death penalty

[neisan]

While I am pro-life,I also support the death penalty.If a person is beyond redemption and you can’t punish him anymore because he already has a life sentence,it would be best to kill him.I only believe in the death penalty if the person won’t change and doesn’t mind the punishments given to him.It ould be a wase to keep him alive.

 

[dusza]

“Beyond redemption”, “won’t change”, and “waste to keep him alive” sounds like you made yourself a god. In our society someone is put to death presumably as a just punishment, not because we judge them to be a “waste” or “beyond redemption”.

Incidentally, from the CCC:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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.

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 to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent.”

 

[Orleans_Attny]

While I am pro-life,I also support the death penalty.If a person is beyond redemption and you can’t punish him anymore because he already has a life sentence,it would be best to kill him.I only believe in the death penalty if the person won’t change and doesn’t mind the punishments given to him.It ould be a wase to keep him alive.

I’m opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but here are the three biggest:

1. I am unable to reconcile being anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty;
2. I am unable to accept the idea that by killing a prisoner we rob him or her of the opportunity for salvation; and
3. As a lawyer I’m familiar with our legal system. And that means I’m familiar with the problems in our legal system. We have - without any doubt whatsoever - executed innocent people in the past. Every single year we release people from death row where DNA or other forensic evidence exonerates them (not raises doubt . . . no kidding proves their innocence). And thus, we can rest assured that so long as we have the death penalty we will occasionally murder innocent people. Logically, one must accept that fact. Now, imagine your innocent son or daughter strapped to a gurney, amongst strangers, and pumped full of poison until dead.

So, I’m pretty much OK with life in prison.

Pax,
OA

 

[vera_dicere]

I’m Pro-Life, and I used to be for the death penalty, back when I was 10 and didn’t know any better.

The Church allows for the DP under strict conditions, usually the risk the individual poses to society out ranks his right to life. But nowadays, there really is no excuse, there’s prisions, people can’t just escape like they used to.

I found supporting the DP and being Pro-Life to be inconsistant. Yeah, I understand the whole “but the foetus is innocent the homicidal rapist is not”, I use to spout the same argument. But look at the arguments for the DP:

They’'ll never change.

They’re a danger to society.

No one wants them.

They’re “monsters”, they’re not “human”.

They shouldn’t have any rights!

The same arguments are seen with abortion. The foetus is not wanted, it doesn’t feel, it could be a danger to its mother, it’ll only end up an abused child and become a criminal, they’re not “human”, they dont’ have any “rights”.

The DP is like the govt’s abortion.

And quite honestly, I think life in prision is a much worse punishment than the DP. It also gives them an opportunity to find God and repent. (Of course, I think prision these days is a little too cushy).

Not to mention, its absolutely hypocritical for the govt. to say “don’t kill people” and then turn around and kill people through the DP. Not to mention, who gives the govt. the right to take life? Society? Well, society gave women the right to kill their unborn children.

No one has the right to take life, it is stealing from God.

Oh, and the other thing that turned me right off the DP, was finding out that something like 100 people are released each year from death row, and not just released into general population, but released released, like foudn to be not-guilty. So, how many innocent people has the DP claimed? The intellectually disabled are also killed via the DP.

Its an incredibly repugnant mindset, and I really wish the USA would get rid of it. Maybe then the rest of the world will take you guys seriously when American diplomats take aim at China’s dispicable justice system, or the hanging of children in Iran or the stoning of women who have been raped and charged with adulterly in Islamic nations.

The DP is a disgusting blot on society.

 

[wjp984]

While I am pro-life,I also support the death penalty.If a person is beyond redemption and you can’t punish him anymore because he already has a life sentence,it would be best to kill him.I only believe in the death penalty if the person won’t change and doesn’t mind the punishments given to him.It ould be a wase to keep him alive.

By this argument, wouldn’t it be a waste to keep the suicidal person alive and prevent him/her from taking their life? Wouldn’t it be a waste to prevent the terminally ill patient from ending his own life and seeking a mercy killing?

What perplexes me is people who are pro choice and pro euthanasia many times are against the death penalty. In fact, I think being anti death penalty would fall into the liberal category along with pro choice and euthanasia.

With that being said the same can be true the other way around, pro life, pro death penalty and conservative.

Personally, I tend to take an indifferent opinion here and think it is a states’ rights issue and up to the individual governments to determine whether use of capital punishment is warranted. Therefore, I would have no problem arguing for or against the death sentence of an individual. However, if I had to decide which way I believe more, it probably is 60% against and 40% for, so I guess I’m slightly against it.

 

[thistle]

While I am pro-life,I also support the death penalty.If a person is beyond redemption and you can’t punish him anymore because he already has a life sentence,it would be best to kill him.I only believe in the death penalty if the person won’t change and doesn’t mind the punishments given to him.It ould be a wase to keep him alive.

NOBODY is beyond redemption.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catholicism & Capital Punishment
Avery Cardinal Dulles
firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[puzzleannie]

While I am pro-life,I also support the death penalty.If a person is beyond redemption and you can’t punish him anymore because he already has a life sentence,it would be best to kill him.I only believe in the death penalty if the person won’t change and doesn’t mind the punishments given to him.It ould be a wase to keep him alive.

the justice system currently fails to prove even that many of those condemned to death are even guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. What process do you suggest to prove they are incapable of change and conversion, and beyond redemption, both judgements the province of God alone?

 

[Langdell]

I’m opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but here are the three biggest:

1. I am unable to reconcile being anti-abortion and yet pro-death penalty;
2. I am unable to accept the idea that by killing a prisoner we rob him or her of the opportunity for salvation; and
   3. As a lawyer I’m familiar with our legal system. And that means I’m familiar with the problems in our legal system. We have - without any doubt whatsoever - executed innocent people in the past. Every single year we release people from death row where DNA or other forensic evidence exonerates them (not raises doubt . . . no kidding proves their innocence). And thus, we can rest assured that so long as we have the death penalty we will occasionally murder innocent people. Logically, one must accept that fact. Now, imagine your innocent son or daughter strapped to a gurney, amongst strangers, and pumped full of poison until dead.

So, I’m pretty much OK with life in prison.

Pax,
OA

My thoughts exactly, OA (but better expressed!). I didn’t become staunchly opposed to the death penatly until I became a lawyer.

Also, it’s hard for me to see how the CCC can be interpreted as allowing the faithful to support the death penalty in first-world countries like the U.S.

.

 

[camerong]

1. As a lawyer I’m familiar with our legal system. And that means I’m familiar with the problems in our legal system. We have - without any doubt whatsoever - executed innocent people in the past. Every single year we release people from death row where DNA or other forensic evidence exonerates them (not raises doubt . . . no kidding proves their innocence). And thus, we can rest assured that so long as we have the death penalty we will occasionally murder innocent people. Logically, one must accept that fact. Now, imagine your innocent son or daughter strapped to a gurney, amongst strangers, and pumped full of poison until dead.

My thoughts exactly, OA (but better expressed!). I didn’t become staunchly opposed to the death penatly until I became a lawyer.

Exactly.

My second year in law school, a federal judge from the 9th circuit gave a lecture about the incredible errors that are allowed in death penalty cases. The California Supreme Court (California!) held it to be *harmless *error that the jury instruction erroneously gave the options of life WITH parole or death, instead of life WITHOUT parole or death. Harmless error. Unbelievable.

We cannot even begin to have a discussion about the death penalty being theoretically acceptable until we resolve these serious legal issues.

 

[Langdell]

Exactly.

My second year in law school, a federal judge from the 9th circuit gave a lecture about the incredible errors that are allowed in death penalty cases. The California Supreme Court (California!) held it to be *harmless *error that the jury instruction erroneously gave the options of life WITH parole or death, instead of life WITHOUT parole or death. Harmless error. Unbelievable.

We cannot even begin to have a discussion about the death penalty being theoretically acceptable until we resolve these serious legal issues.

Cameron – I didn’t know you’re “one of us.” Welcome to the bar (shortly)!

.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Cameron – I didn’t know you’re “one of us.” Welcome to the bar (shortly)!

.

Pettifoggers of the world unite! You have to appreciate a profession that refers to its membership as The Bar.

Pax,
OA

 

[Langdell]

pettifoggers of the world unite! You have to appreciate a profession that refers to its membership as the bar.

:d

.

 

[camerong]

Cameron – I didn’t know you’re “one of us.” Welcome to the bar (shortly)!

.

Pettifoggers of the world unite! You have to appreciate a profession that refers to its membership as The Bar.

Pax,
OA

Thanks for the warm welcomes! I didn’t these responses until this morning. I’ve got my last final on Friday!

Though I think this thread is dead, I wanted to add a final observation. Last Saturday, I completed my Advanced Trial Ad jury trial–and then we watched, via microphones and a two-way mirror,a jury deliberate. Having been on a criminal jury myself, and having done this exercise before, I was aware that juries are often irrational and unpredictable. But the jury we observed misunderstood everything–the jury instructions, the testimony, even the exhibits (which they had in front of them). I’d like to think that we gave them cogent theories in our closings, but they ignored the arguments of both sides and came to a conclusion based very little on the evidence and very much on a misreading of jury instructions and (I’m not kidding) lessons learned from Top Gun.

My point with this is that, even when the legal problems referenced above are resolved, the death penalty allows a person’s fate to rest with a jury full of very infallible people. Although my case was a mock trial, I suspect many lawyers can tell stories of times when real juries decided real cases in wholly irrational ways.

Perhaps even if the justice system otherwise works perfectly, when life is at stake, we cannot trust 12 very fallible people in a closed room to decide the facts.

 

[centurionguard]

Personally; I don’t foresee anything morally gainful before the eyes of God Himself the Supreme Adjudicator and holder to the keys of Life and Death, whereby humans try to play the same role in primitive human justice. Does God agree with the human death penalty?
Absolutely Not This continuing debate on the Death Penalty for those who support it is getting extremely tiresome. God is Supreme Judge. If God judged humans the same way human judges, jury and executioners judged those who broke the law we all would deserve death.

 

[catsrus]

We pray for the protection and value of life from conception till natural death.

That says it all.

 

[Ender]

"Camerong:

I think this thread is dead.

Then again, maybe not.

Personally; I don’t foresee anything morally gainful before the eyes of God Himself the Supreme Adjudicator and holder to the keys of Life and Death, whereby humans try to play the same role in primitive human justice. Does God agree with the human death penalty?

God not only agrees with it, he mandated it.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gen 9:6)

This was God’s command to Noah and in referencing this particular passage I am not giving my personal interpretation, it is the basis for the Church’s position on capital punishment as taught in the Catechism of Trent.

It may be reasonable to reject the death penalty on the basis that it cannot be fairly or properly applied, but those are prudential reasons and have nothing to do with the moral question. I disagree with the opinion that the death penalty should not be used because of prudential problems but I don’t care to argue the point; I am interested in understanding what the Church teaches. In that regard it seems clear - notwithstanding 2267 - that the Church still recognizes Gen 9:5-6 as the controlling teaching on this point.

Ender

 

[Albert_Nygren]

Thanks for the warm welcomes! I didn’t these responses until this morning. I’ve got my last final on Friday!

Though I think this thread is dead, I wanted to add a final observation. Last Saturday, I completed my Advanced Trial Ad jury trial–and then we watched, via microphones and a two-way mirror,a jury deliberate. Having been on a criminal jury myself, and having done this exercise before, I was aware that juries are often irrational and unpredictable. But the jury we observed misunderstood everything–the jury instructions, the testimony, even the exhibits (which they had in front of them). I’d like to think that we gave them cogent theories in our closings, but they ignored the arguments of both sides and came to a conclusion based very little on the evidence and very much on a misreading of jury instructions and (I’m not kidding) lessons learned from Top Gun.

My point with this is that, even when the legal problems referenced above are resolved, the death penalty allows a person’s fate to rest with a jury full of very infallible people. Although my case was a mock trial, I suspect many lawyers can tell stories of times when real juries decided real cases in wholly irrational ways.

Perhaps even if the justice system otherwise works perfectly, when life is at stake, we cannot trust 12 very fallible people in a closed room to decide the facts.

I argued earlier for the acceptance of the death penalty (in theory) and I still hold that there is nothing wrong with the death penalty per se; However, I agree with you that with the present state of the criminal justice system, the death penalty should not be used, generally, because of so many innocent people convicted and sent to death row. I still think that the death penalty should be used in the case of someone killing someone while on a life sentence in prison.

I didn’t know that it was legal to observe a jury during it’s deliberation, but having being on a jury on 3 different cases, my experience was the same as the one you observed. There were people on the jury that were incapable of logical thought and fought for a certain verdict for all kinds of crazy reasons. As problematic as a jury trial is, it is still better than the government deciding our guilt or innocence.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I argued earlier for the acceptance of the death penalty (in theory) and I still hold that there is nothing wrong with the death penalty per se; However, I agree with you that with the present state of the criminal justice system, the death penalty should not be used, generally, because of so many innocent people convicted and sent to death row. I still think that the death penalty should be used in the case of someone killing someone while on a life sentence in prison.

I didn’t know that it was legal to observe a jury during it’s deliberation, but having being on a jury on 3 different cases, my experience was the same as the one you observed. There were people on the jury that were incapable of logical thought and fought for a certain verdict for all kinds of crazy reasons. As problematic as a jury trial is, it is still better than the government deciding our guilt or innocence.

You will certainly find a few true believers out there - and though our system is imperfect, it’s better than most - but in my experience many lawyers loathe trying cases to juries.

Why?

Call me a cynic, but on a panel of 12 jurors, a majority will be people seated are there because they aren’t well enough connected (or whose time isn’t valuable enough in the eyes of society) to get off of jury duty.

Is that true in every jurisdiction? Of course not. Is it true in many? Take a Tuesday off work and go down to the venire room to hang out.

I once had a judge tell me and the prosecutor: “Listen folks, you need to get something straight. I’ve been doing this for a long time and I’m here to tell you: You’re not normal. I’m not normal. Your parents and friends and co-workers aren’t normal. Do you want to know what normal is: Normal is an episode of Jerry Springer - those are the people who are going to be your clients, victims, witnesses, defendants, and jurors. And if you’re going to keep trying cases, the sooner you realize that the better.”

Pax,
OA

 

[choy]

the Church doesn’t totally ban death penalty but only asks that it be considered as a last resort. if someone is already in prison but due to influence can still commit heinous crimes to society, such as a leader ordering ethnic cleansing, then it is for the good of the society that he be put to death.

but the Church won’t advocate the death penalty just for anyone. rapists can easily be contained within prisons, so with most murderers (exceptions are those like the one i posted last paragraph)

and i agree with the Church on that