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.
AlNg said:
40.png
mVitus:
what reasons lead you to believe the death penalty in such cases is better than a life sentence?
Click to expand...
For one thing, a life sentence is never certain to be a life sentence. The sentence can be reduced, or the criminal can be pardoned, or the criminal may escape and never be heard from again. Either way, if he is pardoned or if he escapes, being on the loose, his lust for innocent blood may return and he may kill more school children. With the death penalty, you avoid that. And on top of that you have homeless people on the streets who could use some of the money spent to keep the criminal in jail for life.
No. I don’t like the death penalty, But take a look at the faces of those beautiful children this man shot to death. Look at their photos and look at the photos of their loving families. Why did this man continue to shoot and shoot and kill innocent people. His actions were those of a wild attacking and vicious animal with a lust to kill and what do you do when a vicious animal is attacking and killing innocent children?
There is always a chance for a man to repent and to be forgiven, but at the same time, it is important that society be able to protect its beautiful young children from these heinous crimes.
Click to expand...
It sure is! But how? Before kingdoms change, men must change. But we are not going in that direction.

This debate about Capital Punishment for this young man is so late in the fight!

Does he deserve death? Yes! Will that help this war on this evil in our society? No.

This problem is way too deep for society to accept, let alone deal with. It is sophisticated work of demons who have successfully infiltrated our very culture. It is the “world” which the Scriptures talk about! The enemy of its creator! The Devil gets into the details of our society and ways of life. He snuffs out the Gospel message with clutter. Games, TV, sports, careers, immoral sex, hundreds of divoded churches, alcohol and drug abuse, contraception, abortion, gender orientation, strange politicians, facebook, food, advertising, pop stars, fashion, etc. The list goes on. The Devil has control of so many things, he is able to snuff God out of our vision. Then its filled with thing after thing after thing that has no inherent value! So even at young ages, people are so angry at it all, they need to desensitize themselves to try to separate themselves from it all. But they dont realize they hve become the victim AND the instrument of the devil to carry out more of the same retaliation against God.
 
What if the world saw this boy convert, and give his testimony about how messed up he became? About how he saw only darkness in our society? And then how he was forgiven by the power of God!!

Do you believe that the sacrifice of Jesus can wipe away the guilt of this person?

Not so that he would be set free back into society, but so that he would embrace his chains with joy, and know the salvation made through the passion of God’s Son!
 
philipl said:
no, we need to study these kids and find out why they do these things.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Sentence him to dissection.

I know what the Church teaches and will follow it, though my emotions sometimes take a while to catch up.
 
thephilosopher6 said:
This is perfectly in line with Catholicism and what Jesus taught.
Click to expand...
No. Jesus taught that salvation is from the Jews.
thephilosopher6 said:
This is perfectly in line with the Catholic position. Though I know some of you “spirit of Vatican II” people have gone soft,
Click to expand...
Ok, it sounds like you reject the Catechism as a sure norm for the teaching of the faith.
thephilosopher6 said:
Leave the Church if you believe in such heresy or recant!
Click to expand...
What heresy is that?
 
I used to be vehemently against the death penalty.

But I recall an opinion where ending the life of a murderer is not murder, because who is responsible? Rather they simply lost the privilege to live in this world. What happens afterwards (their soul) is for God to decide.

In some ways this makes sense to me but I don’t really know what the Catholic Church teaches in this regard. As such, I’m on the fence and undecided.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
The Church does not support the death penalty in most all cases.
Click to expand...
The church takes no position on a case by case basis; that determination is left to the State. The opposition to the use of CP starting with JPII is prudential, but the doctrines of the church are unchanged.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
 
Ender said:
40.png
rcwitness:
The Church does not support the death penalty in most all cases.
Click to expand...
The church takes no position on a case by case basis; that determination is left to the State. The opposition to the use of CP starting with JPII is prudential, but the doctrines of the church are unchanged.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
Click to expand...
Yep. I never contradicted this.

Everyone knows the State is separate from the Church. The State does not need the Church to tell them they have a right.

The question is whether the Church says its morally right to do so. And in this, the Church is saying there are nearly ZERO cases which are justified in excecuting criminals to death!

Having the right to do something and whether its morally right or wrong are not one and the same thing.

I am not saying that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, nor has the Church
 
Last edited:
I had posted earlier (lost somewhere way at the top of this thread) the relevant sections from the catechism:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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.”
Click to expand...
 
mVitus said:
And if I may ask, what reasons lead you to believe the death penalty in such cases is better than a life sentence?
Click to expand...
By the arguments used you can see what people consider the most important aspect of punishment: that it safeguard society. That is the message sent by LWOP for a crime such as this. It shows concern for crimes that might happen in the future, but pretty much leaves unaddressed the crime already committed.

This completely misses the fundamental object of punishment, which is not to safeguard the future but to redress the past. The phrase “redress the disorder” (which the catechism identifies as the primary end of punishment) refers to the moral order. A concept that has been completely lost.

Isn’t the defense of the public order as a moral order important for the defense of society itself? Is it legitimate to reduce the defense of a society against the criminal to a physical defense against the potential aggressive acts of this particular criminal, or is it a defense of the moral order that’s needed to sustain a moral, social system? (Cardinal Dulles)

With the erosion of faith has come the loss of a sense of a moral order; that concept has become meaningless in modern societies, and with it an understanding of why punishment itself is justified.

Capital punishment comes to be regarded as barbarous in an irreligious society, that is shut within earthly horizons and which feels it has no right to deprive a man of the only good there is. (Romano Amerio, peritas, Vatican II)
 
I chose no. This kid was clearly disturbed, for years, and the “system” failed him. This is a kid who experienced many major traumas – quite likely prenatal exposure to substances, loss of his birth family, sudden loss of his adoptive father to a heart attack when he was 6, loss of his school “family” more than once (sent to alternative school in middle school, then alternative school sent him back to a giant regular school in high school, then regular school expelled him a year ago), sudden loss of his adoptive mother to pneumonia a few months ago… So many traumas and so many steps along the way where effective mental health interventions might have helped. (Emphasis on effective. So much treatment out there for children and adolescents is ineffective, and even makes things worse sometimes.)

I work with many struggling families who try for so long to get help for their troubled children and teens. It’s so hard for them to access services. Often the type of treatment needed simply doesn’t exist in their area. Or if it exists, it has a months-long or years-long waiting list. Or insurance won’t authorize the level or type of treatment needed. Or the provider doesn’t accept their insurance, or any insurance at all. Or the treatment available isn’t able to address their child’s specific problems, or the therapists aren’t trained in trauma or attachment. Etc. There can be very significant barriers to care.

None of this excuses the shooter’s actions, by any means. He is the one who made that final choice to execute this evil plan. But there were so many steps along the way when effective treatment might have made a difference – even tips to the FBI that might have stopped him. So I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the only way society could be protected from Nikolas Cruz is to execute him, because society doesn’t seem to have tried very hard.
 
The thing that I think you are saying, that I agree with, is that this is a problem with our society ALSO. Its not a matter of a person living a Godly environment and is knowingly and openly waging war on God. He is his own enemy from his own angle!

Justice will not be fullfilled by putting him to death than by life in prison. The only thing that can justify his crimes is the death of Jesus, and this young man confessing to that!

So putting him to death, now, will reduce the likelihood of him making that confession.

I certainly admit that if he killed my little boy or my dear daughter, I would struggle very much to forgive him! But Jesus already forgives him and died in order for him to see that and turn to Him for that forgiveness. And so that is why I will not be the one to support preventing Jesus from saving his soul from this terrible deed!!
 
hoping4more said:
Turn him loose on the street; at a set date and time…
Click to expand...
Genesis 4
Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to the field.” And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” He said, “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” 10 And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. 11 And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength; you shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” 13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me.” 15 Then the Lord said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the Lord put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. 16 Then Cain went away from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

If people on the street killed him, they would be guilty of more than him!! Would you want to be responsible for that?
 
I understand. We would all struggle with that.

But are you not responsible for killing God’s child???
 
Ender said:
40.png
Peebo:
Are you suggesting the US is a paragon of Christian virtue because it still applies the death penalty…lol…take a look around
Click to expand...
I was pointing out a fact. Make of it what you will.
Click to expand...
A prudential decision does not mean it’s up to the state to decide whether an action that results in the direct killing of another human being is morally justified, but that you - as a member of the Church, apply the principles of Catholic moral theology in accord with the bishops to determine whether a particular state action is morally justified or not. All your arguments in support of the death penalty are taken out of context and represent a severe distortion of Catholic moral theology. That is why your conclusions are in opposition to what the bishops are teaching today.

The Pro-Life position is to oppose the death penalty in the United States, because the conditions here do not justify its necessity. The same can be said about opposing wars that fail to meet the criteria set out by just war doctrine. If you cannot accept this, then you are not Pro-Life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top