E
Eric_Hilbert
Guest
Let’s show charity in our posts boys and girls…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status
D
dudleysharp
Guest
thank you. Citation, please.
Consider those eternal factors, in the context all of the foundational elements of sanction, together - justice, redress, balance, reform, correction all of which are reflected in Church instruction, biblical teachings, theology, tradition and reason.
Then PJPII and CCC foundations for all but ending the sanction.
— Defense of society and the state of the worldwide prison system. —
Which is, in reality, a call for more executions, not less, based upon the facts.
My diversity of opinion finds that:
- PJPII was factually in error within EV,
- PJPII relied upon the security of prison systems to establish a defense of society foundation to all but end the death penalty when
- PJPII avoided the reality that:
b. that executed murderers never harm and murder, again, but living murderers do harm and murder, again
c. that a defense of society foundation, when properly evaluated, calls for more executions, not less
- PJPII improperly found that considerations of a secular based prison system outweighed nearly 2000 years of Catholic teachings supportive of the death penalty, with biblical, theological, traditonal, rational and historical considerations.
- EV was the error filled prudential judgement that was wrongly allowed as an amendment into the Catechism, where these errors and problems were expanded, as previoulsy reviewed in a limited manner.
B
Betterave
Guest
Since my comments - which I deem to have been reasonable and appropriate, always making substantive points, unlike many other posts - have been deemed to be “uncharitable” and worthy of being removed, I will leave the rest of y’all to continue this ‘charitable’ exchange about the ‘errors’ of JPII without me. I apparently have different ideas about true charity - especially **intellectual **charity, in particular towards the late great JPII - from our mod here.
Take care.
Take care.
E
Ender
Guest
That particular comment was from Pius XII in his Address to Italian Catholic Jurists on May 12, 1954. Sorry I don’t have a link. There are a number of addresses from Pius XII for which I have found no English translation and have to rely on citations of others.
Ender
W
wheels10
Guest
I would do everything in my power to protect, but my intentions would be never to kill.
I would have placed Hitler in a prison in isolation with one meal a day, bread and water. I would not kill.
D
d97c
Guest
…and if you were to put Hitler in a cell, with one meal a day…the ACLU would sue you as the warden and then he would get 3 meals, a law library, color tv, a workout room, movies, sexual companionship with Eva Braun, right to interviews with the press, plans to sell his art work…you see where this goes. and believe me----thats where it goes in this nation…THAT’S what happens to murderers in prison when there is no death penalty…it becomes a joke and the system shows disrespect for the 6 million lives of Jews he killed…it’s not PROPORTIONAL…like the death penalty… Some murderers Ive known and prosecuted have never had it so good as when they are IN prison !
O
otjm
Guest
John Paul 2 was a wise and brilliant man, professor, priest, bishop, cardinal and pope.
Having said that, his knowledge of penal security was less than accurate. If anyone wishes to do the research, just look at the first bombing of the towers; the individual jailed for that was sneaking out directions for further mayhem. As long as we have the ACLU and bleeding heart liberals, we will have individuals and groups lobbying for rights for the incarcerated, and filing law suits claiming rights are being trampled. And that in turn will result in individuals who are incarcerated for serious crimes making use of the rights which have accrued to them in statute and case law to do further harm and mayhem.
So John Paul 2’s dicta to the contrary, it is not possible for society to completely (and perhaps even significantly) protect itself from those few individuals who are brighter than the average schmuck of a criminal, and who use the system to operate outside the walls of the prison.
Having said that, Oregon has had two individuals who were sentanced to death by lethal injection, who both stopped their appeals; it could be called suicide by capital punishment. The likelihood was that both would have eventually been executed anyway, but neither of them could take the psychological pressure of being cooped up, waiting for years for their appellate process to conclude. So for those who like to expound on how life without parole is the easy way out, I would suggest that you have not walked in the moccasins…
Having said that, his knowledge of penal security was less than accurate. If anyone wishes to do the research, just look at the first bombing of the towers; the individual jailed for that was sneaking out directions for further mayhem. As long as we have the ACLU and bleeding heart liberals, we will have individuals and groups lobbying for rights for the incarcerated, and filing law suits claiming rights are being trampled. And that in turn will result in individuals who are incarcerated for serious crimes making use of the rights which have accrued to them in statute and case law to do further harm and mayhem.
So John Paul 2’s dicta to the contrary, it is not possible for society to completely (and perhaps even significantly) protect itself from those few individuals who are brighter than the average schmuck of a criminal, and who use the system to operate outside the walls of the prison.
Having said that, Oregon has had two individuals who were sentanced to death by lethal injection, who both stopped their appeals; it could be called suicide by capital punishment. The likelihood was that both would have eventually been executed anyway, but neither of them could take the psychological pressure of being cooped up, waiting for years for their appellate process to conclude. So for those who like to expound on how life without parole is the easy way out, I would suggest that you have not walked in the moccasins…
D
d97c
Guest
Most people in prison for murder conviction and life without parole try endless appeals and DONT want to die.That is why they appeal. The common reaction is to stay alive as long as possible. The example cited above is very rare and is hardly “suicide.” If the process were to be carried out in its normal time frame, there would be no need for any alleged “suicide,”…because the liberals in the criminal justice area have, through their liberals in Congress, made endless appeals, up and down the crim justice system, state then federal, then state delays and back up federal etc etc. I believe in definite and strongly defended appeals …but not the common 7-10 year delay from conviction to execution.
O
otjm
Guest
That is incorrect. The endless appeals chain is associated with those who have received a sentance of death by whatever means the State has chosen to execute them.
Most people don’t want to die. I would suspect neither one of the two executed wanted to die, either. They both repeatedly said that they could not take the alternative of living with the sentance of execution haning over their head for the next umpteen years, and said that they could not stand living in prison for the rest of their natural lives.I don’t know that there has been any survey of how many prisoners with a death sentence stop the appellate process so I don’t think it can be determined that it is very rare. The Point I was trying to make is that many seem to assume without any experience or information that life without parole is not adequate and serious punishment - that is, that the death penalty is necessary as a form of punishment, or extraction of justice, or whatever other term may be inserted.
“the normal time frame” - normal is what normally occurs. What normally occurs is a time frame that takes years. Some of it is due to the fact that the courts are crowded and there simply is no place on the docket for a hearing; part of it is the time it takes to research and put together an appeal (including the time the opposition takes to respond); some of it is that one court will not hear a case until another court has passed on the issue. So 7 to 10 years is approaching “normal” if not a rather short (time) definition of it. Washington State just whacked a guy 17 years after the crime.
And if you were sitting there wrongly convicted, how hurried would you want the process to be - fast enough that your attorneys did not have time to do the work they needed, and thus give you a sloppy appeal? It helps to remember the vast number of times that an appellate court has remarked on the incompetence of council at the original trial.
The point I am trying to make is that a) there is more than ample evidence that society cannot be protected from some individuals (and society also includes other prisoners - there are a remarkable number of assaults ane murders within the prison system - and prison guards), so John Paul 2’s comment is purely dicta; and b) restricting an individual to an 8 by 12 cell for the rest of his life is far more punishment than some would have you to believe.
In short, I am against the death penalty for two reasons; a) it is far, far more expensive to execute someone than it is to warehouse them for the rest of their natural life - there are ample studies of the cost comparisons out there; and b) life without parole is far greater punishment than many seem to feel (I will not use the term “think”, as most people don’t put a lot of time and effort into the matter).
On the other had, the reality is that society cannot be well protected from someone who is bright enough and devious enough to find a way of going around whatever protections incarceration may provide. There is more than ample evidence of this too.
What bothers me more than anything is the fact that while our judicial system may be the best in the world, it is prone to failure. There is a verdict of guilty (he did it), not guilty (it is not proved that he did it beyond a reasonable doubt, or in the alternative, he didn’t do it) and then a completely separate issue of innocent - they got the wrong guy. Our system does not have the capability of absolute accuracy. It has been well shown that the wrong people have been convicted of a crime and either executed, or otherwise shown long after the sentence but before the execution that they were not the perpetrator. That ought to scare the pants off anyone who is eager for justice, as many death penalty supporters allege they are.
And to top it off, there is the Alice in Wonderland feeling that the prosecutors are out for justice.
Some are.
Some are not.
One only has to see the prosecutors’ responses where an innocent (as in, wrong guy) person attempts to show they were not the perpetrator. It is enough to make Mary Poppins a cynic.
D
d97c
Guest
You obviously have never been involved in the criminal justice system. You may be entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to those wild facts you put out. Errors too numerous to mention…for example–the reason it is “expensive” to carry out the death penalty (takes up to 20 years in California) is that the bleedng hearts who dont like the death penalty and their legislators pass laws that ALLOW the delays, endless appeals, and more appeals…so people who are against the death penalty and support all the appeals cant have it both ways–YOU people are responsible for the laws that result in endless delays…NOT persons who support the death penalty. Id have a mandatory death-qualified lawyer appointed, money for investigations, and after conviction, you have one appeal in state and one in federal…NOT endless and mindless manipulation of the crim justice system…(these silly appeals cost the money)…if that were the case, the cost would go wayyyyyyy down…
Also—life without parole is not and would not be a proportional punishment for lets say, Osama bin Laden or Hitler, who would have loooved to have had the opportunity to be interviewed on cable, Larry King, appear in court, and have “documentaries” done about their lives. The “suicide” duo you mentioned is an anomaly …almost never happens to those sentenced to death…MOST try hard to live…they’d love to have a sentence of life without parole, because the death penalty is considered by those who receive it as the most severe punishment,so they appeal and appeal and appeal. Your example is weak and not indicative…
and what do you give to the bum who is in for life without and murders a prison guard…another life without?? Thats JUSTICE FOR YOU??See the errors of those arguments?
So you think that life without is more of a punishment than the death penalty? If that’s your opinion, then lets eliminate that life without parole punishment too and just have straight life, because under YOUR theory of justice, the death penalty should be eliminated because of “errors”…and its MORE OF A PUNISHMENT…so…lets eliminate life without since there must be “errors” in those trials too…so lets just eliminate all seveve punishments because someone, somewhere might be conviced in error.Your problem is that you want a perfect system…error free…good luck finding that in any significant area of life.
Also—life without parole is not and would not be a proportional punishment for lets say, Osama bin Laden or Hitler, who would have loooved to have had the opportunity to be interviewed on cable, Larry King, appear in court, and have “documentaries” done about their lives. The “suicide” duo you mentioned is an anomaly …almost never happens to those sentenced to death…MOST try hard to live…they’d love to have a sentence of life without parole, because the death penalty is considered by those who receive it as the most severe punishment,so they appeal and appeal and appeal. Your example is weak and not indicative…
and what do you give to the bum who is in for life without and murders a prison guard…another life without?? Thats JUSTICE FOR YOU??See the errors of those arguments?
So you think that life without is more of a punishment than the death penalty? If that’s your opinion, then lets eliminate that life without parole punishment too and just have straight life, because under YOUR theory of justice, the death penalty should be eliminated because of “errors”…and its MORE OF A PUNISHMENT…so…lets eliminate life without since there must be “errors” in those trials too…so lets just eliminate all seveve punishments because someone, somewhere might be conviced in error.Your problem is that you want a perfect system…error free…good luck finding that in any significant area of life.
O
otjm
Guest
As a matter of fact, I have represented defendants in two murder cases.
How many cases have you tried?
And no, I did not belong to the ACLU or the criminal defense attorneys guild.
D
d97c
Guest
I was a prosecutor for 17 years, then defense attorney (currently) and private practice (and teach at the college). Tried 4 death cases as defense,(most recent in March)…prosecuted 5. And really stats wont convince you, me or any poster. We just disagree. To each his own. K? Your experience is very different from mine apparently.
I’m just glad as a Catholic that there are plenty of posts here that show that abortion and the death penalty are treated very different by the Church. I subscribe to what Pope Benedict XVI said:
I’m just glad as a Catholic that there are plenty of posts here that show that abortion and the death penalty are treated very different by the Church. I subscribe to what Pope Benedict XVI said:
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
O
otjm
Guest
Dragging the abortion issue in is a typical ad hominem remark. Nice try.
I am not sure you actually read my posts; if you had, you would understand that I am at best ambivalent about capital punsihment. At the time then, and still at this time, I have no question concerning my actions re: the people who died as a result of my targeting them, in Viet Nam. I have met individuals while I practiced who could not be buried deep enough in a prison to protect society; they were truly monsters. I am also aware, as you should be, of wrongful convictions - not based on technicalities but on the very real fact that they did not do the crime. I have also dealt with prosecutors who put prosecution and conviction above justice and had no qualms about it whatsoever. On the other hand, I have also dealt with prosecutors who truly sought justice. I have faced juries and sat on juries enough to know that there are people who sit on them who are so prejudiced that their vote is a forgone conclusion, and note that voir dire is not necessarily effective in rooting them out.
And if you have been in the law as long as you say, then your posts cfoncerning the amount of time on appeals is beyond wishful thinking.
And for what it is worth, I stand by my criticism of John Paul 2’s comment about the safety of society, and I ascribe to Benedict’s statement. I would move to life without parole if it were possible to guarantee the safety of society (experience shows that it hasn’t been done well at all) for no other reason than the cost of executing someone, and the very real belief that sitting in an 8 by 12 is far more punishment than many seem to think.
On the other hand, for those I would term the “monsters” - those who are amoral (as opposed to simply subject to trigger reactions) such as the serial killers, I shed no tears whatsoever when the State whacks them. I am not out there holding candles. And as to the bit the Church seems to keep repeating - that by lengthening their life one may be allowing them to come to reconciliation, I ascribe to the wag who said, in essence: “Nothing quite sharpens the mind so much as knowing that one is to be executed at dawn”.
D
d97c
Guest
Wow…quoting Pope Benedict XVI on abortion and the death penalty is “ad hominem?” If HE thinks it is important to point out the difference in assessing the duties of Catholics in the “life” issues, (as stated in my quote earlier)maybe you should to.
Check your definition before you use the term too…OK?
You need to prosecute for a while pal…and dont preach to me about prosecutors. Im an expert in search and seizure law and try every way in the law to spring the defendant I represent, BUT Ive seen sleezeball defense attorneys KNOWINGLY have their clients lie like dogs !! (not that you would of course.) Thats the good thing about being in the JAG for a while…you must do both. Ive seen prejudiced juries turn thugs loose when they were guilty (fortunately only 3 of my cases when I was a prosecutor) much more than convicting the innocent. More guilty are found NOT guilty than are innocent defendants convicted.
By the way…how about reading about the length of time California takes to execute convicted murderers before saying what I say it 'aint true…OK?
Then you may not make such lousy mistakes… counsellor
“California’s legendarily slow appeals system, **which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection **— the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.”
blog.lawinfo.com/2009/03/09/to-execute-or-not-a-question-of-cost/
Check your definition before you use the term too…OK?
You need to prosecute for a while pal…and dont preach to me about prosecutors. Im an expert in search and seizure law and try every way in the law to spring the defendant I represent, BUT Ive seen sleezeball defense attorneys KNOWINGLY have their clients lie like dogs !! (not that you would of course.) Thats the good thing about being in the JAG for a while…you must do both. Ive seen prejudiced juries turn thugs loose when they were guilty (fortunately only 3 of my cases when I was a prosecutor) much more than convicting the innocent. More guilty are found NOT guilty than are innocent defendants convicted.
By the way…how about reading about the length of time California takes to execute convicted murderers before saying what I say it 'aint true…OK?
Then you may not make such lousy mistakes… counsellor
“California’s legendarily slow appeals system, **which produces an average wait of nearly 20 years from conviction to fatal injection **— the longest in the nation. Of the nine convicted killers McCartin sent to death row, only one has died. Not by execution, but from a heart attack in custody.”
blog.lawinfo.com/2009/03/09/to-execute-or-not-a-question-of-cost/
O
otjm
Guest
My first reading of your comment was that you were throwing the issue of abortion into the discussion. I have re-read the post and withdraw my comment. I know the definition of the term; I was in a hurry as I was getting close to a deadline.
I am not preaching to you about prosecutors; this is not a private conversation between the two of us and a lot of people have had no experience of the system whatever. I stand by my comments; get off your high horse. My comments about prosecutors made no reference to defense attorneys and I know there are sleezeballs on both sides. Your comments only highlight what I have said - we may have the best system of justice in the world, but it is far from perfect.
I have no clue what “lousy mistake” you are referring to, but you need to get off your podium for a bit and calm down. You know as well as I where the laws have come from; I have made no justification for them. You seem to wish to rush to judgment. In clear cut cases we may agree. Not all cases are clear cut, and we both know that; maybe if you were not so puffed up about yourself as having been a prosecutor for so long, you could address the clear issues of death sentences that have been handed down that clearly convicted the wrong individual. Or are they just collateral damage to you?
I have no idea why you have decided to go on the attack - as I said in my post - if you bothered to read it - I am ambivalent about the death penalty. I have little or no problem with it when executing some of the monsters we have in society. You are the one complaining about the length of time, and your bit about blaming me for the length of the appellate process is a diatribe unworthy of someone of your educational level (your post “YOU people are responsible for the laws that result in endless delays…”. No one is this forum is responsible for the laws which have been passed or the cases which have been tried and resulted in changing the process. You hold yourself out as a law professor? You call that research?
D
d97c
Guest
You’re right…let’s talk to the audience…the real jury
Even though Cardinal Dulles comes down against the death penalty, his discussion makes it crystal clear that a Catholic who is supportive of the death penalty and political candidates who support it are OK in the Church. This is important because so many of these parish lay “teachers” make it sound like you are committing mortal sin if you say you support it. BUT Pope Benedict and Cardinal Dulles, at least, make it clear YOU CAN ! Thats all lay people want…tell the truth about the tradition of the church on the issue and keep personal political views out of the volunteer teaching in the parish.
features.pewforum.org/death-penalty/reader/17.html
Even though Cardinal Dulles comes down against the death penalty, his discussion makes it crystal clear that a Catholic who is supportive of the death penalty and political candidates who support it are OK in the Church. This is important because so many of these parish lay “teachers” make it sound like you are committing mortal sin if you say you support it. BUT Pope Benedict and Cardinal Dulles, at least, make it clear YOU CAN ! Thats all lay people want…tell the truth about the tradition of the church on the issue and keep personal political views out of the volunteer teaching in the parish.
features.pewforum.org/death-penalty/reader/17.html
W
wheels10
Guest
It is sad that this is what happens, but it still does not make killing the answer. All I know is that we all will die, and no one will escape God’s justice at that time. So for those that are concerned that justice will not be served, it will, and it will be served perfectly. God’s justice is perfect. My only hope is that I will be in a state of Grace at the time of my death, so that I will receive God’s Mercy, because without it even the smallest sin will condemn.
D
d97c
Guest
I 'ditto" the state of grace…we all want that. We are all trying to do God’s will. We just come down on different ways to accomplish that goal
W
wheels10
Guest
This is a bit off topic but I would like to share some knowledge about the Grace of God. The Grace of God can only be received by a humble soul. I pray that we will learn to always humble our souls.
God Bless.
E
Ender
Guest
The fact that God will eventually execute justice perfectly is no excuse for us not to make the attempt ourselves. Human justice is important as well and that’s what this debate is about inasmuch as retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment. The state has a positive obligation to levy punishments appropriate for the crimes committed; that’s not something that can be passed off with “God will take care of it so we don’t have to.”
Ender
- Status