Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylteralmaldo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
no, its not a factor. a person is onlly killed if they have comitted what the judge considers a great enough crime. noone is ever put to death for their potential to harm others from inside the prison.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
no, its not a factor. a person is onlly killed if they have comitted what the judge considers a great enough crime. noone is ever put to death for their potential to harm others from inside the prison.
Click to expand...
Christ founded His Church…not His debating society. Capital punishment is consistent with Church teachings…your opinions on the subject are just that: your opinions. That is what they will remain.
 
no really? i actually thought the church would change its teachings if it saw my opinion. way to state the obvious.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
yeah to us it would sure seem like a differrent world wouldnt it? and did i say human nature or God changed? no. why dont you put some more words in my mouth? i said it was a different world because it was basically impossible to lock someone up for the rest of their lives. and we dont still abide by the eye for an eye rule either. jesus changed that.
Click to expand...
Not correct Romans and Jews of 2,000 years ago had plenty of deep and dark dungeons where people could be stored forever. That has not changed at all–except that our jails are cleaner and have cable tv.

Christ did not come to abolish the law.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
no really? i actually thought the church would change its teachings if it saw my opinion. way to state the obvious.
Click to expand...
Well then…what is your point?
 
40.png
Mycroft:
no, its not a factor. a person is onlly killed if they have comitted what the judge considers a great enough crime. noone is ever put to death for their potential to harm others from inside the prison.
Click to expand...
You can believe what you want, but the fact is, in Texas future potential harm is specifically what is weighed when deciding between life in prison or death by injection.
 
if thats true then it makes even less sense. how could they possibly judge the potential harm of people in prison? oh i forgot the judges are psychic. and doesnt it seem a better solution to not allow them contact with people they could harm or outside contact than to kill them?
 
40.png
Mycroft:
if thats true then it makes even less sense. how could they possibly judge the potential harm of people in prison? oh i forgot the judges are psychic.
Click to expand...
Past behavior patterns indicate character. Character dictates behavior. It isn’t all that difficult. It does take experience and education. I know some prisoners whose behavior and character allow me to know that they are a threat to others, even behind bars.

Since you have no experience in this area and I do, I can only encourage you to take my word for it.
 
40.png
pnewton:
Past behavior patterns indicate character. Character dictates behavior. It isn’t all that difficult. It does take experience and education. I know some prisoners whose behavior and character allow me to know that they are a threat to others, even behind bars.

Since you have no experience in this area and I do, I can only encourage you to take my word for it.
Click to expand...
good job how you conveniantly left out the rest of my quote where it asks if you would rather kill soemone than put them in jail where they cant do any more harm.
 
and dont say: “well the prisoner could harm others in prison or give orders to other people to hurt others.” If the judge decides whether or not the person should be killed on the basis of his likelihood of hurting others, then if he decides the prisoner is a threat we could put him in solitary and not give him access to the outside. its a lot better alternative than killing him, isnt it? oh wait that makes too much sense.
 
40.png
Mycroft:
and dont say: “well the prisoner could harm others in prison or give orders to other people to hurt others.” If the judge decides whether or not the person should be killed on the basis of his likelihood of hurting others, then if he decides the prisoner is a threat we could put him in solitary and not give him access to the outside. its a lot better alternative than killing him, isnt it? oh wait that makes too much sense.
Click to expand...
Again you show your lack of knowledge. Juries usually determine the danger to society based on court testimony and evidence, not judges. Placing one in solitary is not a decision judges can make and civil case law dictates limits on how isolated one may be kept.
 
It seems that the liberals think that Church morality is all about money: if a “society” can afford jails, then they should never use the death penalty; but if a society can’t afford jails [or doesn’t use the money that way?] then it is free to execute criminals because they don’t have the space to store them forever.

Talk about utilitarian morality…:bigyikes:

Why not one standard for all: how about what the CHurch has always taught–that the death penalty for certain types of criminals is moral and in keeping with the Bible and the Church…
 
40.png
tru_dvotion:
The death penalty, like most things, can be supported or refuted by Scriptures or Catechism. We should not explain our position with Old Testament laws. Try to explain stoning an adulterer. This is year 2004. So the question is what is the current, official position of the teaching Magisterium on the death penalty? That is what we have to listen to, that is, ultimately, what we have to respect.
Click to expand...
Hello tru-dvotion,

Can the Magisterium of today say that Pope’s burning heritics at the stake in the middle ages was evil? How do we know which Pope is following Jesus and which is not? If todays Magisterim now states that the death penalty is evil, this is not what the Church has always taught, but something new. Can we get clarification from the Pope that there is a totally new teaching from him, opposite of what the Church has always taught.

Please visit: Throwing Stones
 
The death penalty should cover all rapes, murder, and armed assualt.
 
No, our country is civilised. But it is allowed in other countries where it is the only way to protect society from criminals. Like for example if they don’t have prisons and the only other option would be for a serious criminal to roam around in public.
 
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...
Solitary.

God Bless,
Donna
 
As we have other means to protect society from these women and men, the death penalty would be against Church policy here in the US.
 
40.png
mtr01:
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.
Click to expand...
The Church’s teaching seems reasonable to me. My dad was a doctor on death row, and participating in one “state killing” as he called it, turned him against the death penalty for life. It went against everything he had been taught in medical school (he was of the old school, and actually took the Hippocratic Oath).
 
i only believe in the death penalty in extreme cases like susan smith or scott peterson; when someone commits an act that evil.
 
I think the churches teaching makes great sense. If the death penalty is required to protect life it is just. If that is not the case then it is immoral.

I personally think that it does not protect life because it helps reinforce the “culture of death”.

I really have a hard time understanding why so many conservatives favor the state killing when they don’t trust the government with many other things.

Personally I feel that proponents think that the death penalty promotes justice not because it saves lives but because these evil people need just punishment as if “just” means what they deserve. They do not understand that justice means that people are protected form harm and abuse.

I also think that many feel that justice means revenge. How many times have you heard “What if it was your child?” I may be wrong but to me this means “Wouldn’t you want revenge?”

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top