Do you support the death penalty?

[Ender]

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.

If the choice was between the possibility of innocent death from wrongful execution and no innocent death at all your position might be reasonable, but we don’t have those two choices. The choices we have are the possibility of a very small number of innocent deaths from wrongful execution versus the certainty of a significant number of innocent deaths from recidivist killers. If your concern is for the safety of the innocent then you should support increased executions as the innocent are surely better protected with that approach.

Ender

 

[Tig]

I admit I haven’t read all 14 pages. Mea culpa. However I will ask a question. I believe in the DP for 1st degree murder. Now ya all can agree or disagree with me. However, I have been told that I must disagree with the DP to be a Catholic. Has the Pope come out ex whatever it is to require such? If so, please direct me where. I come not to debate but to get info. Thank you in advance for any replies.

 

[Birdpreacher]

If the choice was between the possibility of innocent death from wrongful execution and no innocent death at all your position might be reasonable, but we don’t have those two choices. The choices we have are the possibility of a very small number of innocent deaths from wrongful execution versus the certainty of a significant number of innocent deaths from recidivist killers. If your concern is for the safety of the innocent then you should support increased executions as the innocent are surely better protected with that approach.

Ender

Yes because when you kill someone we just let you walk free.

 

[Lui]

Yes because when you kill someone we just let you walk free.

I don’t get Ender’s logic either. He’d rather see innocent people get wrongly executed and preserve the death penalty than make sure no innocent man is killed by false conviction by getting rid of the death penalty. The reasoning is to protect the innocent. If a murderer is locked up in a high security prison for the rest of his life, how can he harm the innocent?

 

[Ender]

I don’t get Ender’s logic either. He’d rather see innocent people get wrongly executed and preserve the death penalty than make sure no innocent man is killed by false conviction by getting rid of the death penalty. The reasoning is to protect the innocent. If a murderer is locked up in a high security prison for the rest of his life, how can he harm the innocent?

You completely missed my point. I have not expressed an opinion about which choice is preferable; I have pointed out what the choices are. Your belief that a murderer locked up in a high security prison for life presents no threat to society is belied by the facts: they can, have, and will again kill (or order killings) from prison. Beyond that, many murderers are released from prison and go on to kill again - this happens roughly 40-60 times a year.

We know for a fact that not executing killers allows some number of them to kill again. We know that using capital punishment puts some citizens at risk of being wrongfully executed. So there are your choices: don’t execute anyone and allow killings to continue by felons both within the system and those released by it, or execute people for murder and run the risk of executing an innocent person. There is no doubt that more innocent people will die if capital punishment is eliminated than would die if its use was expanded, but you tell us what you prefer: the risk of executing a very few innocent people or the certain death of a sizable number of innocent people at the hands of recidivist killers?

Ender

 

[Lui]

You completely missed my point. I have not expressed an opinion about which choice is preferable; I have pointed out what the choices are. Your belief that a murderer locked up in a high security prison for life presents no threat to society is belied by the facts: they can, have, and will again kill (or order killings) from prison. Beyond that, many murderers are released from prison and go on to kill again - this happens roughly 40-60 times a year.

Actually I haven’t missed your point. I said that you prefer a system with the dealt penalty which assures that convicted murderers are executed so they can’t cause any more harm to others and you accept the small number of wrongly executed people because their number is smaller than the potential victims of the non-executed actual murderers.
The question is if that statement is true.
The vast majority of modern societies do not have the death penalty and have a lower murder rate as we discussed before. Those murderers who instruct further killings from prison are usually the head or part of a criminal organization. The guy who murdered his wife to cash in on her life insurance or who murders a person while mugging him will not do any further harm once locked away while the Mafia killer or gang member who is in prison will cause further deaths dead or alive because their organizations still exist and will keep on being involved in drugs, prostitution, murder etc.
I know it’s more complicated than that and agree it’s not an easy issue.

There should be experts who can really analyze what the numbers of murder rates in countries were before and after they had the death penalty and/or compare the justice systems from different nations and draw conclusions from that.

I only see that basically every modern country except of the USA and Japan don’t have the death penalty. While Japan has a very low crime rate in general the USA is one of the countries with the higher murder rates,
You have to admit that there are many areas in the USA where you wouldn’t want to walk around by yourself. Go to Sweden or Denmark. I bet you won’t find any place where you have to be scared to get murdered. Sadly a safe country like Norway recently just had one of the most gruesome mass killings by a sociopath but those are rare exceptions that can happen anywhere. The Korean student who killed many students in the US a couple of years back has nothing to do with the massive crime and murder rate you have in Detroit or Baltimore,

 

[Birdpreacher]

Your belief that a murderer locked up in a high security prison for life presents no threat to society is belied by the facts: they can, have, and will again kill (or order killings) from prison. Beyond that, many murderers are released from prison and go on to kill again - this happens roughly 40-60 times a year.
Ender

Weed whackers kill people, yet we still use weed whackers. The argument that society cant afford to lock killers up because they will kill again is weak to say the least. After all, we lock up the mentally ill who kill people, and they are just as violent if not more than the sane murderers on death row. The benefits society gains from abolishing the DP far outweigh the costs. Yes it is possible for a killer to escape and kill again but this 40-60 times a year pales in comparison to consequences of allowing the state to tinker with the machinery of death.

 

[yosupman]

hastrman & ender -

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of “extreme gravity” (No. 2266), while also stating, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means.” (No. 2267)

Ok dudes…when reading law you have to be very aware of the meaning of different words, such as the word “must”. The church is teaching the principle that if bloodless means are sufficient then you must use those means. This teaching is an authentic teaching on faith and morals. Now the application and judgement of this is up to the elected official.

Ender - the church works to persuade because it is not the church’s place to impose or force the laity the actual working out of this principle. Especially when the principle itself calls upon elected officials to use their own judgement in applying this principle.

Ender - don’t think you’re the only conservative in town. I sure hope you’re not a kool-aid drinkin’ neo-con neanderthal.

 

[Ender]

The argument that society cant afford to lock killers up because they will kill again is weak to say the least. After all, we lock up the mentally ill who kill people, and they are just as violent if not more than the sane murderers on death row. The benefits society gains from abolishing the DP far outweigh the costs. Yes it is possible for a killer to escape and kill again but this 40-60 times a year pales in comparison to consequences of allowing the state to tinker with the machinery of death.

The deaths of 40-60 innocent people a year pales in comparison to … what? What does “tinkering with the machinery of death” mean? It does seem that you are a bit cavalier with the lives of the innocent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of “extreme gravity” (No. 2266), while also stating, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means.” (No. 2267)

I don’t want to go too far down this path because I don’t consider it too significant, but the on line version says “should”, not “must”, and my hard copy of the Catechism says “will.” I accept that there is a version somewhere that says “must” but don’t make too much of that fact.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

The church is teaching the principle that if bloodless means are sufficient then you must use those means. This teaching is an authentic teaching on faith and morals.

I disagree. I believe this teaching is a prudential suggestion, not a command. This is what Cardinal Dulles said and what Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB implied.

Ender - the church works to persuade because it is not the church’s place to impose or force the laity the actual working out of this principle. Especially when the principle itself calls upon elected officials to use their own judgement in applying this principle.

If the principle is that we “must” do something specific then there is nothing to work out and capital punishment would be as prohibited as abortion, and we can be quite sure that the USCCB isn’t saying they offer “neither judgment nor condemnation” about supporting abortion.

I sure hope you’re not a kool-aid drinkin’ neo-con neanderthal.

My arguments stand or fall on their own logic whether I’m swigging kool-aid or not.

Ender

 

[yosupman]

Ender - kool aid is actually good stuff. Are you going to tell me the entire compendium by the church of it’s own teachings on social justice are not teachings, but just a bunch of opinions?

Look at Catholics United for the Faith, faith fact on the authentic magisterium:

Authentic Magisterium

  ***The authentic Magisterium represents the Pope’s authority to teach. The Pope exercises the authentic Magisterium whenever he teaches on faith and morals. Whether the document contains infallible statements or not, the document as a whole carries this authority. “[T]he faithful ‘are to adhere to it with religious assent’ which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it” (Catechism, no. 892, quoting LG 25). This level of obedience is further defined in canon 752 of the Code of Canon Law as “a religious respect of intellect and will…. [T]herefore the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid whatever is not in harmony with that teaching.”***

Ender I’m tellin’ ya…the Holy Spirit works with the magisterium, especially when teaching on faith and morals, even though the teaching may be not infallible because of the nature of the teaching.

Get on the train…its beautiful:thumbsup:

 

[Birdpreacher]

The deaths of 40-60 innocent people a year pales in comparison to … what? What does “tinkering with the machinery of death” mean? It does seem that you are a bit cavalier with the lives of the innocent.

Ender

Weedwhackers kill innocent people, why dont we get rid of those?

 

[yosupman]

Weedwhackers kill innocent people, why dont we get rid of those?

Weewhackers don’t kill people…people kill people

 

[Ender]

Are you going to tell me the entire compendium by the church of it’s own teachings on social justice are not teachings, but just a bunch of opinions?

No. I have made no comment on the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. I have made very limited and specific comments about capital punishment and I’m prepared to defend the comments I’ve actually made.

Ender

 

[TheRealJuliane]

**Weewhackers **don’t kill people…people kill people

oh ouch…

 

[GaryTaylor]

to the OP thats a resounding… NO. Doesn’t deter crime, save money or make anyone move past the issue of loss. Its barbaric period. The fact we still use it only indicates how little Homo-Sapien has made foward progess in this area.

And the Church has-zip to do with US laws. Unfortunate that would be the US driving this baby, and sideways I might add.

Peace

 

[Ender]

to the OP thats a resounding… NO. Doesn’t deter crime, save money or make anyone move past the issue of loss.

The only thing that justifies any punishment is that it be deserved based on the nature of the crime. The more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment, and for some crimes the only appropriate punishment is the forfeit of life.

Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

The only thing that justifies any punishment is that it be deserved based on the nature of the crime. The more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment, and for some crimes the only appropriate punishment is the forfeit of life.

Ender

Yes I get this {DP}. as I stated when you seriously view it, theres no logic to it, or positive result.

Just view who “they” kill and who gets life. No Logic there. Let me ask, do you see logic in this? Or is your theory “Its the best we’ve come up with so far” I could understand that, I do believe we can do better though.

In other words “why” is outlawing the DP a problem? What do you propose would be the problem?

Peace

 

[surritter]

Yes I get this {DP}. as I stated when you seriously view it, theres no logic to it, or positive result.

Just view who “they” kill and who gets life. No Logic there. Let me ask, do you see logic in this? Or is your theory “Its the best we’ve come up with so far” I could understand that, I do believe we can do better though.

In other words “why” is outlawing the DP a problem? What do you propose would be the problem?

Gary … don’t get Ender started

Read the earlier posts in this thread; we had many spirited exchanges. His position is that it certainly has to do with logic, but a logic demanded by retribution. Any deviation from this absolute requirement is deemed to be “prudential judgment.” This is based on portions of the Catechism and the Old Testament as well as Thomas Aquinas and others. (Although Aquinas is quoted as if he’s infallible, we are told that the Catechism is not an official teaching document that must be strictly agreed with… )

If I’m misrepresenting Ender, then his clarification will be forthcoming.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary … don’t get Ender started

Read the earlier posts in this thread; we had many spirited exchanges. His position is that it certainly has to do with logic, but a logic demanded by retribution. Any deviation from this absolute requirement is deemed to be “prudential judgment.” This is based on portions of the Catechism and the Old Testament as well as Thomas Aquinas and others. (Although Aquinas is quoted as if he’s infallible, we are told that the Catechism is not an official teaching document that must be strictly agreed with… )

If I’m misrepresenting Ender, then his clarification will be forthcoming.

Gottcha,

As I was stating on another thread. My issue comes into play with “prudential judgement.” And not of the CC. Of the USA. Seems to be a bit of confusion on “judgement” from where I sit and have witnessed. We are talking the virtue of prudence now. The Churchs thoughts may be interesting, however they are not authoritive. So my concern becomes. those in authority. Which is left up to politicians

I can give numerous examples just from the last administration in the USA. However I believe my point is made. Laws are words on paper. To be re-written when deemed fit to do so. I believe we can do better than all indications show as of late.

I agree with Ender in that I don’t consider it too significant either. But geez, sure is time to pay attention a little bit.

Peace