L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Ender, I want to apologize for what I wrote in post #456. It was rude and uncharitable and I don’t know why I wrote it but it was wrong for me to do so. I am very sorry. 
- Status
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
They are not extremes. They are what goes on every single day, all across the US and in other countries, too. The extreme would be a trial that is fair and just.
Yes, we should adopt a system that is better. But it seems illogical to accept execution when we have the system we have now. With the bureaucracy so bloated I can’t see that things will improve, although research in DNA has helped show that many people on death row are innocent of the capital crimes of which they were convicted. We’re killing innocent people.
Things really haven’t improved that much since Jesus, an innocent man, was executed. I’ve said this before: we, as human beings, are just not good at determining guilt.
I’m not trying to take the thread off-topic but I’d like to tell you about a case in which I was involved; not a capital case, thank God.
I was once charged with child abuse. It’s a long story but I was completely innocent and had not even been alone with my child since his birth. In fact, he was in ICU and I was ill in another hospital. How I supposedly managed to abuse a child in a hospital twenty miles away is still confusing me. The charges were dropped by the judge when it couldn’t even be determined who had accused me of the crime.
This sort of thing goes on all the time and I can say it really hurts to be accused of something so heinous as any kind of child abuse. Later on my former in-laws lied under oath in depositions and said all sorts of horrible things about me; that I’d said my father had molested me and that I had threatened to kill my son. They wanted my son, my husband had died, and I guess they believed that the ends justify the means. I still have those court papers full of lies. I should burn them because they cause me so much pain. I was poor and had to rely on a public defender. My former in-laws were wealthy and hired a very good attorney.
My son was illegally removed from my custody, based mostly on those lies, and a couple was allowed to adopt him (at least I managed to keep my son away from my husband’s parents and for that I thank God). I was told that if I did not sign papers voluntarily relinquishing my claim as my own son’s parent that my mother would be put on the witness stand and she would be attacked so vehemently that she would die from the stress. That is exactly what I was told. She would die. They were telling me they were going to kill my Mom unless I signed those papers! They might as well have held a gun to my head. I had to choose between the life of my Mom and the placement of my son. I chose the life of my Mom. My name and my late husband’s name were removed from my son’s birth certificate. I was told that I could leave my phone number and address with a state office so that my son could reach me if he wanted to. I called that number and was told the adoption had been private (no - it was processed by a county and a state) and then the man I was talking to hung up on me. The whole experience was illegal, unethical, and CRUEL.
The last time I saw my son he wasn’t even talking yet and he screamed and pushed me away. Of course he did; I was never allowed to bond with him. Babies are worth a lot. There were a lot of people who would have been very happy to pay a great deal of money to buy him.
Believe me, this goes on all the time. It’s horrible that some parents abuse their children and get away with it, maiming those they should be protecting and loving, and at the same time other parents are falsely accused and their children are removed from their custody.
Our judicial system is a mess, it’s always been a mess, and it will always be a mess.
We shouldn’t execute people unless it is the only way to protect the innocent. In order to do that we have to be able to get to the real truth. Right now we can’t. Why wasn’t the truth about me presented in court? If something that should be as simple as my case got screwed up so horribly, what goes on in capital cases?
God is the perfect judge. He knows absolutely everything about all of us; more than we know ourselves. Nobody is going to get away with murder. Every person will be judged and judged by God. I agree that the death penalty is appropriate in some cases but I believe those cases are extremely rare. I can’t serve on a jury because I’m disabled and can’t sit for long periods of time or pay the attention I would need to be able to do in order to be a good, fair juror. But if I am ever on a jury I will not vote for the death penalty.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Thank you. I’ll post the entire section and the following section:
Only God forgives sins. Since He is the Son of God, Jesus says of Himself, “The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven. Further, by virtue of his divine authority He gives this power to men to exercise in His name.
[CCC 1441, bolding added by poster for emphasis]
Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action His whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that He acquired for us at the price of His blood. But He entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which He charged with the “ministry of reconciliation.” The apostle is sent out “on behalf of Christ” with “God making His appeal” through him and pleading: “Be reconciled to God.”
[CCC 1442, bolding added by poster for emphasis]
God has given the power to forgive sins to men to exercise in His name. Through the Sacrament of Reconciliation the priest absolves us of our sins under the authority of God.
I’d also like to post some passages from the bible. We should forgive. If we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven. Yes, only God forgives sins as He is the one who has the power to forgive. When we forgive sins we forgive them in His name, under His authority, and in doing so we are being obedient to Him and showing our trust in and love for Him.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
[Matthew 5:7]
“This is how you are to pray: Our Father in heaven, hallowed be Your name, Your kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as in heaven. Give us today our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and do not subject us to the final test, but deliver us from the evil one. If you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
[Matthew 6:9-15]
Then Peter approaching asked him, “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?”
Jesus answered, “I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times. That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants. When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount. Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt. At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’ Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.
When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount.* He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’ Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’ But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt. Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair. His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to. Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’ Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt. So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”
[Matthew 18:21-35]
When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.
[Mark 11:25]
Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.
[Luke 6:37]
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
[John 20:19-23]
Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.
[Colossians 3:12-13]
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed.
[James 5:16]
All passages are from the New American Bible and all underlining has been added by this poster for emphasis.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Oh wow. How evil exists among us! That is just so, so heinous. I don’t even know what to say except my heart says those guys were just evil and I can understand why they should have been put down for, as Ender would say, retributive justice. I won’t debate this either. It’s just so awful. So cruel. So evil. I’m kind of in shock right now. Thanks for posting this. I think we need to know about things like this. And that is all I am going to say.
C
CEM5
Guest
No, it is not logical to murder people regardless of what they have done. Once a criminal is apprehended and detained behind bars, they are no longer a threat to society. To then end their life is conversely, murder.
If that said criminal was caught in the act, and threatened the immediate life of another, and was then killed by means of self-defense, that is different: It is not murder of the criminal. But all means must be used to avoid the killing of another. Ending the life of any person is to be avoided unless all other means have failed, and again, only for the purpose of self-defense.
Here is the catechism on the death penalty: (bold added by me)
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, **if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. **
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
Since our countries (I live in Canada - no death penalty) do have the non-lethal means that are sufficient to protect our society by rendering a criminal incapable of committing crimes by lockiong them up in jails, it is then considered morally evil to end the life of any criminal (aggressor).
If there was no other bloodless means to protect society, then the death penalty can be used. However, since we have the sufficient bloodless means to protect society by incarceration for life, then the State does not have the “right” to utilize this.
We Canadians up North from the Americans do not have the death penalty, and since Canada abolished the Death Penalty, murders rates dropped by 27%.
Not only that, but many innocent people have been put to death via Capital Punishment, who have later been found not guilty. It happens more than people really realize. Additionally, there are criminals tht have been “saved” given enough time incarcerated behind bars. They have come to believe in God and repented. How heaven rejoices over saving of this person’s soul. If they had been murdered prior to this via Capital Punishment, well, then, how unjust and whose blood will be on whose hands then?
Blessings,
CEM
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi miller,
You have taken the Church’s teachings out of context, and this is incorrect. The Church only permits it when there is no other means possible. Today, we have the means to incarcerate criminals, therefore, the Church teaches it is morally evil to use Capital punishment.
Capital Punishment
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ’today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [68]
Murder rates in Canada have been declining since capital punishment was abolished, whereas in those parts of USA where it is ongoing, have increased, and I will post below:
Murder Rates in Canada
The removal of capital punishment from the Canadian Criminal Code in 1976 has not led to an increase in the murder rate in Canada. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that the murder rate has generally been declining since the mid-1970s. In 2006, the national murder rate in Canada was 1.85 homicides per 100,000 population, compared to the mid-1970s when it was around 3.0.
The total number of murders in Canada in 2006 was 605, 58 fewer than in 2005.
Murder rates in Canada are generally about a third of those in the United States
U.S. stats illustrate that those States that implement capital punishment have a higher rate of police deaths and crime has escalated instead of declining.
The deterrence argument
Scientific studies have consistently failed to find convincing evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than other punishments. The most recent survey of research findings on the relation between the death penalty and homicide rates, conducted for the United Nations in 1988 and updated in 2002, concluded: “. . .it is not prudent to accept the hypothesis that capital punishment deters murder to a marginally greater extent than does the threat and application of the supposedly lesser punishment of life imprisonment.”
(Reference: Roger Hood, The Death Penalty: A World-wide Perspective, Oxford, Clarendon Press, third edition, 2002, p. 230)
cuadp.org/news/BN-20051110.htm
The case for any state exercising its awesome power to kill ought to be airtight. It is not.
The most damning argument against capital punishment as a deterrent is that states with the death penalty generally have higher rates of murder than states without the death penalty. In 2003, for example, the murder rate in the 12 states without the death penalty was 4.1 for every 100,000 people. In the 38 states with the death penalty, the murder rate was 5.91 - 44 percent higher.
Even among death penalty states, those that carry out executions the most tend to have the highest murder rates.
Texas, with the nation’s busiest death chamber, had a murder rate in 2004 of 6.1 per 100,000 people, according to FBI statistics. Alabama, with the nation’s sixth-highest death penalty rate, recorded a murder rate of 5.6 in 2004. California, which has the nation’s largest Death Row, had an even higher murder rate of 6.7 in 2004. And Louisiana, which has carried out the 10th-highest number of executions since 1976, had the nation’s highest murder rate among all states last year at 12.7 per 100,000 people.
Conversely, Massachusetts, a state without the death penalty, had a 2004 murder rate of just 2.6. Oregon, a death penalty state that rarely uses it - only twice since 1976 - had a murder rate of only 2.5, tied for eighth lowest.
R
rogosia
Guest
… died (((((
I always look here yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.
I always look here yourdeathdate.info/1/index.html
Death when it comes will have no denial.
C
CEM5
Guest
Here is what our Pope wrote:
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ev.htm
Evangelium Vitae
Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
March 25, 1995
Highlighted for emphasis by me]
As time passed, the Church’s Tradition has always consistently taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment “You shall not kill”. It is a known fact that in the first centuries, murder was put among the three most serious sins–along with apostasy and adultery–and required a particularly heavy and lengthy public penance before the repentant murderer could be granted forgiveness and readmission to the ecclesial community.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “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, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[48]
Blessings,
CEM
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ev.htm
Evangelium Vitae
Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
March 25, 1995
Highlighted for emphasis by me]
As time passed, the Church’s Tradition has always consistently taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment “You shall not kill”. It is a known fact that in the first centuries, murder was put among the three most serious sins–along with apostasy and adultery–and required a particularly heavy and lengthy public penance before the repentant murderer could be granted forgiveness and readmission to the ecclesial community.
- This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes.[43] There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
- This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.[46] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.[47]
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “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, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[48]
Blessings,
CEM
E
Elvis_Guy
Guest
It was…evil incarnate…nightmarish …I will say I did not vote I support the death penalty…I voted the 4th choice I HATED to relieve this event mentally…I even hated to give the image!!! It gave me NO pleasure to share that event less than an hour from my home…I very reluctantly shared this with my. Fellow Catholics…to give a case …where the death penalty was the only fit punishment for the crime…I stand by it should be rarely used…except in cases like this…I saw pictures of the men…evil crackled even in photos! They were of there father the Devil…they smiled…no remorse…cold…not even human…reptillian I shudder recalling them. There are Devil People on Earth…they do their masters bidding with dark glee…they winked at each other …when the death penalty was given, they cared not even for their own lives…brrrOh wow. How evil exists among us! That is just so, so heinous. I don’t even know what to say except my heart says those guys were just evil and I can understand why they should have been put down for, as Ender would say, retributive justice. I won’t debate this either. It’s just so awful. So cruel. So evil. I’m kind of in shock right now. Thanks for posting this. I think we need to know about things like this. And that is all I am going to say.
C
CEM5
Guest
Yes, you are right in saying they are of their father the devil. I wish the earth was cleansed of all evil, however, sadly, this won’t happen until Christ comes again. I long for that day.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
The meaning of the words is not obvious to me nor do I believe it is obvious to many others.
With all due respect, I don’t consider you an expert on Church teaching and I am continually troubled by statements you make that indicate you believe you are. You take a statement and extrapolate it, then imply (strongly) that your extrapolation is Church teaching. How do you know that the Church would have opposed executions on “this basis alone?” Why do you think she “must” have believed that fair trials were common? To admit the possibility of fair trials is one thing and if fair trials occurred at a time when the protection of the innocent was not possible, executions would make sense. That does not necessarily mean that fair trials were common. The Church still teaches that the death penalty may be appropriate. That does not mean that she teaches that fair trials are common. I’m sorry but I don’t know where you get some of the things you write.
I know of a case where an absolutely innocent person was executed and I believe that every person who posts in this thread will agree that he was innocent of the crime for which he was executed. Is one case enough? With full proof that even you will accept? I hope so. WHAT ABOUT JESUS?
And what about all the martyrs? Was it OK for those Romans to throw all those Christians to the lions? Were they innocent? Were they murdered? You bet they were.
-----continued in next post-----
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
-----continuation of last post-----
"Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system ‘so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life.’
It’s interesting how you use the word “certainty” with what I am allegedly accepting but “possibility” with what you are accepting. First of all, I am not willing to accept the certainty of deaths of innocent people for any reason whatsoever except natural causes and defense of country and life and limb and that sort of thing and I really wish you would stop putting words in my mouth. How many times do I have to say that the death penalty is justified if it is the only way to protect the innocent? I’m sorry but I’m tired of having to type that over and over and over. Please try to accept that once and for all. Please. And as it would be wrong for me to accept the deaths of innocent people (with the stipulations I have stated) it is wrong for you to accept the deaths of innocent people (with those same stipulations). Right? Well, what about the innocent people on death row? What about their deaths? Why is it somehow acceptable for them to die via execution, innocent as they are, while it’s not acceptable for innocent people who are not on death row to die (with the stipulations I have already listed)? Innocent people are innocent people and where they happen to be should have nothing to do with whether they should be killed. That’s one of the main arguments against abortion. We don’t have the right to kill innocent people in the womb, on the street, in houses, or on death row. We just don’t have the right to kill innocent people. What about those people I mentioned in post #459? The ones that were exonerated while on death row? I guess if they had been executed you would say that it couldn’t be proven that they were innocent. It’s a good thing their innocence was discovered before they were executed. Would you be happy if they had been executed? Would you have thought their executions were appropriate? This is part of what I stated in that post:
"Some of the worst cases occurred in Illinois. In 2000, then-Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on executions after 13 people had been exonerated from death row for reasons including genetic testing and recanted testimony. Ryan declared the system ‘so fraught with error that it has come close to the ultimate nightmare, the state’s taking of innocent life.’
For some reason you either can’t or won’t accept that our understanding of truth develops and clarifies over time. I’ve provided CCC 1956 and 1957 twice now. You say they aren’t relevant. They are definitely relevant. The Church’s teachings reflect the times. At the present time we can keep the innocent safe so there is no need in most cases for the death penalty. Do you deny that the people on death row are God’s precious lambs? That they have souls, will be judged, and will have eternal life? That they were created in God’s image? Are they HUMAN BEINGS? If they are (hint: they are) then executing them when the innocent can be protected is an affront to their dignity.
Why am I not surprised?
What new truth has been discovered? I never said a new truth has been discovered.
Ender, please stop putting words in my mouth. Where did I ever say that forgiveness pays the debt that sin incurs? Why would I say something like that? (Never mind; that is a rhetorical question.) I believe I have stated in this thread that forgiving a person is for the good of the victim’s soul. You might try looking at post #482. We are supposed to forgive. If we forgive others’ sins against us then God will forgive our sins. Isn’t this Church teaching? Are those bible passages wrong in what they state? It’s always been my understanding that we are taught to forgive. Isn’t that part of the Lord’s Prayer? “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us?” Do I have that right?
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Addendum to post #490: I bolded and underlined part of a quote from a post but forgot to state that it was not originally underlined. I missed the deadline for editing. I apologize for any confusion.
S
schaubj57
Guest
I thank you for your prayers and I take no offense to your opinion.
I never fully understood that it wasn’t my fault until I started talking to people about what happened to me. For years I lived with the guilt that I didn’t stop it, didn’t report it, and that I felt I let it happen. Hindsight’s 20/20 and I know now that it should have been handled much differently. I know pedophiles are hated in prison. During the trial I mentioned earlier, the states witness said that if that molester went to prison he would have to be segregated out and be by himself becasue he was proven in court to be such a repeat offender as a minister and two times before as a school teacher before he was caught a third time as a school teacher.
No hard feelings on my end.
E
Ender
Guest
Thank you for saying this.Ender, I want to apologize for what I wrote in post #456. It was rude and uncharitable and I don’t know why I wrote it but it was wrong for me to do so. I am very sorry.
E
E
Ender
Guest
I just covered this point in a response to surriter. This is why the Catechism of Trent said that the “just use” of capital punishment was an act of “paramount obedience”. No one has suggested that capital punishment cannot be used unjustly or that the Church would accept such acts as valid. You claimed that many innocent people have been executed in the United States. I asked you to document a claim I consider to be outlandish. I’ve looked at some of the anti-death penalty web sites and it is clear from what they themselves post that your claim is wildly inaccurate.
Ender
K
kim_zef
Guest
Amen Bro, you rock.
I take my example from the Little FLower, St. Therese. Her first miracle was an answer to the prayer for the conversion of a convicted murder. He converted by kissing a crucifix right before he was hung. She didn’t waste her time praying for an end to the death penalty in France.
The last time our state had an execution, our priest asked the congregation to pray for a commuting of his sentence. I did not. But I did offer up a prayer for his conversion. He had been on death row for nearly 20 years after kidnapping, torturing and raping for 3 days, and finally stabbing to death a young woman. It wasn’t a heartfelt prayer , but I made myself do it because I knew it was the right thing.
K
kim_zef
Guest
Quote by CEM5:
“If there was no other bloodless means to protect society, then the death penalty can be used. However, since we have the sufficient bloodless means to protect society by incarceration for life, then the State does not have the “right” to utilize this.”
There is a society within a prison that needs to be protected. My husband while working in a maximum security prison was attacked. We worried for a year that he had contracted HIV.
Recently in a maximum security prison where we live, a female guard was killed.
How many fellow prisoners are the victims of murder from the hands of other inmates.
There are some individuals who are so violent that even the society within a prison cannot be adequately protected.
“If there was no other bloodless means to protect society, then the death penalty can be used. However, since we have the sufficient bloodless means to protect society by incarceration for life, then the State does not have the “right” to utilize this.”
There is a society within a prison that needs to be protected. My husband while working in a maximum security prison was attacked. We worried for a year that he had contracted HIV.
Recently in a maximum security prison where we live, a female guard was killed.
How many fellow prisoners are the victims of murder from the hands of other inmates.
There are some individuals who are so violent that even the society within a prison cannot be adequately protected.
E
Ender
Guest
What is certain is that some small (~ 3) percent of killers will kill again. What is uncertain is that an innocent person will be executed. If we are concerned solely with saving innocent lives then it is clear that opposing capital punishment is the wrong position.
There are between 40 and 60 murders committed each year in the US by recidivist killers. Even accepting the worst case scenario presented by anti-death penalty groups there would be about one innocent person executed every five years. That’s a ratio of about 250:1. That is, to save the life of one innocent person from being wrongfully executed we have to sacrifice the lives of 250 others to murderers given a second bite at the apple. If protection of the public was really all that important we would be executing more killers, not fewer.
We have a choice to make. Option A results in the death of one innocent person. Option B results in the death of 250. Option A is not ideal but it is surely preferable to Option B.
We don’t have a right to knowingly execute an innocent person and no one has claimed otherwise but it is unclear why action that results in one innocent death is preferable to inaction that results in 250.
Her doctrines are timeless. Her prudential recommendations on the application of those teachings may very well reflect the times and I think that is exactly the case here. Her prudential recommendation with regard to capital punishment is that it should not be used. Her doctrine, however, is that it may be used as a form of retributive justice.
I don’t think you appreciate the irony in that statement. It is *because *we are created in God’s image that the life of a murderer is forfeit. What you cite as the reason to oppose capital punishment is the reason God gave for commanding it.
What are you implying here? What effect does our forgiveness have on determining the just punishment for a crime? Take the case Elvis Guy just cited and assume that the victim’s family forgave the perpetrator. How should the state have punished him for his crime? Does the family’s forgiveness lessen his debt?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is incorrect. The Church does not teach that capital punishment is morally evil unless it is needed for protection. She has always taught that capital punishment could be justly used as a matter of retributive justice. She may prefer that it not be used today but that is not the same as condemning its use as evil.
Ender
- Status