Do you support the death penalty?

[LittleSoldier]

I support the death penalty. Main reason…these criminals can NOT function in society, They do NOT get rehabilitated. Heck, most of them are not even remorseful.

Do you have any supporting evidence regarding “functioning in society,” “NOT” being rehabilitated, most not even being remorseful?

I keep thinking of the 4 cops that were gunned down in Lakewood Washington a couple years ago. MIke Huckabee had reduced the sentence of the gunman.

Look what happened.

Those 4 cops would not have lost their lives if the gunman had been executed back in Arkansas.

People should ask those cops’ remaining family if THEY support the death penalty.
I have a feeling which way they lean!

“?? ??” I have a feeling which way they lean, too, but it doesn’t matter because neither of us really knows.

Have you ever heard of St. Maria Goretti? She was a twelve year-old girl who was stabbed 14 times. Her murderer was caught. He was released from prison after 27 years. Was he rehabilitated?

I believe this may be private revelation and so I can’t discuss it here the way I wish to. But I hope you google “Maria Goretti,” learn a bit more about what forgiveness means, and find out what happened to her murderer.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I am 100 percent for it. The Church advises that the State has the right to put to death those that are a danger to society. (Society is composed of those inside and outside the prison.) If the Church does not allow us to support the death penalty, it should make it a sin, but it clearly has not.
What some people don’t realize is that these criminals also kill others inside and outside the jails while still incarcerated. Are you going to isolate them in the jail? What is more humane, to completely isolate someone, or tell them the day they are going to meet their Maker? I opt for the latter. Those that say that some of these hardened criminals can be safely incarcerated, have obviously not dealt with criminals.
I also support it because it ticks off the liberal nuns.

I actually took your post seriously until I read the last line. Now I know a bit more. Your last sentence is uncharitable and does nothing to further your argument; in fact, it weakens it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Sadly, you are reflecting only your lack of charity.

Hardly uncharitable.

Reconsider.

Ender, seemingly, only using established Church teachings, has made a solid case, in what he sees as defending Church Truths. So far, no one has, sucessfully, refuted what he has presented.

Actually I believe that several posters, including myself, have made a solid case and are defending Church Truths. I also believe that the poster to whom you refer has been successfully refuted in what he has presented. Most of the posters in this thread are trying to defend Church teaching, even if they do not agree with you or with the poster to whom you have referred here.

I have seen no one showing an exhuberent thirst for blood, unless you are wrongly accusing those well known Church scholars, Saints, Popes, etc, whose quotes have been used, throughout.

I think that was just an unfortunate and uncalled for personal “dig”.

Do better.

What is it with people ordering other people around? I keep seeing that in this thread and it is not charitable or polite.

If someone, with reflection, care and concern, finds an error in Chuch teaching, how uncharitable would it be not to point it out?

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.”

(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome, 2007)

It is more than safe to say that if PJPII had not, wrongly, introduced the restriction, there would have been no amendment to the CCC, because the amendment is based upon the restriction.

If the nature of the restriction was wrong, the amendment was wrong.

“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.”

(R.M. Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L, 2003)

The Catechisms main purpose is to give the faithful a dependable referrence of Chuch teachings for means of clarity, the opposite of what has happened, here.

Are any of the persons you quoted members of the Magisterium? The CCC has a Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur - which mean that nothing stated in the document conflicts with Church teaching. That is good enough for me. I will bow to the authority of the Magisterium and will continue to follow Church teaching. That is my right and my duty.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Forgiveness does not exclude a just sanction, in fact a just sanction and particularly the death penalty may provide expiation, as the Church teaches.

Did I state otherwise? I have not said that the death penalty is always inappropriate; that, clearly, is not what the Church teaches.

The person to offer earthly forgiveness is dead.

There are always more victims than just the person who was murdered. The murderer is a victim, the loved ones of the murdered person are victims, and evil has been introduced into the world. Evil is pervasive and touches everyone. So - absolutely ever single person in the world has been affected by the evil that murder involves. Everyone needs to forgive the murderer for the good of their own souls.

No one stated or implied that execution made folks happy.

Neither did I. I was responding to Post #93 in which the following was stated:
“We’ll just lock him up to protect ourselves from him and all be happy … all, perhaps, except for those like myself who believe that the punishment needs to be commensurate with the severity of the crime, and that prison alone does not rise to that level.”
My point is that what will make the loved ones of a murder victim truly happy can only be achieved with the return of their loved one (or at least that is probably their perception). That is not going to happen if the murderer is executed nor will it happen if the murderer is kept in prison for the rest of his life.

There is no earthly closure in the murder of a loved one or in the execution of the murderer.

Of course there isn’t. My point was that closure cannot be achieved. Not total closure, at least on earth.

There are two important points though.

Execution is the end of the legal process and, more importantly, for the murder victim survivors, is the fact that the murderer(s) can no longer harm or murder, again, a result which no other sanction can claim.

Execution is not necessarily the end of the legal process. It is the end of the alleged murderer’s life on earth. New evidence can be found which may exonerate the person who was executed. It happened in the Christie case in England.

watfordobserver.co.uk/nostalgia/crimelibrary/johnchristie/

I disagree that no other sanction can claim that the murderer(s) can no longer harm or murder. Certainly steps can be taken to ensure that no innocent person will be harmed - even if the murderer is in prison. Procedures would have to be changed but it could be done.

Whether the murder victim survivors want justice or vengeance is important. However, it is the criminal justice system which imposes sanction.

 

[yosupman]

Once a year…take all da crims on death row…ok…line…em up…and pull the triger…

unfortunately thats the attitude a lot of people take.

 

[otjm]

To all who have said anything concerning the ability of the prison system to protect others, I would suggest a bit of research: first, research how many people incarcerated for a crime have killed a fellow inmate. Inmates have a right to be protected from killers; the system is, to put not too polite a comment on it, inadequate. We are about to execute an individual in Oregon (early December) who did so.

And if you want a prison system that should be excellent at protecting the public, I would vote for the federal system. While you are researching, look up what the imam who was involved in the World Trade Center bombing was up to after he was incarcerated - because he wa caught (while in prison) numerous innocent civilians were saved - but only because they managed to catch him attempting more murders; not because the system actually works well to protect the innocent.

And how many murders were committed at the behest of Mafia incarcerated for various crimes - whether they were other mobsters, or attorneys, jurists, jury members or whomever?

It is a figment of the imagination of the uninformed masses that once someone is incarcerated, others are protected.

Having said that, I am against the death penalty because so often in death penalty cases, innocent people have been convicted. Further, the amount of money it costs to house someone for the rest of their natural life pales in comparison to how expensive it is to execute them.

As to the bit about giving someone all the time they need to convert, it was Samuel Johnson who said that nothing sharpens the mind quite so much as knowing that one is to be hanged in the morning.

However, if an individual is attacking another and the victim dispatches the criminal, I shed no tears. The criminal placed themselves in that position by choice, by their own responsibility. That criminal has far less time to make amends with God than someone on death row the 10, 12, 15 or more years.

 

[LittleSoldier]

To all who have said anything concerning the ability of the prison system to protect others, I would suggest a bit of research: first, research how many people incarcerated for a crime have killed a fellow inmate. Inmates have a right to be protected from killers; the system is, to put not too polite a comment on it, inadequate. We are about to execute an individual in Oregon (early December) who did so.

Who is “we?” Certainly not all Oregonians! I am ashamed of the state of Oregon, although I am not surprised.

It is a figment of the imagination of the uninformed masses that once someone is incarcerated, others are protected.

I don’t know that many people who believe that once someone is incarcerated others are protected. What I have found is that people believe it is possible to develop a system in which the innocent are protected and that we have that capability right now - not that such a system exists at this very moment.

As to the bit about giving someone all the time they need to convert, it was Samuel Johnson who said that nothing sharpens the mind quite so much as knowing that one is to be hanged in the morning.

Was Mr. Johnson infallible? I disagree with what he stated. But then I’m not infallible, either, so I would submit that neither Mr. Johnson nor I really knows what goes on in a person’s mind when that person is facing hanging in the morning.

However, if an individual is attacking another and the victim dispatches the criminal, I shed no tears. The criminal placed themselves in that position by choice, by their own responsibility. That criminal has far less time to make amends with God than someone on death row the 10, 12, 15 or more years.

I’m confused by your wording here. When you use the word “individual” are you referring to a prison inmate, a criminal, or someone who is defending her life and/or property? Would you please clarify? Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If the Church doesn’t claim it to be true then you should be a bit more reticent about claiming it in her name.

(First let me say that I have been thinking a lot and that my conception of God and His omniscience has changed a bit over the last few days).

What did I claim to be true in the Church’s name? It was obvious (as I stated so) that my belief is my opinion. The Church does not claim to know all truth. If she did she would be able to tell us what happens to aborted babies and where specific people end up after death - all of them. She doesn’t.

There are cases where guilt is known with absolute certainty. Do you support capital punishment in those cases? If not then drop this objection since it’s not relevant.

First of all, please please please do not tell me what to do. If I’m breaking a forum rule then please report my post to the moderator. Otherwise, please just don’t do that to me. It pushes a button I hate to have pushed. You are not my mother, the moderator, the president of Catholic Answers, my priest, or God. If I want to post something that is acceptable per forum rules I will do so. Please. That is my right.

As I have stated several times I do not support capital punishment except when it is the only way to protect the innocent. I do not believe that any cases exist where guilt is known with absolute certainty (at least where human beings know guilt with absolute certainty). Would you please provide links to these cases? Guilt consists of more than being found to have committed an action. The concept of “guilt” includes culpability. Is a six year-old who picked up a handgun and shot his friend dead guilty of murder? Sure - he did it. Maybe he did it in front of fifty people. But that does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of murder. There are always factors which need to be taken into consideration when determining guilt.

What you don’t seem to be able to comprehend is that human beings *cannot *know guilt with absolute certainty. And that is because we are not omniscient. We can probably determine that Robert killed James but we can’t see into Robert’s heart and soul nor can we understand every facet of his personality and every single tiny bit of his life. Only God can do that and only God can be perfectly just. God knows the bits of atoms that form each of us. He knows absolutely everything.

If you have an operational definition of guilt I would like to see it. We may be talking about different definitions of “guilt.” Thank you.

I don’t accept that this represents a greater understanding of Truth. What happened to the concept of justice?

I’m sorry but I have no idea what you are asking me here.

What has the Magisterium said on this point? I don’t believe there is anything to follow.

The Magisterium’s teaching is in the CCC and that teaching is what we should follow.

It does seem that Amerio’s position is the most reasonable one.

To *you *it may seem that Amerio’s position is the most reasonable one. I’ve already stated that I disagree with him so it should be obvious that I don’t believe his position is the most reasonable one.

Do we really believe that person A can frustrate God’s plan for person B? What of the murder victim? Is he damned because his life was cut off before he righted his own ship?

I’m not sure what you mean by “God’s plan.” If He has a plan in mind for each of us any of us can frustrate it because we have free will. If the murder victim is killed before he rights his own ship then he *may *be damned. I can’t say because I don’t know. Certainly God knows if a person would have atoned for his sins if he hadn’t been murdered and He also knows if a person would have atoned for his sins if he hadn’t been executed as a convicted murderer. Perhaps God takes this all into consideration. Being omniscient has its advantages - God knows absolutely everything that has happened and that could have happened.

If it is unfair for the State to execute a criminal (after a decade or so) is it not even more unfair for God to allow disasters to snuff out lives without warning or even the possibility of repentance? God has granted the State the right to employ the death penalty. It seems a bit strained to claim that the State isn’t justified in doing what God allows.

Why did you say “after a decade or so?”

It doesn’t seem “strained” to me at all for two reasons:

(1) The State is not God and cannot act as God acts. The State is composed of fallible, sinning human beings. God is omniscient, omnipotent, and ever-loving. God does not accept bribes, knows when people are lying, and is not voted into office. The laws he enforces are not man-made laws which change due to consensus. His laws are unchanging. God is perfect; the State, even if it managed to be as good as it could be (which never occurs) cannot approach the perfection of God, just as mere human beings cannot approach the perfection of God.

(2) The State does not own human beings or their lives. God does. He is our Creator and our lives belong to Him. God cannot be “unfair” because He is perfect.

I would hope that everyone would agree that God has the power and knowledge necessary for perfect justice. I would also hope that everyone would agree that nobody can escape God’s justice.

 

[chevalier]

I don’t but there are circumstances in which it may be necessary. In that case, it actually fits within the entitlement of the sovereign to mete out penalties rather than being a mere case of necessity (like that case in which you need to shoot somebody down outside of any court process due to impending danger he poses).

 

[otjm]

I do not believe that any cases exist where guilt is known with absolute certainty (at least where human beings know guilt with absolute certainty). Would you please provide links to these cases? Guilt consists of more than being found to have committed an action. The concept of “guilt” includes culpability. Is a six year-old who picked up a handgun and shot his friend dead guilty of murder? Sure - he did it. Maybe he did it in front of fifty people. But that does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of murder. There are always factors which need to be taken into consideration when determining guilt.

You seem to be confusing moral guilt with legal guilt. In death penalty cases - or fior that matter, any criminal case, the issue is not moral guilt but legal guilt; and that has to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. that standard is not one of “no possible doubt, not matter how unreasonable”. Nor is it “absolute” proof. However, in numerous legal cases, there is “absolute” proof in so far as the law is concerned. Moral guilt is not weighed in the courtroom; that is up to God. The law does not presume to be God, nor to weigh in on Go’d terriotory; it only concerns itself with legal guilt.

And as to your last statement, in a well - tried case, all of those factors are taken into consideration. And the jury, or the judge then decides if the proof from the prosecuting attorney is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; and issues of age, mental stability, insanity, mental defect and etc. are all subjected to the same standard of proof.

The Magisterium’s teaching is in the CCC and that teaching is what we should follow.

The difficulty is that the Magisterium’s explanation is less than a) binding; and most certainly less than b)clear. In particular I would note John Paul’s statement, which is personal opinion, to wit: that the current penal system is capable of protecting others from the criminal so convicted. There are numerous cases of convicted killers killing another inmate or a prison guard/other corrections individual; and see my post above concerning the activities of the imam after he was incarcerated for his part in bombing the World Trade Towers. It is nowhere as simple as you would indicate.

 

[Ender]

The difficulty is that the Magisterium’s explanation is less than a) binding; and most certainly less than b)clear. In particular I would note John Paul’s statement, which is personal opinion, to wit: that the current penal system is capable of protecting others from the criminal so convicted.

It is obvious that any estimate of the capabilities of modern penal systems is opinion and not doctrine and we may surely disagree as to whether society is adequately protected when killers are imprisoned, but the larger question goes to the second part of 2267 which holds that prison *“better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and [is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” *It is one thing to contend that imprisonment is inadequate for protection and another thing entirely to reject the claim that prison conforms better to human dignity.

How are we to understand that claim? Is it prudential? Is it accurate? It doesn’t seem defensible to me based on the Church’s own explanations of justice, punishment, and personal responsibility. What is an affront to someone’s dignity is not to hold him accountable for his actions. That’s how we treat children but adults are responsible for what they do and this extends to the punishment they must bear for the crimes they have committed. It surely cannot be undignified to treat a person justly and justice requires not just punishment but punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. For the crime of murder the commensurate punishment has been laid out for us: the life of the killer is forfeit. It is not at all clear how following the directions specified not merely by the Church but by God himself can be improper.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

You seem to be confusing moral guilt with legal guilt. In death penalty cases - or fior that matter, any criminal case, the issue is not moral guilt but legal guilt; and that has to be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”. that standard is not one of “no possible doubt, not matter how unreasonable”. Nor is it “absolute” proof. However, in numerous legal cases, there is “absolute” proof in so far as the law is concerned. Moral guilt is not weighed in the courtroom; that is up to God. The law does not presume to be God, nor to weigh in on Go’d terriotory; it only concerns itself with legal guilt.

And as to your last statement, in a well - tried case, all of those factors are taken into consideration. And the jury, or the judge then decides if the proof from the prosecuting attorney is “beyond a reasonable doubt”; and issues of age, mental stability, insanity, mental defect and etc. are all subjected to the same standard of proof.

The difficulty is that the Magisterium’s explanation is less than a) binding; and most certainly less than b)clear. In particular I would note John Paul’s statement, which is personal opinion, to wit: that the current penal system is capable of protecting others from the criminal so convicted. There are numerous cases of convicted killers killing another inmate or a prison guard/other corrections individual; and see my post above concerning the activities of the imam after he was incarcerated for his part in bombing the World Trade Towers. It is nowhere as simple as you would indicate.

I’ve written two responses but have decided to not post them. I want to check a book I found (I’m going through all my books and I have about a million) that discusses the death penalty. I just wanted you to know that I’m not ignoring you and I want to give the best response I can. Right now I can say that your dividing “guilt” into “moral guilt” and “legal guilt” is, at the very least, a good first step. And you might be correct in that I am confusing them (in my defense, I haven’t run across those terms before or if I did I don’t remember). I think that defining “guilt” is extremely important, which is why I asked for clarification. Thank you for providing at least the beginnings of operational definitions.

But the more I think about it the more problems I see. I don’t want to take the thread off-topic and I think that the responses I wrote but didn’t post may have resulted in that. So please give me some time and I’ll do my best. I do apologize if I gave the impression that I believe that fixing our current system would be easy. I don’t believe that. But I believe that it can be done. I also want to think a bit more. I will never support the death penalty unless it is the only way to protect the innocent. That much is clear to me. I want to use that as a basis for my arguments and right now I’m not sure how to do that. Please bear with me. I will respond to your points. I promise.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is obvious that any estimate of the capabilities of modern penal systems is opinion and not doctrine and we may surely disagree as to whether society is adequately protected when killers are imprisoned, but the larger question goes to the second part of 2267 which holds that prison *“better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and [is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” *It is one thing to contend that imprisonment is inadequate for protection and another thing entirely to reject the claim that prison conforms better to human dignity.

How are we to understand that claim? Is it prudential? Is it accurate? It doesn’t seem defensible to me based on the Church’s own explanations of justice, punishment, and personal responsibility. What is an affront to someone’s dignity is not to hold him accountable for his actions. That’s how we treat children but adults are responsible for what they do and this extends to the punishment they must bear for the crimes they have committed. It surely cannot be undignified to treat a person justly and justice requires not just punishment but punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. For the crime of murder the commensurate punishment has been laid out for us: the life of the killer is forfeit. It is not at all clear how following the directions specified not merely by the Church but by God himself can be improper.

Ender

Ender, what is an adult? Is a 45 year-old with an IQ of 11 an adult? What about a 17 year-old who used an Uzi to massacre as many people as possible? What about a paranoid schizophrenic who claims that his dog has given him orders to kill specific people? What about a 22 year-old who appears to be possessed by a demon? What about a woman who kills her newborn daughter, allegedly because she is suffering from postpartum depression? What about a person with a sleep disorder, uncontrolled by medication, who kills her husband but has no recollection of doing so? Are these people responsible for what they do? Is the term “adult” sufficient?

 

[Ender]

Are these people responsible for what they do?

I don’t find this question compelling. Whatever problems may occur in making a determination of a person’s responsibility in any particular case, surely there should be no disagreement that, in general, people are responsible for their actions. To argue that a person should not be held accountable for his actions is in fact to disregard his dignity as a moral agent.

16. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII - Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t find this question compelling. Whatever problems may occur in making a determination of a person’s responsibility in any particular case, surely there should be no disagreement that, in general, people are responsible for their actions. To argue that a person should not be held accountable for his actions is in fact to disregard his dignity as a moral agent.

Is there some reason you refuse to answer the main question I asked you? I asked you: What is an adult? You didn’t answer my question but instead picked out one little sentence out of my post and didn’t even really respond to that appropriately. So, I’m asking you again:

WHAT IS AN ADULT?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t find this question compelling. Whatever problems may occur in making a determination of a person’s responsibility in any particular case, surely there should be no disagreement that, in general, people are responsible for their actions. To argue that a person should not be held accountable for his actions is in fact to disregard his dignity as a moral agent.

16. Sin, in the proper sense, is always a personal act, since it is an act of freedom on the part of an individual person and not properly of a group or community. This individual may be conditioned, incited and influenced by numerous and powerful external factors. He may also be subjected to tendencies, defects and habits linked with his personal condition. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested-even though in a negative and disastrous way-also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII - Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

Ender

I’m not going to argue with Blessed John Paul II. I agree that sin is always a personal act; that is so obvious that I’m surprised it was even stated. What else could it be? Free will is the basis for all our voluntary actions, including sin. If we can’t control what we do we do not sin. That is why cats and dogs cannot sin. They don’t have the capability for doing so.

Yes, the human person is free. But *how *free? Did you post this quote from Blessed John Paul II to indicate that any factors which might influence a person (being abused as a child, being mentally ill, having a low IQ, being tried as an adult even though the person is not considered an adult by society (he can’t buy alcohol, etc.)) and therefore his free will are not important?

Do you know what sin is? I’m sure you know that three criteria are necessary in order for a mortal sin to be committed:
(1) the act must be grievous (as in murder);
(2) the person must *know * the action is grievous;
(3) the person must commit the grievous act with full consent.

I don’t think the judicial system recognizes the Church’s definition of mortal sin and I have a feeling that you don’t either (I’m not trying to be uncharitable; I don’t understand why you would post this quote unless you don’t understand mortal sin).

"there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin."

I’m not disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that sin is not recognized by the State and that simply looking at an act which a person has committed does not tell us if that person is guilty of the sin that act might entail. And that is because sin is very personal and *depends *on *internal * factors that seem not to matter to you or to the State but matter very much to an omniscient God. It seems to me that what you are saying is that if Person A (who is 18 years old or older) picks up a gun and shoots Person B, resulting in the death of Person B and if this can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that Person A should be executed.

Is this what you are saying?

And furthermore, are you saying there are no factors which can determine the culpability of Person A to the point that it is decided that Person A is not guilty of his action? And this is because to not give Person A responsibility for his actions is to deny his freedom and dignity?

One more question: Do you think that the State is successful in determining whether a person is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Always? (OK, that’s two questions.)

Please answer these questions. Please don’t just pick one out and ignore the rest of my post. I’m trying to understand why you are so hell-bent on executing those who the State has determined are guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Ender]

Is there some reason you refuse to answer the main question I asked you? I asked you: What is an adult?****

I didn’t answer the question because it isn’t relevant and getting to a debate about who is an adult is simply a distraction. I don’t really care how you define the term. We should at least be able to agree that adults exist so the (real) question remains: should adults be executed?

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that what you are saying is that if Person A (who is 18 years old or older) picks up a gun and shoots Person B, resulting in the death of Person B and if this can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that Person A should be executed. Is this what you are saying?

In general, yes, but there are always circumstances that need to be addressed in each particular case that might make that case an exception.

And furthermore, are you saying there are no factors which can determine the culpability of Person A to the point that it is decided that Person A is not guilty of his action? And this is because to not give Person A responsibility for his actions is to deny his freedom and dignity?

As I said, circumstances need to be addressed for each case but in general it should be assumed that people are responsible for their actions, and, as JPII said, not holding them accountable is an offense against their dignity.

One more question: Do you think that the State is successful in determining whether a person is guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Always? (OK, that’s two questions.)

Guilt is almost always determined beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’m trying to understand why you are so hell-bent on executing those who the State has determined are guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mischaracterizing my position does nothing to rebut my arguments. I think I have been rather plain about why I take the position I do: it is based on my understanding of what the Church teaches about punishment, justice, retribution, mercy, expiation, forgiveness, and the responsibility of the State.

I’ll repeat that: my position is based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[Jeremiah1278]

John Wayne Gacey was given the death penalty. He MURDERED at least 32 people.
Mostly teen boys.
anyone feel bad HE was executed? I sure don’t.

I don’t feel bad or good about it. Charles Manson is terrible too. He still roams around in his little cell. I don’t feel good or bad about the fact that he won’t be executed. In the end, though, it’s irrelevant how I feel about it. I don’t think Christ called for us to do whatever made us feel best in these types of situation. I don’t recall a lot of glorification of revenge or closure.

So, to answer the thread title: no I don’t support the death penalty in the United States for any offense.**

 

[LittleSoldier]

John Wayne Gacey was given the death penalty. He MURDERED at least 32 people.
Mostly teen boys.
anyone feel bad HE was executed? I sure don’t.

The execution of John Wayne Gacey was inappropriate. We do not have the right to take another human being’s life except in the case where it is the only way to protect the innocent. Executing Gacey did not bring his victims (assuming he was truly guilty of the crimes of which he was found guilty) back to life.

I abhor the death penalty and I abhor the fact that Gacey was executed.

I FEEL BAD. He should not have been executed.