And i think that the Church learned from her own mistakes in the past.The right thing is kind of clear, according to Catholic teaching.
I don’t this is meant to imply that mitigating circumstances never apply, but only that we will be held morally accountable for our freely chosen actions. If we are unwilling to hold a person responsible for his acts we deny that he is a moral agent, which is the real insult to his dignity.This is quite interesting although, I think, it does assume one is completely a free agent without regard for the influence of ANY external factors. I suppose that is the intention, but it does contrast with the law as well as psychological research.
No, I don’t think that was a consideration. Morality is unchangeable regardless of time or place. What is it that makes any punishment just? Isn’t it that the person deserves what he gets? I’m sure no one would say “He doesn’t deserve this punishment, but let’s inflict it on him because it makes us safer.”Do you think that part of the severity of the law to execute murderers from God had anything to do with their situation as being in exile?
What are the considerations that should be taken into account in determining what punishment should be applied? We have to understand this before we can talk about what punishment is necessary, and it seems we first have to understand punishment’s primary objective. What is the main concern that must if at all possible be satisfied when someone is punished?In the days before cameras, stun guns and pepper sprays and other less than lethal defensive measures, electronic prisons and security measures, electricity, and so much more, the death penalty was necessary.
I’d be willing to bet the “historical perspective” didn’t include this fact:I was actually at an exposition this morning about the history of the death penalty, and it did give a global historical perspective on the problem.
No punishment restores the lives of the murdered, but that is not the meaning of the phrase. What was disturbed was the order of justice, and that is what needs restoring.It has to “redress” the disorder. Executing a person does not restore the lives of the murdered. So execution fails to redress the disorder.
I don’t refer to that incident because the church does not refer to it. If that case is supposed to understood to mean that capital punishment is wrong and Christ meant to outlaw it then the church failed for 2000 years to understand that point.You are ignoring the woman caught in adultery. That too, was suppose to be punished by death.
Was God wrong when he told Noah that murderers should die? Did morality change between the old and new testaments? Or do we need a slightly different understanding of mercy and forgiveness?But mercy and forgiveness is always available. Jesus took that way, and therefore issued in the new commandment. And told us forgiveness is at hand.
Charity obliges us to assume the best of others. To assume, that is, if a person says someone should be executed he does so not because of a bloodthirsty desire for revenge, but because he thinks the punishment is just.It takes effort to silence that voice and instead take the road of mercy and forgiveness of enemies to say “no, he is still human…
This is the right question to ask: does it suffice for retribution?…life without parole in a max security prison is sufficient for both retribution and public safety.”
Honestly, as someone who has had the unfortunate experience of doing time in jail, if I had to choose life without parole in max security or death, I would choose death.does it suffice for retribution?
I can only address the one issue at hand.And i think that the Church learned from her own mistakes in the past.
One could say the same about abortion.Certainly not, but yours is a religious position, and not all the taxpayers have this religious value.