Do you support the death penalty?

[surritter]

I agree with you. But then Ender needs to clarify which of the two statements isn’t true:

the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime,
or
the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death.

They can’t both be true without the implicit statement that the death penalty is required.

I agree that justice as carried out by civil authorities can not really be full, true justice. Again, I’d like to hear Ender work the mercy angle into his explanations, as you have done. Perhaps that was the root of our disagreement … Ender was speaking more of divine or perfect justice, and I was under the impression that we were discussing justice as carried out by civil authorities.

 

[Ender]

Ender indeed has maintained this!

I have at least three times denied this. I doubt that a fourth will be any more compelling.

Ender claimed (in post #147) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

I didn’t claim anything. I quoted the Catechism. Deal with its comments.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

And in #153 Ender maintained that the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death.
Very clearly, then, Ender has stated that the punishment for murder must be the death penalty.

To repeat myself (which seems to do little good) when you made a similar charge earlier, here is what I said in #160:

No. There have always been valid reasons for not executing someone and the Church has taught that an evil person should not be executed if it harms the good.

Exceptions can be made if carrying out the death penalty would be against a greater good, but again this is a “prudential judgment” area. The bottom line is that Ender says that the by-the-book doctrine of the Church demands the death penalty.

I think you should assume that what Ender says … is exactly what he has already said (#143):

Although there are always exception, in general the proper punishment for murder is death.

Ender

 

[garn9173]

While i’m staunch pro-life, i’m very much torn on wether or not I support the death penalty. I was taught that the death penalty was to be a deterrent (sp?) for killing another person, but in states with the death penalty, is it really a deterrent?

Guys like McVeigh or Ted Bundy really deserved to pay for their crimes with their life, but when one family has grieved over the untimely end of a loved one’s life, should the condemend’s family have to grieve over the untimely end of a loved one’s life? Not to mention, two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Lui]

Although there are always exception, in general the proper punishment for murder is death.

What do you consider as the proper punishment for homosexual acts since this thread is about death penalty and not murder? I think the Old Testament says death as well…just wondering.

 

[Hastrman]

What do you consider as the proper punishment for homosexual acts since this thread is about death penalty and not murder? I think the Old Testament says death as well…just wondering.

We don’t consider the Old Law’s purity code binding on us; the only “law” for Christians is Natural Law, which is the real source of the death penalty for murder.

 

[Ender]

What do you consider as the proper punishment for homosexual acts since this thread is about death penalty and not murder? I think the Old Testament says death as well…just wondering.

These days I would settle for the recognition that they are gravely disordered.

Ender

 

[surritter]

I have at least three times denied this. I doubt that a fourth will be any more compelling.
I didn’t claim anything. I quoted the Catechism. Deal with its comments.
Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
To repeat myself (which seems to do little good) when you made a similar charge earlier, here is what I said in #160:

No. There have always been valid reasons for not executing someone and the Church has taught that an evil person should not be executed if it harms the good.
I think you should assume that what Ender says … is exactly what he has already said (#143):

Although there are always exception, in general the proper punishment for murder is death.

Ender

Your repeating of things is indeed noted, but it is also necessary since you’ve stated things in different posts that, when put together, add up to very different conclusions.

Of course there are exceptions, but these are based on prudential judgment, not intrinsic nature.
Because it appears that I’m always a step or two behind, permit me to ask point blank:
So the death penalty is not required by Church teaching, correct?

 

[Ender]

So the death penalty is not required by Church teaching, correct?

Correct, the death penalty is not required in every case even when the crime involves murder, but to say that it is not required in every case is not to say that it is not appropriate for any case or that it is never required.

Ender

 

[surritter]

Correct, the death penalty is not required in every case even when the crime involves murder, but to say that it is not required in every case is not to say that it is not appropriate for any case or that it is never required.

Ender

I agree … we could have avoided pages and pages of this by just settling on this simple statement.

 

[Lui]

Amanda Knox was just freed after she has been convicted of murder in Italy 4 years ago. Luckily Europe got rid of the death penalty or she would be celebrating her innocence in a coffin.

 

[Hastrman]

Amanda Knox was just freed after she has been convicted of murder in Italy 4 years ago. Luckily Europe got rid of the death penalty or she would be celebrating her innocence in a coffin.

She was so not innocent. “Conviction done improperly” or “can’t prove guilty” is not the same thing as innocent.

OJ Simpson wasn’t innocent either.

Also, dude, the average wait to be executed in the US is 20 years; a death row inmate is significantly more likely to die of old age than to actually be executed.

 

[Lui]

She was so not innocent. “Conviction done improperly” or “can’t prove guilty” is not the same thing as innocent.

OJ Simpson wasn’t innocent either.

So you KNOW she is actually guilty? What gives you this supernatural knowledge? Anyway, OJ was never convicted while Knox was convicted on shady evidence but they realized they made a mistake.

Also, dude, the average wait to be executed in the US is 20 years; a death row inmate is significantly more likely to die of old age than to actually be executed.

I was speaking theoretically, DUDE. Troy Davis was only 43 when he was probably innocently executed(or should I say murdered). Is that old age?

 

[Hastrman]

So you KNOW she is actually guilty? What gives you this supernatural knowledge? Anyway, OJ was never convicted while Knox was convicted on shady evidence but they realized they made a mistake.

Merely because the evidence was not sufficient to convict her (and they realized that after the fact), does not mean she was innocent. I don’t know she was guilty, but if she wasn’t, she was the most blitheringly self-destructive innocent person who ever lived.

I was speaking theoretically, DUDE.

Well plainly so was I, since an average is by definition a theoretical construct, old bean.

But I don’t necessarily disagree that, given the conviction was shaky, it’s best she couldn’t be sentenced to death (I think she did it, but I have no problem with insisting on a higher standard of proof before a death sentence can be imposed).

 

[kykid]

The fact that an innocent person could conceivably be put to death for a crime that they did not commit is the only reason I need to form an opinion on the death penalty. For that reason alone, I oppose the penalty in all cases. Put them away for life with no parole at all possible. This will protect society and remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. Once executed, there is no possibility for justice for the innocent. With life in prison, mistakes can be corrected.

 

[Lui]

Merely because the evidence was not sufficient to convict her (and they realized that after the fact), does not mean she was innocent. I don’t know she was guilty, but if she wasn’t, she was the most blitheringly self-destructive innocent person who ever lived.

On what do you base your judgmental opinion on her?

Well plainly so was I, since an average is by definition a theoretical construct, old bean.

What’s up with the name-calling? If you insist I can return the name calling but it will be a bit stronger than dude or old bean.

But I don’t necessarily disagree that, given the conviction was shaky, it’s best she couldn’t be sentenced to death (I think she did it, but I have no problem with insisting on a higher standard of proof before a death sentence can be imposed).

Luckily Europe and most American countries got rid of this primitive method of justice.

 

[Hastrman]

On what do you base your judgmental opinion on her?

The facts of the case. On what do you base your nonjudgmental opinion on her?

What’s up with the name-calling? If you insist I can return the name calling but it will be a bit stronger than dude or old bean.**

“Dude” is not name calling. It’s not even really a form of address, it’s actually a synonym of “hey”.

*Luckily Europe and most American countries got rid of this **primitive ***

method of justice.

Speaking of name calling…

 

[Lui]

The facts of the case. On what do you base your nonjudgmental opinion on her?

Oh, so why do most people believe she is innocent? Everything I read on the case convinced me that Guede was the only person involved, and that was a couple of years ago…way before I could know that she would be free today. It was so obvious to me.

“Dude” is not name calling. It’s not even really a form of address, it’s actually a synonym of “hey”.

Yeah, right. If I call my buddy “dude” it is not name-calling but within your post it is.

Speaking of name calling…

In this case it’s a fact. Why is the US one of the only countries of the first world countries that still has death penalty? Are all the European countries that have a lower crime rate mistaking? Btw, I grew up in New York, lived in Germany, Italy, London, Paris, Brussels and in one of the poorest countries of South America. I felt the strongest feeling of threat and crime in NY, for instance the time a guy in the subway pulled a knife on my mother(while she was with 3 small kids) when I was about 6 or almost every house on our block was broken into to name a few. In Europe you can walk around without the constant feeling you’re getting mugged any minute. I don’t have the feeling that the strict justice system made the US any safer. Maybe they should ban their guns. Don’t get me wrong, I love the US but I don’t believe that the death penalty makes it any safer.

 

[Hastrman]

Yeah, right. If I call my buddy “dude” it is not name-calling but within your post it is.

I assure you, it is not, I wasn’t calling you dude. I was saying dude. You don’t live in Arizona, it’s a dialect difference.

In this case it’s a fact. Why is the US one of the only countries of the first world countries that still has death penalty? Are all the European countries that have a lower crime rate mistaking. Btw, I grew uo in New York, lived in Germany, Italy, London, Paris, Brussels and in one of the poorest countries of South America. I felt the feeling of threat and crime was the highest in New York when for example a guy in the subway pulled a knife on my mother when I was about 6 or almost every house on our block was broken into. In Europe you can walk around without the feeling you’re getting mugged any minute. I don’t have the feeling that the strict justice system made the US any safer. Maybe you should ban your guns.

Well, New York has a gun ban, and all the stats show places—in the US—with looser gun laws have lower crime rates. Now part of that is probably just “rural areas”, but Washington D.C. had the strictest gun laws and the highest murder rate. Correlation does not prove causation, but there is a strong correlation. So. Yeah.

And there is no such thing as progress, only change. That one thing comes after another is no sign it’s an improvement.

Maybe the US is one of the only first world countries with the death penalty because it’s also the only one with an average age under 45? Young people commit more violent crimes, you know.

 

[Lui]

I assure you, it is not, I wasn’t calling you dude. I was saying dude. You don’t live in Arizona, it’s a dialect difference.

Ok, then I apologize. I had the impression you were taking down on me. If that wasn’t the case I misinterpreted it(maybe because I’m from NY )

Well, New York has a gun ban, and all the stats show places—in the US—with looser gun laws have lower crime rates. Now part of that is probably just “rural areas”, but Washington D.C. had the strictest gun laws and the highest murder rate. Correlation does not prove causation, but there is a strong correlation. So. Yeah.

And there is no such thing as progress, only change. That one thing comes after another is no sign it’s an improvement.

Maybe the US is one of the only first world countries with the death penalty because it’s also the only one with an average age under 45? Young people commit more violent crimes, you know.

I’m sure that there are various other reasons why the US has a higher crime rate. I’m not saying that the US has a higher murder rate BECAUSE they have the death penalty. I’m saying say have a higher murder rate ALTHOUGH they have it. My point is that the US(I mean the specific States that still have the death penalty) could easily get rid of the death penalty and just lock up people for life in high security prisons just like they do in Europe. I don’t think that it would increase the crime rate by doing that.

 

[Hastrman]

Ok, then I apologize. I had the impression you were taking down on me. If that wasn’t the case I misinterpreted it(maybe because I’m from NY )

No worries, just saying “hey” could come off as rude, too.

A friend of mine when I was a kid got in trouble, because a teacher thought he was calling her “dude”, when he was just saying it as an exclamation.

I’m sure that there are various other reasons why the US has a higher crime rate. I’m not saying that the US has a higher murder rate BECAUSE they have the death penalty. I’m saying say have a higher murder rate ALTHOUGH they have it. My point is that the US(I mean the specific States that still have the death penalty) could easily get rid of the death penalty and just lock up people for life in high security prisons just like they do in Europe. I don’t think that it would increase the crime rate by doing that.

Yeah, our prison system is a mess in a lot of ways, though; murder and rape in prison, and that kind of thing (and unlike the guys on death row, most of those guys aren’t in for murder). One of my previous posts in this thread I said I think death penalty opponents should push for reforms that make the prisons tougher and more secure. It shouldn’t be a picnic, but a guy who’s in for embezzling or car theft shouldn’t be getting shanked.

Personally I think we’ll always at least need the option of the death penalty, even if we never use it, and there are some really horrible crimes, which I won’t go into detail on, where I think it “cries out” to be used.