Death penalty

[triumphguy]

Human error cannot accurately predict when known criminals will harm again, as has been well documented throught time and the world.

As CCC states the common good requires that unjust aggressors be made unable to harm.

Rationally, this calls for more executions, not an extraordinary restriction of them.

Had PJPII knwn what he was talking about, which he did not, he would have realized that executions provide a greater defense of society and thus, we would not be discussing his errors which were brought into the CCC.

What we have now, is a teaching which puts more innocents at risk and a lesser defense of society.

Factually, rationally and prudentially, these newest teachings cannot stand, just based upon the facts.

1. The Death Penalty: Saving More Innocent Lives
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/death-penalty-saving-more-innocent.html
2. Innocents More At Risk Without Death Penalty
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/03/innocents-more-at-risk-without-death.html
3. LIFE: MUCH PREFERRED OVER EXECUTION
   99.7% of murderers tell us “Give me life, not execution”
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

Tell you what: I’ll put more trust in ANYTHING Blessed John Paul says than anything you say.

Prudentially of course.

BTW: It’s probably prudent to note that you are quoting yourself quoting yourself in your links.

 

[pnewton]

How personal do you wish to make executions?

Do you have some suggestions?

Old age.

Murderers cannot cheapen life. It has an great worth, regardless of how they treat they victims.

Objectively,life has value. Subjectively, life can be cheapened, weighed, quanitized and priced.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip

One of my favourite lay theologians says this:

“He deserves death.” …

“Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it.”

Don’t forget that Gandolf killed hundreds, if not thousands, on his own and participated in the killing of hundreds of thousands.

Why? Justice and the preservation of good and the destruction of evil.

Waiting for Gollum to be cured almost cost the eternal destruction of Middle Earth.

It is possible that the lesson is the opposite of what you have perceived.

 

[triumphguy]

Don’t forget that Gandolf killed hundreds, if not thousands, on his own and participated in the killing of hundreds of thousands.

Why? Justice and the preservation of good and the destruction of evil.

Waiting for Gollum to be cured almost cost the eternal destruction of Middle Earth.

It is possible that the lesson is the opposite of what you have perceived.

Dudley I am convinced that you are a sincere,. honest, forthright proponent of the death penalty. However, having read your links, which link to links of your own articles which quote you, I would like you to post 3rd party stats etc for all your arguments.

 

[pnewton]

Don’t forget that Gandolf killed hundreds, if not thousands,…

Of what? Not people. Besides, the death penalty is not war.

 

[dudleysharp]

Tell you what: I’ll put more trust in ANYTHING Blessed John Paul says than anything you say.

snip

BTW: It’s probably prudent to note that you are quoting yourself quoting yourself in your links.

That is fine by me.

But, I encourage you to trust, but verify.

I quote myslef quite a bit. More importantly, I back it up with reason and/or confirmable facts.

PJPII was confirmable wrong in his assesment.

I can not make you fact check anyhting by anyone.

That has to come from you.

 

[pnewton]

PJPII was confirmable wrong in his assesment.
.

How can prudence be confirmanly wrong? If what he said was object, we need to follow. If it was prudential, the word “wrong” does not apply,except as an opinion.

 

[triumphguy]

That is fine by me.

But, I encourage you to trust, but verify.

I quote myslef quite a bit. More importantly, I back it up with reason and/or confirmable facts.

PJPII was confirmable wrong in his assesment.

I can not make you fact check anyhting by anyone.

That has to come from you.

HEHE true enough.

However: let me bring one issue up with you.

You say the death penalty is a deterrent (and prison is supposed to be a deterrent too right?)

However
Most violent crime is not pre-meditated: true or false?
Most homicides are not pre-meditated: true or false?

 

[dudleysharp]

Dudleysharp

Have you ever worked in a prison?

No, but I have toured and spoken with inmates and stafff. Very differnt thing, I know.

I have spent a great deal of time with those who have lost loved ones to murder.

Please review:

Convicted Killers Often Live a Life of Leisure, Professor Says
abcnews.go.com/US/convicted-killers-live-life-leisure-professor/story?id=16426138

Convicted Killer Brags About Luxurious Life In Jail, ‘Color TV, A.C. And Hot Meals’
radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/06/convicted-killer-luxurious-life-jail/

 

[dudleysharp]

HEHE true enough.

However: let me bring one issue up with you.

You say the death penalty is a deterrent (and prison is supposed to be a deterrent too right?)

However
Most violent crime is not pre-meditated: true or false?
Most homicides are not pre-meditated: true or false?

Most crimes are premeditated in the sense that most crimes are committed by carreer criminals, meaning it is their lifestyle.

Very similar to many if not most murders, although the murder may not have been planned, the robbery was and the criminal took the gun with them, Why? To use, if necessary.

It that sense, its use, for the shooting/murder was just as premeditated as was the robbery.

 

[triumphguy]

No, but I have toured and spoken with inmates and stafff. Very differnt thing, I know.

I have spent a great deal of time with those who have lost loved ones to murder.

Please review:

Convicted Killers Often Live a Life of Leisure, Professor Says
abcnews.go.com/US/convicted-killers-live-life-leisure-professor/story?id=16426138

Convicted Killer Brags About Luxurious Life In Jail, ‘Color TV, A.C. And Hot Meals’
radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/06/convicted-killer-luxurious-life-jail/

I have a great deal of empathy for the victims of crime.

In this video the father of a teenager shot in a copy-cat killing on the heels of Columbine shares his journey.

youtube.com/watch?v=JBd_TMaK-HA

 

[dudleysharp]

How can prudence be confirmanly wrong? If what he said was object, we need to follow. If it was prudential, the word “wrong” does not apply,except as an opinion.

With a prudential judgement, it is understood that the prudence is in the research that provided for that judgement.

As with, a prudent student would study before an exam.

Opinions are best, when bacjkd up by facts. We all want informed opinion, not ignorant opnion.

 

[triumphguy]

Most crimes are premeditated in the sense that most crimes are committed by carreer criminals, meaning it is their lifestyle.

Very similar to many if not most murders, although the murder may not have been planned, the robbery was and the criminal took the gun with them, Why? To use, if necessary.

It that sense, its use, for the shooting/murder was just as premeditated as was the robbery.

Just as premeditated as the robbery? - so not premeditated then

If this was in court I would say this Answer the question please: Are most crimes of violence premeditated? Are most homicides premeditated?

Let me help you out here.

Most homicides are committed in the heat of passion, or while under the influence of drugs and alcohol (and in the heat of passion).

Most of the perps in these cases are not “aware of the nature and quality” of their acts. Deterrence does not deter in these cases.

 

[dudleysharp]

Just as premeditated as the robbery? - so not premeditated then

If this was in court I would say this Answer the question please: Are most crimes of violence premeditated? Are most homicides premeditated?

No, as I stated, both the robbery and the shooting were premeditated. We must have a differnt idea as to what premeditated is.

I can say that the crimes of violence that I am familiar with were premeditated.

I don’t know as to those classes of crimes.

Yes, both incarceration and execution deter some.

 

[pnewton]

Opinions are best, when bacjkd up by facts. We all want informed opinion, not ignorant opnion.

I would not describe the letters of Blessed John Paul that way. You may have studied this issue as your life’s mission, but what we want to know is Truth, as in, what does God want. Truth must come with authority. Authority is something one receives, not a task one appoints himself.

As much as you have studied those few paragraphs, I do not think you “get” Catholics. We do not start with the paragraph that interests us, but with the nature of God and how He works. Ethics, is way down the line.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Dear Swiss Guy:

For clarity, I am changing the order a bit.

strawman

You think it a straw man that I say the teachings have changed.

You’ll have to prove that “strawman” accusation, because I have proven my case and you have not made yours.

Your strawman is an empty allegation.

You prove it yourself that you are fighting a straw man from point 3 by saying, “You find it a genuine argument that the Church has changed (rearranged, restated?) Her teachings because society doesn’t comprehend the Church’s foundation of “redressing the disorder” or the medicinal aspects of capital punishment and, because of man’s weakness the Church sought a way to limit executions.”

On the contrary, I reject any argument about the Church changing her teachings.

I have great respect for PJPII’s intelligence. Your saying I don’t, is not just a strawman, but worse. I stated he was just plain wrong, as a matter of fact. His was a statement made out of ignorance, much like the imaginary “traditional teachings” that don’t exist.

Right, you were saying Pope John Paul II didn’t understand (he was just plain wrong) traditional Church teaching, that he was ignorant. I find that kind of incredible, but that’s just me.

Both 1 and 2 are clear and obvious changes to prior teachings. Prove they are not.

According to the classical tradition itself, punishment should not be inflicted when the infliction does more harm than good. Prof. Charles errs in stating that this prudential principle is “unsupported either by scriptural confirmation or tradition.” Thomas Aquinas asserts that the execution of the wicked is forbidden when it cannot be done without danger to the good (SCG 146.9; cf. ST II-II, q. 43, art. 7, ad 1) - Avery Cardinal Dulles

So here we have the greatest Doctor of the Church (Aquinas, not Dulles ) saying that capital punishment is warranted only if it won’t hurt the common good, while getting his support from the greatest Latin father of the Early Church, St. Augustine. While retributive justice is the #1 purpose of CP, to the extent that it is exercised depends on the effect it will have on the common good. This is not about the teaching, that the state has a right to lawfully kill those who have committed murder. This is about the application of CP in society, where its application is forbidden if it presents a danger to the common good/human lives. Hence, in application “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.” The Church is concerned about the moral health of society, where application of capital punishment can either help or hurt society’s moral health. The Catechism is keeping away from the traditional, or at least since the 17th/18th century, sometime after the Spanish Scholastic period, (Neo)Scholastic way of presenting the Faith and presenting it in more of a Patristic style with Scholastic influence, probably in an overreaction against the stale NeoScholasticism of the first half of the 1900’s. IOW, the Catechism is more concerned about the application of the death penalty in 2267 rather than the abstract teaching about punishment which was covered in 2266.

A morally healthy society should demand retributive justice; it is for the preservation of it’s moral health or the moral health of human lives. A morally corrupt society might see capital punishment differently, and consequently it’s application (even if abstractly it may be justified) might not be justified for the (moral) defense of human lives/common good.

This is not about change in teaching, but it’s application in modern society. So I don’t know if I proved that this wasn’t a change in teaching; I tried showing it is about CP’s application in society and how it isn’t about the teaching. Maybe we’re on a different page???

1. You find it a genuine argument that the Church has changed (rearranged, restated?) Her teachings because society doesn’t comprehend the Church’s foundation of “redressing the disorder” or the medicinal aspects of capital punishment and, because of man’s weakness the Church sought a way to limit executions.

Allegedly, this might stem from the arguement that it harms the “common good” that societies excercise in capital punishment is only based within hatred, revenge or the sort, as opposed to a correction of the disorder and other medicinal aspects.

That would acknowledge a change in teachings, based upon the problem of man’s error, in this context.

Boy, what a change.

contd

How does saying that because society has trouble comprehending what is morally correct and that capital punishment could harm the common good as a result acknowledge a change in teaching? It acknowledges capital punishment might not be applied in the same way for prudential reasons but not a change in teaching. Perhaps you could prove that it shows a change in teaching? Actually don’t do that, I’m actually dropping this thread this time.

God bless you all.

 

[dudleysharp]

I would not describe the letters of Blessed John Paul that way. You may have studied this issue as your life’s mission, but what we want to know is Truth, as in, what does God want. Truth must come with authority. Authority is something one receives, not a task one appoints himself.

As much as you have studied those few paragraphs, I do not think you “get” Catholics. We do not start with the paragraph that interests us, but with the nature of God and how He works. Ethics, is way down the line.

I wasn’tdescribing him that way.

You were unsure of “prudence”. I explained it to you.

That was the entire reply. Nothing more.

 

[dudleysharp]

Dudley I am convinced that you are a sincere,. honest, forthright proponent of the death penalty. However, having read your links, which link to links of your own articles which quote you, I would like you to post 3rd party stats etc for all your arguments.

Be specific.

My factual claims, if linked, are linked to the source. Make sure that are not already there.

If not. let me know.

 

[triumphguy]

No, as I stated, both the robbery and the shooting were premeditated. We must have a differnt idea as to what premeditated is.

I can say that the crimes of violence that I am familiar with were premeditated.

I don’t know as to those classes of crimes.

Yes, both incarceration and execution deter some.

Yes, my idea is the legal definition of premeditated - mens rea.

When you talk of premeditation you mean lifestyle.

 

[dudleysharp]

Of what? Not people. Besides, the death penalty is not war.

Well, yes, he killed people, as other things,

I agree the death penalty is not war.