prison overcrowding will require early release for some killers.

Keep in mind that for 1900 years, the Church allowed killing in three instances: War, self defense and Capital Punishment. It is only in the last 70 years or so, that Capital Punishment has begun to be rejected by orthodox Catholics.
Click to expand...

Your right about the problem. The reason why Capitol Punishment’s not acceptable now where in centuries past it had been acceptable is this: governments did not have the means to keep dangerous criminals away from law-abiding society. Still, they had the duty to protect society from criminals posing a certain and imminant threat to the law abiding, and be certain the imposition of such sanctions did not pose a threat to innocent or third parties. Under these circumstances, deadly force was justified.

There is no way to justify the dealth penalty today because:

  1. *]a very few bad apple cops pick up people more because of their ethnicity than because of any real evidence of guilt thus a death penalty could injure innocent parties
    *]we can safely secure these criminals away from just society by changing our laws and doing away with the ambiguities that allow judges and parole boards to let these people loose

    :hmmm: Antigen for President?
    I’ll let you know on the Jay Leno Show. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_8_11.gif%between%
 
I read the question, but not the replies, so my answer is without benefit of the discussion preceding.

As for the case in question I would proceed in the following manner:

1). Fair trial gains conviction (DONE)
2). Immediate review of the merits of the case by a 3 judge panel.
3). If the panel concurs on the fairness of the trial and the guilt of the defendant, send him to death row.
4). Give the defendant 30 days in death row, with nothing but a crucifix on the wall to look at and the daily visit of a priest offering to at least reconcile him with God and comfort him in his last hours.
5). Should the defendant convert before the end I will thank God.
6). Should the defendant not convert before the end, I will hope nonetheless.
7). Lead him to a place of public execution where he can choose hanging, firing squad or the guillotine.
8). Despatch him quickly and efficiently.

Many will cry this is cruel and barbarous and contrary to Church teaching and the teachings of Christ, to which I reply “HOGWASH”.

It is just that these base murderers should forfeit their lives. It is to society’s benefit that people understand this kind of crime will be punished very severely and very quickly. It is to the criminal’s benefit to understand that eternity is right before him and he knows exactly when he will meet it. By the grace of God some of these miserable wretches will convert. By killing them off in a legal manner, we can at least be certain that these particular murderers will never be able to kill again, in or out of prison.
 
For many years I did not have an issue with the death penalty. When I became a Roman Catholic it was the only issue I had; I agreed with everything else. After researching the subject and prayed about it I came to this conclusion. First the death penalty is not a deterrent…many criminals do not put a value on their own life. Now if prisons and the judicial system were reformed and criminals actually had to do “hard time”…no recreational activities etc…but hard labor intensive re-education. I think this would be a better deterrent to crime. As far as people who engage in anything that harms a child…it should be automatic life (name removed by moderator)risonment…anybody who would harm a child has no place in society and statistics show they will repeat their crimes. Normal people could not and would not hurt a child I have no compassion for those folks. Is anyone familiar with the tent city prison in Maricopa County Arizona…Now that’s how a prison should operate.
 
I voted for life with no parole. I don’t like the death penalty, because it not a deterrent to crime anymore. If you are given the death penalty, depending on your age, you will probably die of old age before you are executed. I say lock them up until they rot or whatever.
 
I simply cannot endorse the death penalty, regardless of the crime. I also am not one of those well meaning folks that believe a person, like in the example, should ever be released back into society. I do believe that criminals of this sort should be segregated from society and the general prison populace. Yes, I admit that there is a part of me that would like to say, let this person sit alone in a dark, cold and dimly lit cell for the rest of his life. That is not the part of my person that I seek to foster, and how we treat those that are imprisoned is a direct reflection of the value we place all human life. If it were my decision, I would give the criminal a life time to reflect upon his crimes. A lifetime not interrupted by CNN or HBO or by a wide array of distractions that are found in prisons. I think I would make these people available for study by behavioral experts.
 
Life, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death is the provence of God
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top