Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stylteralmaldo

Guest
I think I might be of a minority opinion here, but we’ll see…

I am against the death penalty in this country because we live in a civilized society and we do not have the right to determine God’s will and make the determination when someone’s time is up.

My thoughts on this are illustrated in the following two examples:

EXAMPLE A:

(1) Murderer goes on a rampage and kills dozens of innocent people.
(2) The murderer is caught and convicted of the crime.
(3) The murderer receives a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
(4) The murderer reconciles with God for the innocent lives he took 25 years after the killings.

EXAMPLE B:

(1) Murderer goes on a rampage and kills dozens of innocent people.
(2) The murderer is caught and convicted of the crime.
(3) The murderer receives a life sentence and is scheduled to be executed.
(4) The murderer is executed 15 years later.
(5) The murderer was not reconciled with God because it “wasn’t his time” according to God’s plan.

I won’t pretend to know what God’s plan for all of us is, and I certainly don’t want to come across as unsympathetic to innocent lives that have been changed forever, but it almost seems that we are “playing God” by effecting the outcome of another’s life - no matter how evil that person may be.

I’m curious where others stand on this issue.
 
That’s almost exactly my line of thinking. I was always staunchly pro-death penalty. Now, because of really thinking about it for a few years, I’m opposed to it, because of the same reason are. The death penalty amounts to vengence, as opposed to justice. Part of the problem is that many states do not have life without parole as an option. Life frequently means 40 year or less.
 
I live in the Uk we do not have a death penalty for exactly those reasons, because it is not humane to kill and because we may have the wrong man/woman!! God Bless you xxx
 
There are points to be made on both sides.

People on life imprisonment have converted. E.g. Jeffery Dahmer. Would he have converted had he been on death row? Don’t know.

People on death row have converted. E.g. Timothy McVeigh. Would he have converted had he been imprisoned for life? Don’t know.

Therefore I think that there must be a better argument for opposing the death penalty than that the criminal be given the opportunity to redeem himself.

Another thing: the death penalty need not be meted out for the reason of personal vindictiveness, the subjective “I owe you for that” sense of vengance. It could be meted out with mercy through retributive justice, which, unlike the former, is the objective balancing of the scales. St. Paul had this in mind when he said, “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death” (Acts 25:11).

The difficulty in our day is that American society has a difficult time distinguishing personal vindictiveness from retributive justice. It’s not uncommon for society to call for the death penalty because it really wants revenge, rather than justice. For that reason, perhaps it’s best to refrain from executing criminals even though, objectively, they really do deserve it.

However, I can think of a better reason to choose bloodless means of punishment. We live in a culture of death. Society sees no value in the life of the unborn, aged and infirm. By sparing the lives of those who deserve death, we may be able to convince society to spare the lives of those who do not deserve death.

Therefore, perhaps we ought to choose bloodless means of punishment, not because the death penalty is intrinsically evil— it’s not— but because choosing the death penalty is not prudent given the culture of death in which we live.
 
If a country has the reasonable ability to (name removed by moderator)rison someone, for what would be a capital crime, then there is no need for a death penality; we must give people every chance to convert their souls back to God, and keep them from commiting that crime again. In the USA, we can (name removed by moderator)rison them.
 
I can offer you the case of a murderer who has been convicted of 25 felonies in the last 20 years. Ten of those felonies have been committed while in prison. He has seriously injured 3 other prisoners in separate attacks while in prison. There seems every likelihood that he will kill a fellow prisoner or guard if given enough time.

What should be done with him?
 
The death penalty as it seems to be used (in the US) is unjust. It seems a travesty of justice to put people to death when there is some chance of innocence. This only decreases the general public esteem of our legal system.

But people die and are often raped in prison. And it is fellow inmmates who kill them or rape them. This is also a travesty. I hardly consider it good form to jail a criminal and then let him or her be murdered. A man is defenceless in jail. Also there are those who continue their crimes in jail by controlling their empire, so to speak. What good is a jail that doesn’t stop the crime?

I have always been against the death penalty, but if you can’t stop them any other way, maybe you should put them to death, but only if you are absolutely sure it is them. I don’t understand the idea of the death penalty only for the ones who are worse or killed more people or blew people up. It makes more sense to use it for the ones whom you can’t stop. But that is not how it is used here (the US).
 
40.png
Vincent:
However, I can think of a better reason to choose bloodless means of punishment. We live in a culture of death. Society sees no value in the life of the unborn, aged and infirm. By sparing the lives of those who deserve death, we may be able to convince society to spare the lives of those who do not deserve death.
Click to expand...
I believe the death penalty is wrong in all cases and I think you have pretty much nailed my thoughts on the reasons why. It leads to a callous disregard for all life.

That said, I also agree that what goes on in prisons can be nearly as bad as the death penalty and also contributes to the culture of death, but it seems to me that what goes on should also be preventable and that those who are supposed to be the guardians of those we have determined can no longer live in a free society have a callous disregard for the job they have been entrusted with. A person may forfeit his freedom, but I don’t believe he ever forfeits his humanity.
 
Joe Kelley:
I can offer you the case of a murderer who has been convicted of 25 felonies in the last 20 years. Ten of those felonies have been committed while in prison. He has seriously injured 3 other prisoners in separate attacks while in prison. There seems every likelihood that he will kill a fellow prisoner or guard if given enough time.

What should be done with him?
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that the death penalty is acceptable only when the convict still poses a threat to innocent life. As the Pope pointed out in his encyclical *Evangelium Vitae, *it is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

I would suggest that the case you cited may be one of those rare cases where the death penalty may be justified. It’s debatable.
 
which, of course, explains why the death penalty was endorsed in israel in the OT. the community was not able to imprison criminals ‘for life’, or at all, really. so they were stoned, as they were a continued threat to civilization.

i used to support the death penalty. then, when i became catholic, i rethought it. and came to the same conclusions the church did. funny, that.
 
Even if a murderer converts it still doesn’t make up for his crime. Should we excuse killers who become Christians? What if they become Muslims instead? Or Jews or Buddhists? Also, I’m cynical enough to think many jailhouse “conversions” are plays for leniency.
 
I believe the US should do away with the death penalty. However life in prison should mean just that. If it can be done safely the prisoner should do hard labor, if not then keep them locked in a 10 X 10 cell. When they are allowed out, they should be cuffed and shackled. They get 3 meals a day, no TV, no books, no radio, no airconditioning, no computers, no tobacco or alcohol or drugs, no contact at all with the outside world once they have had their case reviewed by the appeals court twice. I know the bleeding hearts and ACLU would have a field day with this but that is the way it should be. Other than the no contact thing they would still be living better than most people in third world countries.
 
But we we go ahead and swing him from a tree, he gets to see God right away! They can talk about his punishment then. 🙂
 
Who was the comic–maybe Dennis Miller–who said it irked him that most convicts have better cable TV packages than he does?
 
40.png
seeker63:
Even if a murderer converts it still doesn’t make up for his crime.
Click to expand...
Nothing could ever make up for murder, but being locked away for the remainder of ones life is a harsh enough punishment. When the prodigal son came back to the father, should the father have said, “You left of your own choice. You’re no longer my son.”
 
In the case of Timothy McVeigh, he was once quoted as saying that he was terrified of the sentance of life in prison. For him to receive that, in my opinion, would have been the greater punishment. Besides, when we decide who gets the death penalty and who doesn’t, isn’t that kind of like playing God?

The case of the man who had commited 25 felonys was brought up. In that case, I think total isolation might be in order. And when I mean isolation, I mean just that.

One night I had a dream. It was of an unusual prison. When someone was brought in, the rules were explained to them. They were stripped and shaved. Their “cell” consisted of a stainless steel bed (the whole room was, literally, made in one piece), a small shower stall, a toilet and a sink. They would start out with a mattress pad, a blanket and a pillow. Maybe even a towel. Their meals (two a day) were slide through a slot onto a stainless steel table. They were given a short time to eat before the tray was taken away.

Not here’s the twist. Total silence was required. Any noise would result in losses. Say, one offence would get your mattress pad taken away. Later, after everything else had been taken away (the mattress, pillow, blanket and towel) then the temperature would be lowered. Being a dream, there was nothing about earning those things back.

Also, each person would be taken out of their cell once a week. No attempt at communicating with the employees was allowed. The cell would be checked by one person, while the inmate would be checked over, shaved again as necessary, and had their nails clipped.

Real harsh punishment. Of course, if something like this was tried in America, there would be all kinds of people screaming “inhumane treatment!!!”"
 
Steve M:
That’s almost exactly my line of thinking. I was always staunchly pro-death penalty. Now, because of really thinking about it for a few years, I’m opposed to it, because of the same reason are. The death penalty amounts to vengence, as opposed to justice. Part of the problem is that many states do not have life without parole as an option. Life frequently means 40 year or less.
Click to expand...
Ditto. I was always pro capital punishment, and pro-abortion. I’m ashamed of it now, and do everything I can within my limited scope to stop the evils of each. I vote against anything that tries to get the death penalty in Michigan, and I regularly pray in front abortuaries and participate in pro-Life activities. If this is a minority position, I’m proud to be in this minority.
 
I chose the second and appear to be a minority. However, I would redefine the extreme case. I do not think punishment of death should be imposed because of the severity of the crime. Revenge is not a proper goal for a society. Rather only in cases in which an real danger exists in incarcerating an individual for life should the death penalty be imposed.
 
40.png
pnewton:
I chose the second and appear to be a minority. However, I would redefine the extreme case. I do not think punishment of death should be imposed because of the severity of the crime. Revenge is not a proper goal for a society. Rather only in cases in which an real danger exists in incarcerating an individual for life should the death penalty be imposed.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! In order for the death penalty to be justified (IMHO), the prosecutor must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a) the defendent is guilty, and b) that even with a life sentence, the defendent would still pose a threat to society.

Anything less than that does not justify capital punishment.
 
There was a phrase, which I am sure I will misquote, to the effect:

Knowing that one is to die tonight at midnight acts wonderfully to sharpen the mind.

Above it was alluded to that executing someone might cause him to lose his soul because it wasn’t God’s time for his reconcilliation. Hogwash. That put’s his reconcilliation on God’s responsibility rather than the criminal’s, and presumes that such things only happen when God is ready. God is always ready, and will give the grace necessary; it is up to the penitent to avail himself of that grace.

Having said that, if only from an economic standpoint, it makes way more sense to keep them alive; the cost of multiple appeals for one convict would keep a number of them alive for their natural life.

And from the standpoint of punishment, looking at an 8 x 12 for the rest of your natural life is more punishment than some apprearantly can take; there have been several recently who pulled the plug on their appeals in order to speed up the execution date.

And given the fact that the vast majority who are executed are penniless, and those who can afford top flight lawyers get something other than the death penalty calls into question what the meaning of justice is.

And to those who think that prosecuting attorneys are seeking justice, your naivety is showing. They are as subject to popular opinion and pressure as anyone else; they often are seeking convictions, not justice; with all too much regularity they have been shown to hide, obfuscate, and in any other way prevent the discovery of exculpatory evidence. Our justice system at times stinks; but it is still the best system in the world. But to trust someone’s life to it? I think not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top