Here’s an alternative for the Rahman example…solitary confinement. With zero contact with outside world. All I can do expose the holes on your argument.no, dancing around the issue isn’t going to work. I’ve given you one specific and one class of examples where there are no alternatives to execution. you’re against the DP, so, naturally, you do not accept the FBI report on what prison gangs do and do not believe how rahman ordered murders from prison.
all I can do is expose the holes in your assertions. edification for the thread only.
even monsters like rahman are entitled to an attorney under the constitution. an attorney’s communications with her client are privileged, cannot be overheard by the government. this rule is more important than rahman, so the government obeys the rule. rahman was already in a max security facility and under extraordinarily severe communication restrictions. they didn’t work because of the attorney-client privilege cannot be violated. anyone interested in the restrictions and how the attorney got around them can read it here: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498462.htmlHere’s an alternative for the Rahman example…solitary confinement. With zero contact with outside world. All I can do expose the holes on your argument.
You wrongly assert that i don’t accept the report and believe how things happened in the Rahman example, when I do…there are alternatives to DP in both cases. Eye for an eye no es bueno.
Unstoppable force vs immovable object…I’ll agree to disagree.
Here’s another alternative…change the rules like in the link below…not advocating for the specific positions proposed therein, but the rules can be changed.even monsters like rahman are entitled to an attorney under the constitution. an attorney’s communications with her client are privileged, cannot be overheard by the government. this rule is more important than rahman, so the government obeys the rule. rahman was already in a max security facility and under extraordinarily severe communication restrictions. they didn’t work because of the attorney-client privilege cannot be violated. anyone interested in the restrictions and how the attorney got around them can read it here: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1498462.html
for what its worth, the attorney, lynne stewart, dug her own grave.
nationalreview.com/articles/345173/no-tears-lynne-stewart-michelle-malkin
F/
maybe something like that would work.Here’s another alternative…change the rules like in the link below…not advocating for the specific positions proposed therein, but the rules can be changed.
nysbar.com/blogs/ExecutiveDetention/2012/01/new_guantanamo_rules_might_vio.html
Not trying to be obstinate, but life is more precious than rules
At the risk of being pollyannaesque I still say the one of God’s laws is ‘You shall not kill’. And if Christ were here today - would he condemn, would he say to kill another human being?See my note above - when prisoners and guards are not safe, then the alternative is death.
Crimes of passion type murders (anger against a spouse; or against a spouse’s lover, or against a rapist by the parent of a victim) are for the extreme part not likely to commit further murders.
Cold blooded murderers - those for hire; those committed during another crime such as robbery where the victim was not threatening, and those by sociopaths - are far more likely to commit murder again. They are the most dangerous subset, along with those who are criminally insane, for a murder against another prisoner or a guard.
Those who think that there is no justifiable situation are at best naive and have a pollyannaesque view of the world and the people in it.
That does not make them bad people; but their opinions are based on something other than reality.
that’s not a good reason, all you need to solve that are institutional changes in how the DP is applied. moreover, there are defendants whose guilt if beyond any kind of doubt.The simple non religious, non emotional reason for not applying the death penalty is that there exists the possibility of an innocent person being executed. And it has happened.
I have read the article you provided and all of the supporting citations and some additional material, for the reasons set out in the defense attorney objections to the rules (see the American Bar Assn’ letter), and being familiar with attorney-client communications privileges myself, I have to side with the defense here. the rules are untenable. meaning there will be holes in the security net post-conviction (because of appeals or writs, there’s always going to be right to counsel.)Here’s another alternative…change the rules like in the link below…not advocating for the specific positions proposed therein, but the rules can be changed.
nysbar.com/blogs/ExecutiveDetention/2012/01/new_guantanamo_rules_might_vio.html
Not trying to be obstinate, but life is more precious than rules
However it is clearly contrary to the ‘spirit’ of what the Church wants today - ie no DPI have read the article you provided and all of the supporting citations and some additional material, for the reasons set out in the defense attorney objections to the rules (see the American Bar Assn’ letter), and being familiar with attorney-client communications privileges myself, I have to side with the defense here. the rules are untenable. meaning there will be holes in the security net post-conviction (because of appeals or writs, there’s always going to be right to counsel.)
so I think the DP is warranted in a few instances where convicts are motivated and capable of continuing to direct terrorist organizations and narco-gangs from within prison, which is in line with the teaching of the Church.
F/
I’m sure the Church wants a world where there’s no need for any punishment.However it is clearly contrary to the ‘spirit’ of what the Church wants today - ie no DP