Rehabilitation ideology makes the death penalty necessary

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

I’m not going to waste my time and brain cells worrying about something the Pope might do but hasn’t done it yet.
Click to expand...
I don’t think its dogma, but is instead the pope’s private opinion like being a steward of the environment or his opinion on climate change.
 
Last edited:
Statistically, the dead do not commit crime. So yes, it’s a deterrent.
 
Sid said:
Statistically, the dead do not commit crime. So yes, it’s a deterrent.
Click to expand...
I think they mean as a deterrent before committing the first murder(s), not the murders committed after being released from prison if not LWOP which is really likely!
 
Last edited:
whichwaytogo47 said:
If you cannot be assured that a murderer will not see life without parole, the death penalty is the only acceptable penalty for those who murder others because our politicians cannot be assured to keep prisoners where they belong, in prison and when necessary, for life.
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

I’d be fine without capital punishment if “life imprisonment” actually meant “this person will assuredly grow old and die in prison”. But it actually means "this person will spend a few years in prison, get paroled on good behavior, and be allowed to live free like nothing happened.

That’s what happened in the Leopold and Loeb case. The two men kidnapped a child and tortured him to death just to prove they could, their defense attorney got them life imprisonment instead of execution by arguing that they’d spend their lives in prison anyway, and after only 33 years Leopold was paroled and got to live free - a slap in the face to his victim and likely a cause of further anguish to the victim’s parents. His co-murderer, Loeb, meanwhile was killed by other prisoners and thus didn’t get to escape consequences.

This is why it makes me sick whenever I hear people advocate for abolishing life-imprisonment - it’s unjust to let someone who murdered a child ever be free again.
 
Last edited:
That’s relevant to a utilitarian, but not to a deontologist. Someone like Immanuel Kant would probably argue that the only question to be taken into account when judging a criminal is “what does he deserve?”.
 
Sid said:
Statistically, the dead do not commit crime. So yes, it’s a deterrent.
Click to expand...
That’s not what deterrent means. The dead can’t commit crimes, but they can’t be deterred, either.
 
BornInMarch said:
I’d be fine without capital punishment if “life imprisonment” actually meant “this person will assuredly grow old and die in prison”. But it actually means "this person will spend a few years in prison, get paroled on good behavior, and be allowed to live free like nothing happened.
Click to expand...
That’s what I’ve heard, too; “no one ever dies in prison.” There’s something known as “compassionate release”; if the prisoner becomes ill later in life they might be set free.

There was a case earlier this year where a life prisoner was released on “medical parole” - and soon after was sent back to prison for violating the conditions of his parole.

And I’d be fine with “life without parole” if it actually meant life without parole, i.e., no compassionate release, no furlough to go to your brother’s wedding or your grandmother’s funeral.

And, as I said earlier this year, who’s to say that at some time in the future the legislature might decide that life without parole is too great a punishment and that it should be abolished, meaning that those already serving life without parole might be released?
 
Thanks. Still, I thought it might be important to the discussion to point out this basic fact- the dead do not reoffend.
 
Last edited:
If you watch the Active Self Protection channel on YouTube, you note that a substantial number of felons never make it to prison. They penalize themselves.
 
The OP was asking about a pro-life, Catholic position, not a brutal, regressive system of justice.
 
I definitely appreciate everyone’s feedback and comments
 
Last edited:
Sid said:
Thank. Still, I thought it might be important to the discussion to point out this basic fact- the dead do not reoffend.
Click to expand...
Dead people do not commit crime in the first place. This is the same logic that is used in dystopian sci-fi novels. Kill people before they commit the crime. If we killed everyone as the came over border, we would have no one come over the border and committing crime.

But at some point it is not “others” but you that is undesirable.
 
signit said:
And, as I said earlier this year, who’s to say that at some time in the future the legislature might decide that life without parole is too great a punishment and that it should be abolished, meaning that those already serving life without parole might be released?
Click to expand...
That’s right. I think one of the byproducts of utilitarianism in society is that the justice system is becoming too lenient. Past a certain point showing mercy to a wrongdoer becomes an insult to that person’s victims.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
What about the fact there is no evidence that the threat of death is not actually a deterrent to crime?
Click to expand...
That’s exactly like saying that there’s no evidence that the fear of hell is a deterrent to sin. It’s patent nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
48.png
pnewton:
The OP was asking about a pro-life, Catholic position, not a brutal, regressive system of justice.
Click to expand...
And my answer is that being anti-death penalty is neither pro-life, catholic, or justice.
Click to expand...
Do you at least recognize that it is the Catholic Church’s position?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top