Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
  • Yes
  • No
  • Undecided
0 voters
www.chicagotribune.com

Life or death main decision for school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz

The evidence against the Florida school shooting suspect is so overwhelming, the only question left for the courts if he is convicted is whether he will be sentenced to death or spend the rest of h…
www.chicagotribune.com www.chicagotribune.com
The evidence against the Florida school shooting suspect is so overwhelming, the only question left for the courts if he is convicted is whether he will be sentenced to death or spend the rest of his life in prison.
Click to expand...
What is the right thing to do here CAF?
 
Last edited:
I selected “undecided” because there is still far too much we don’t know here.

Is the kid mentally ill or simply evil?

At 19, he’s obviously old enough to know what he did is evil.

And frankly, the fact that he didn’t commit sucide or allow police to kill him makes me think he may not be mentally ill (but I’m no doctor).

Personally, I do believe that this is one of the few crimes where discussion of the death penalty is warranted.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
I’m usually in favor of at least exploring the possibility of the death penalty but not in this case. He seems extremely mentally disturbed to the point that I don’t think he fully realizes the nature of his actions. I’m willing to bet that if he is allowed to be put on antipsychotics, he’ll understand the weight of his decisions.
 
I selected No because life belongs to God alone, who still loves him and wants to give him his natural life, to turn to Him and be saved. Can you look at his face and not feel the compassion that Christ feels for the lost sheep?
thephilosopher6 said:
What is the right thing to do here CAF?
Click to expand...
As individuals, lobby for and support mental health initiatives, family and social health, etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes. He’s a big boy. He knew what he was doing.

That said, you Americans better start rethinking the second amendment pretty soon
 
Crocus said:
I selected No because life belongs to God alone, who still loves him and wants to give him his natural life, to turn to Him and be saved. Can you look at his face and not feel the compassion that Christ feels for the lost sheep?
Click to expand...
I said “discussion”

Historically, the Catholic Church has supported the Death Penalty because it grants the criminal the blessing of knowing the date and time of his death. That way, he can spiritually prepare for death, pray, confess, and seek conversion.

It could be argued that a criminal sentenced to death may have a better shot at Heaven than the “rich man” or even the average middle class suburbanite.

God Bless
 
No, the second amendment and the right to bear arms is integral to our freedom.

Anyway, take that discussion to another thread if you want to talk about gun rights.
 
I don’t agree with the word “supported,” rather I would use “allowed” in the context of “because you are hard hearted.” (Not you personally but in the way that God allowed divorce in the OT.)

The Church allowed the death penalty as a protection against an aggressor who could not be contained, not necessarily as a punishment. These days, the public can be protected by reforming the offender and containing the offender who cannot be reformed.
 
Last edited:
Curious11 said:
Yes. He’s a big boy. He knew what he was doing.

That said, you Americans better start rethinking the second amendment pretty soon
Click to expand...
Disclaimer: I do NOT own guns and perhaps never will. The only weapon I’m considering purchasing is a bow and arrow.

You have to understand the purpose of the second amendment and the reason why there are people who support the legal purchase of semi-automatic weapons.

The purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people a way to seek organizatized rebellion against an oppressive govt.

Regardless if that govt is the United States govt or an invading army.

The United States Constitution gives the power to the people. For the people to have the power, the people must have the ability to overthrow the govt, first by vote, but by force if necessary.

By removing the 2nd Amendment and/or outlawing semi-automatics, you severely limit the ability of citizens to organize a civilian army to wage a revolution.

NOTE: I am NOT advocating for anarchy or vigilantism, but I am acknowledging the right of local govts to vote for independence from the United States and (God forbid) local govts the right to vote for a Civil War. Disclaimer 2: during the American Civil War, I would have been on the side of the Union.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
Crocus said:
I don’t agree with the word “supported,” rather I would use “allowed” in the context of “because you are hard hearted.” (Not you personally but in the way that God allowed divorce in the OT.)

The Church allowed the death penalty as a protection against an aggressor who could not be contained, not necessarily as a punishment. These days, the public can be protected by reforming the offender and containing the offender who cannot be reformed.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I agree with this post.
 
I am for the death penalty but even this terrible murderer doesn’t make me think it should be used in this circumstance. Maybe only in times of war?

Regardless, I hope this teenager finds out the horror of what he’s done. I think we can all agree it is a shame we cannot force him to learn about the Catholic Church while he is in prison and in dire need of it.
 
Curious11 said:
Yes. He’s a big boy. He knew what he was doing.

That said, you Americans better start rethinking the second amendment pretty soon
Click to expand...
Thanks, but we don’t need to be lectured. There won’t be any punishing innocents for the actions of outliers in this country.
 
Genesis 9:6. Sometimes justice may seem harsh. Continue to pray for the victim’s families please. This hit very close to home.
 
Only if politicians who moved to repeal the law for keeping guns out of hands of mentally ill also face the death penalty for being complicit in the deaths.
 
Premeditated murder deserves the death penalty, but mercy calls on us to imprison him for life instead, provided that doing so prevents him from killing more people.
 
Crocus said:
I selected No because life belongs to God alone
Click to expand...
There are any number of reasons to oppose the use of the death penalty in this case, but this really isn’t one of them.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
phil19034 said:
Historically, the Catholic Church has supported the Death Penalty because it grants the criminal the blessing of knowing the date and time of his death.
Click to expand...
This point goes to the rehabilitation of the criminal, and while that is a legitimate end of punishment, it does not explain why the church recognizes the validity of capital punishment. It is rather a matter of justice; of fitting the punishment to the crime.
Crocus said:
The Church allowed the death penalty as a protection against an aggressor who could not be contained, not necessarily as a punishment.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not accurate. Like rehabilitation, protection is a valid objective, but it, too, is a secondary one. The primary objective, and the only one that alone can justify any punishment is retribution - retributive justice: does the criminal deserve the punishment he receives?

That’s the question that has to be answered here: does this individual deserve to be put to death because of his crime?
mythbuster1 said:
Premeditated murder deserves the death penalty, but mercy calls on us to imprison him for life instead, provided that doing so prevents him from killing more people.
Click to expand...
Mercy may call on us to mitigate a punishment someone deserves, but mercy should never be assumed appropriate in all cases. Mercy should be understood as the completion of justice where appropriate, not as a uniform override to it.
 
If his claims of schizophrenia are true, then no. Otherwise, give him a set date to meet God and be done with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top