W
whatevergirl
Guest
true, but the perps…even as family members…don’t spend much time in jail…
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
hi jack–can you explain the bolded comment to me? thanks.actually I totally disagree - in some quarters there is a cult of childhood as evidenced in this thread, viewing children as perfect sinless beings and justifying any measures no matter how draconian and illogical in the name of “child protection” - including measures that actually worsen child protectionthe bogeyman in the bushes is far less likely than the step-father, brother, uncle or family friend as a child abuser - FACT
unless you understand and accept that, you will never really tackle child abuse
and I have some personal experience which I am not willing to go into
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Biblically, I suspect death for child molesters is appropriate.
Practically, I lean against it. I believe in the deterrence factor of the death penalty, which means that some criminals and potential criminals take into accout the severity of punishment.
PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in by so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.
We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.
Practically, I lean against it. I believe in the deterrence factor of the death penalty, which means that some criminals and potential criminals take into accout the severity of punishment.
If a pedophile may receive the same punishment for murdering his vicitm that he will receive when letting them live, there appears to be an incentive to murder that witness and not subject themselves to more severe sanction
Pope John Paul II made serious errors in fact and logic within his anti death penalty writings. In addition he overlooked the many biblical, theological and traditional Church teachings on the death penalty - such teachings overwhelm his inaccurate writings on the death penalty.PJP II based his writings on defense of society, which is a penological consideration, not a religious one. By doing so he omitted justice. More importantly, he avoided the reality that the death penalty is a greater defense of society than lesser sentences and in by so doing, he has called for the sparing of guilty lives by the sacrifice of more innocents.
We all know that living murderers, in prison, after escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.
No knowledgeable party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law. Therefore, it is logically conclusive, that actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, that it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
Thirdly, 10 recent studies find for death penalty deterrence. Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 10 studies. They don’t. Studies which don’t find for deterrence don’t say no one is deterred, but that they cannot measure those deterred, if they are.
Ask yourself: “What prospect of a negative outcome doesn’t deter some?” There isn’t one, although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one. However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. I find the evidence compelling that death is feared more than life - even in prison.
In choosing to end the death penalty, or in choosing not implement it, some have chosen to put more innocents at risk.
Furthermore, possibly we have sentenced 20-25 actually innocent people to death since 1973, or 0.3% of those so sentenced. Those have been released upon post conviction review.
M
michaelmac
Guest
In England we had a centre that treated child abusers, And it had a good record, But for one thing It knew some would go on to reoffend 10 percent, But they could not tell who would, And i am writing about the worse offenders, Because of this would you be the one to release them back into society
R
RWMorris
Guest
As Catholics, we should oppose the death penalty for any and all offenders.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I saw an article the other day where a child molester in some Asian country was appealing his sentence because it included 30 lashes in addition to a prison sentence. He contended that the lashing was barbaric. I wonder if we should become a bit more barbaric.
D
dudleysharp
Guest
The problem with this belief is that the Church’s current campaign against the death penalty is illogical, unreasonable, and excludes bibilcal, theological and traditional foundations of the Church.As Catholics, we should oppose the death penalty for any and all offenders.
In a word, the anti death penalty campaign is highly prblematic for the Church.
G
GIMJ
Guest
The death penalty is mandated in Scripture under certain circumstances:
For sex criminals, I think we would be better off to keep them away from society for a long period of time during which rehabilitation may be attempted. After having been chemically or surgically castrated and stabilized, they may be released to the public but under close surveillance. That is the most compassionate and fair thing I can think of. The alternatives are life in prison, or death.
By reading the Mosaic Law, you see the death penalty prescribed for sexual deviants. And indeed, Jesus says:Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
GENESIS 9:6
The death penalty as a deterrent to future molestations, rapes, murders, and other serious crimes, is preferable to allowing a criminal to continue victimizing society and particularly children. However, when executing justice, we should attempt to do so in such a way to guarantee as many souls for Christ as possible. It is better to let a criminal live, and evangelize to him in hopes of saving his soul than to simply kill him in a state of sin and send him to Hell."Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung round his neck and he were thrown into the sea.
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,
where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. ST. MARK 9:42-48
For sex criminals, I think we would be better off to keep them away from society for a long period of time during which rehabilitation may be attempted. After having been chemically or surgically castrated and stabilized, they may be released to the public but under close surveillance. That is the most compassionate and fair thing I can think of. The alternatives are life in prison, or death.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.