Gang members can be justifiably executed

  • Thread starter Thread starter FaithBuild18
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FaithBuild18

Guest
Street gangs are an increasingly prevalent and violent problem rapidly growing in America. The most dangerous aspect of these organizations is the fact that even after being placed behind bars, they are sanctioning crimes and organizing murders. Street gangs, specifically higher ranking warlords, are still a threat to civilization behind bars. The justice system utterly fails at detaining these criminals.

Where it gets worse is in Mexico. Mexican drug cartels effectively own the prisons. Guards are paid off, judges are paid off, elected officials are paid off, or else killed. In Mexican prisons, security guards (paid off) will allow gang members to leave their cells at night, conduct a crime or murder in society, and return to their cell without ever saying a word to authorities. What good would it do to say words to authorities when the authorities are under the jurisdiction of the drug cartels?

This problem is rapidly spreading across our Southern border, as many border control agents are paid off, allowing the infestation of American cities by these morally depraved, degenerate criminals. Every major city in the United States of America is now infested with Mexican drug cartels. The justice system, prisons, are not enough to combat this threat, and do nothing to deter the wicked violence these people perpetrate. The Los Zetas are renown for attacking ordinary civilizians, torturing innocent human beings, making bystanders fight to the death, taking the victor captive and forcing them into a life submissive to their cartel.

This is a grave threat to this entire continent, and cannot be taken lightly.

CCC 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.*

I do not believe in capital punishment in the vast majority of cases, as outlined by the Catechism. I am in complete agreement with the Catechism. This is one of those rare situations, as mentioned, in which the state has NO effective way of rendering one who has committed an offence incapable of doing harm, other than by executing that person.

The only way to protect society from the demonic clutches (many gangs do indeed practice satanic worship) of these gangs is to cut the head off the snake and enforce a zero tolerance policy toward gang activities. Not only can gang warlords be executed justifiably, but they SHOULD be executed in order to fulfil our just responsibility of protecting society from further crimes.
 
Gang members live under the threat of execution every single day, at the hands of people who don’t concern themselves with due process or humane methods.

Making gang activity a capital crime won’t deter gang activity one bit.
 
We need to continuously pray for people like this. Not only are these activities dangerous to THEM, but they are endangering innocents as well. So very sad. 😦
 
This line of thinking leads us to a very dark place. The only result from such an enactment of law would be vigilantism. Gun battles breaking out in the streets. I don’t just mean the streets of chicago every night. I mean every city everywhere. Anyone who was thought to be in a gang could be gunned down out of fear that their illicit activities might bring harm to innocents. This kind of paranoia would lead to a bloodbath. Our system of law can’t contain this problem and something new has to be developed. But what the op proposes is short of anarchy. It’s chaos.
 
The only punishment for gang membership that would have any deterant effect at all considering the fact that very few, if any, gang members have done any manual labor in their lives, would be long prison sentances in conjuction with enforced hard labor.
Unfortunately, this is most unlikely to happen in the US because the lefties in our society would call that “cruel and unusual punishment” and find a tame liberal judge to back them up.
 
This line of thinking leads us to a very dark place. The only result from such an enactment of law would be vigilantism. Gun battles breaking out in the streets. I don’t just mean the streets of chicago every night. I mean every city everywhere. Anyone who was thought to be in a gang could be gunned down out of fear that their illicit activities might bring harm to innocents. This kind of paranoia would lead to a bloodbath. Our system of law can’t contain this problem and something new has to be developed. But what the op proposes is short of anarchy. It’s chaos.
Absolute nonsense! You are just spouting the claptrap of the anti-gun people. If you look at the situation, you will find most serious gang activity in large cities that have the strictest restrictive gun laws on the books: Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City.
Cities that have the most liberal gun laws for the general public also have the least gun activity, and I defy you to proove that there are rivers of blood in the streets.
In states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, in which any honest citizen can get a concealed carry permit for a hand gun just by filling out an application and asking for one, and allow their citizens to have a right to self defense, have the least gang activity. Why, because gang members for all of their bluster are cowards at heart…and they know that in such a climate they would be shot down where they stand.
Richmond, Va. which has some of the most liberal firearms laws in the country all but eliminated their gang problems a few years ago by calling in the Feds and insisting on strict enforcement of the Federal Gun Laws. A ton of people went to
Federal Prison for long periods and the problem was solved within 18 months.
 
If you want to take power away from the street gangs decriminalze all drugs and let their abuse be solved by social welfare policies. Portugal decriminalized all drugs and their drug use has actually gone down. Just like in the 20’s when we prohibited alcohol gangs involved in the alcohol trade gained power and influence with the money they had. Gangs today are doing the same thing.
 
This line of thinking leads us to a very dark place. The only result from such an enactment of law would be vigilantism. Gun battles breaking out in the streets. I don’t just mean the streets of chicago every night. I mean every city everywhere. Anyone who was thought to be in a gang could be gunned down out of fear that their illicit activities might bring harm to innocents. This kind of paranoia would lead to a bloodbath. Our system of law can’t contain this problem and something new has to be developed. But what the op proposes is short of anarchy. It’s chaos.
*Vigilantism *is not the proper term for what you describe.
 
This line of thinking leads us to a very dark place. The only result from such an enactment of law would be vigilantism. Gun battles breaking out in the streets. I don’t just mean the streets of chicago every night. I mean every city everywhere. Anyone who was thought to be in a gang could be gunned down out of fear that their illicit activities might bring harm to innocents. This kind of paranoia would lead to a bloodbath. Our system of law can’t contain this problem and something new has to be developed. But what the op proposes is short of anarchy. It’s chaos.
No no, I was not talking about citizens assuming a position of authority to kill whoever they seem fit. I’m talking about legal authorities, state authorities, capturing gang members, giving them a fair trial, and instead of giving them a life sentence where they are free to commit further crimes behind bars, execute them humanely.

It must be emphasized that the problem I am speaking most loudly of is that even behind bars they are still committing crimes. People seem to be overlooking that. The only way to stop them from ordering hits while imprisoned, unfortunately is to execute them.

Furthermore, I do not argue that this will stop all gang activities in its entirety, anymore than I would argue that outlawing abortion will stop abortion in its entirety. As a society we must be motivated by a stalwart sense of justice, never caving into the evil one, refusing to tolerate evil, embracing only what is good. Chopping off the head of the snake that is the Los Zetas will save hundreds of innocent lives. Even though many will still fall at the hands of gang violence, at least SOME will be saved.
 
If you want to take power away from the street gangs decriminalze all drugs and let their abuse be solved by social welfare policies. Portugal decriminalized all drugs and their drug use has actually gone down. Just like in the 20’s when we prohibited alcohol gangs involved in the alcohol trade gained power and influence with the money they had. Gangs today are doing the same thing.
I could make the same argument that outlawing abortion will increase its prevalence. Not only do I think the argument is nonsense, but even if it was true that does not diminish the gravity of embracing such a legislation. Drug abuse should be illegal because it is immoral.

To stop drug abuse absolutely, we must not decriminalize it as the left wants to do, but we must instead reflect on ourselves as a culture, and once again embrace all that is just and righteous. It will takes a cultural shift towards the embrace of the Lord Jesus Christ and His absolute Natural Law for our nation to reject Satan and his works.

The best thing we can do, as citizens not in a position of judicial or legislative authority, is to do what we as Christians do best, Preach the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
 
Gang members live under the threat of execution every single day, at the hands of people who don’t concern themselves with due process or humane methods.

Making gang activity a capital crime won’t deter gang activity one bit.
Perhaps its not about deterrence, but about prevention of future criminal behavior.

Catechism does allow for the death penalty when the person represents a significant threat by staying alive to innocents. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that gang activity is not curtailed in the slightest by sending someone to prison. In fact, the leaders of various gangs are still able to run the show from behind bars and the prisons themselves often serve as recruiting grounds for new gang members. Recent data suggests that in some states such as Illinois, as much as 60% of those behind bars have gang ties. The system is being overwhelmed. How many non-violent criminals have been murdered or assaulted behind bars by members of violent gangs? How many correctional officers or other staff have experienced the same?

Those gang members who do get out of prison have an extremely high rate of recidivism and also have the affect of increasing the violence of the gang they are affiliated with. While in prison, the younger gang members learn a whole new level of violence and then carry that with them when they are paroled or serve their term. Thus, the violence level of the gangs they come back to goes up.

Overall, I am very uncomfortable with the death penalty as I feel it has been misapplied in too many situations and now with DNA evidence and other forensics capabilities, too many innocent people have been behind bars. I shudder to think of the numbers of innocent men and women who have been murdered by a faulty system. Having said that, in gang situations where there are repeat offenders, subject to a strict series of judicial reviews, I believe that it is in compliance with the teaching of the Church to invoke the death penalty on violent gang members.
 
Perhaps its not about deterrence, but about prevention of future criminal behavior.
That’s exactly what effective deterrence is - preventing future criminal behavior. When gang members are living under the threat of execution every single day, it’s illogical to think that making gang activity a capital crime will lessen gang activity.
Catechism does allow for the death penalty when the person represents a significant threat by staying alive to innocents. There is overwhelming evidence suggesting that gang activity is not curtailed in the slightest by sending someone to prison. In fact, the leaders of various gangs are still able to run the show from behind bars and the prisons themselves often serve as recruiting grounds for new gang members. Recent data suggests that in some states such as Illinois, as much as 60% of those behind bars have gang ties. The system is being overwhelmed. How many non-violent criminals have been murdered or assaulted behind bars by members of violent gangs? How many correctional officers or other staff have experienced the same?
Those gang members who do get out of prison have an extremely high rate of recidivism and also have the affect of increasing the violence of the gang they are affiliated with. While in prison, the younger gang members learn a whole new level of violence and then carry that with them when they are paroled or serve their term. Thus, the violence level of the gangs they come back to goes up.
Overall, I am very uncomfortable with the death penalty as I feel it has been misapplied in too many situations and now with DNA evidence and other forensics capabilities, too many innocent people have been behind bars. I shudder to think of the numbers of innocent men and women who have been murdered by a faulty system. Having said that, in gang situations where there are repeat offenders, subject to a strict series of judicial reviews, I believe that it is in compliance with the teaching of the Church to invoke the death penalty on violent gang members.
A capital crime is a capital crime. Gang members have been executed in the past, so on one level, what’s being suggested here is nothing new. My only objection is that we not make all “violent gang activity” a de facto capital offense.

I don’t have a moral solution, at least not one that’s practical. People join gangs because they offer a sense of belonging, security, and economic opportunity. So, in principle, the most moral course of action is to build/re-build stronger communities and give young people the things they would otherwise look to a gang to provide. Needless to say, this is much, much easier said than done.
 
That’s exactly what effective deterrence is - preventing future criminal behavior. When gang members are living under the threat of execution every single day, it’s illogical to think that making gang activity a capital crime will lessen gang activity.
I apologize for not being more clear, I am not talking about deterrence. I am talking about prevention of future crime, not because of the fear of punishment, but because people who are dead tend not to commit too many violent crimes.

Let me also be clear that I see this as a last resort. We absolutely should be doing things on the prevention side of the house (education, job training, drug rehabilitation, etc.) and things on the rehabilitation side of the house in prisons. However, for those who are repeat violent offenders, or for those who cannot safely be housed in a prison due to the danger they represent to staff or other inmates, the death penalty is a legitimate option providing that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent innocents being put to death.
 
Catechism does allow for the death penalty when the person represents a significant threat by staying alive to innocents.
I don’t have a problem with the use of capital punishment but I do have a problem with this particular argument in favor of its use. I know what the Catechism says, but consider the logic involved here.

Does a murderer deserve the death penalty for his crime? If you say no - which is what the Catechism implies - then you have separated the punishment from the crime and now there is no argument against the person who asks why we need to wait for a person to commit a crime before he is executed. If a person is a threat to the community are we not justified in executing him to protect ourselves? If a person doesn’t deserve to be executed because of his crime but we execute him anyway on the basis of protecting ourselves then how can we justify that action but resist executing him for lesser crimes or even no crime at all? In no case does the person deserve to be executed … but we do it anyway. Does protecting ourselves really justify this?

On the other hand if you answer the question by admitting that the murderer does deserve the death penalty then on what basis can you argue that he shouldn’t receive the punishment he deserves? As I said, this particular argument in favor of capital punishment is really problematic.

Ender
 
I don’t have a problem with the use of capital punishment but I do have a problem with this particular argument in favor of its use. I know what the Catechism says, but consider the logic involved here.

Does a murderer deserve the death penalty for his crime? If you say no - which is what the Catechism implies - then you have separated the punishment from the crime and now there is no argument against the person who asks why we need to wait for a person to commit a crime before he is executed. If a person is a threat to the community are we not justified in executing him to protect ourselves? If a person doesn’t deserve to be executed because of his crime but we execute him anyway on the basis of protecting ourselves then how can we justify that action but resist executing him for lesser crimes or even no crime at all? In no case does the person deserve to be executed … but we do it anyway. Does protecting ourselves really justify this?

On the other hand if you answer the question by admitting that the murderer does deserve the death penalty then on what basis can you argue that he shouldn’t receive the punishment he deserves? As I said, this particular argument in favor of capital punishment is really problematic.

Ender
🤷 I am basing my position off of the Church, specifically the CCC.
 
HappyPagan’s plan to deal with Gang Bangers.

Step 1: Declare gangs terrorists organizations.

Step 2: Turn the military lose on them.

Step 3: Institute reform programs in prisons focusing on meditation, yoga, tai chi, Qigong and job skill training.

Step 4: Work to integrate ex-gang bangers back into society and sever punishments on any gang that attacks the new civilian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top