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

[Sarcelle]

He looks like someone with fetal alcohol syndrome or maybe suffered brain damage from his biological mother taking drugs.

He has exhibited violent behavior in the past, as if his only way of coping with problems is through violence. He probably will be in solitary confinement to protect the other inmates if he does not get the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Therefore, the death penalty is a just option, but should only be used when non-lethal means are insufficient to defend and protect people.

Thank you for a reasoned response. Even if I disagree with it it’s nice to have a rational discussion.

Should the penalty satisfy the primary objective of punishment, or a secondary one? Isn’t it obvious that it is the primary objective that must be satisfied before consideration given to a secondary objective? Yes, ideally all four objectives would be satisfied, but does it really make sense to diminish the effect of the primary end simply because it is (assumed to be) unnecessary to satisfy a secondary end?

In this entire discussion, who other than me has even discussed the moral order? Yet the church has been clear (except, lamentably, in the catechism) about what that is.

‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’.

Warehousing criminals so we are safe from them is little more than we do to safeguard ourselves from dangerous animals.

 

[Ender]

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…

Prudential decisions are not moral choices; they are decisions about what is the wisest action to take in a particular circumstance.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. (Cardinal Dulles)

As with decisions about going to war, the decisions about using capital punishment are properly left to the government.

2309 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

… 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.

In all my arguments I have cited the teachings of the church which are unchanged for 2000 years.

All your arguments in support of the death penalty are taken out of context and represent a severe distortion of Catholic moral theology.

Take anything I have said a make a case that I have cited something out of context. I’ll be happy to provide a link to the citation (there are very few I don’t have). Let’s see if you can support your charge. Given that virtually all of my citations are from previous Popes, or Doctors and Fathers of the Church, I think you’ll have a hard time showing that I am distorting Catholic moral theology.

That is why your conclusions are in opposition to what the bishops are teaching today.

Morality does not change over time. You might consider this point if you think today’s bishops are teaching something different than their predecessors.

‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time… (Pius XII)

The Pro-Life position is to oppose the death penalty in the United States, because the conditions here do not justify its necessity.

This is an opinion. You have yours, I have mine.

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.

My status as a person who supports life is not determined by your opinions.

 

[Ender]

Did Pontius Pilate have the right to have Jesus crucified???

Pilate surely had the authority to do so, so from that perspective he did have the “right”. Given that he sentenced an innocent man to a horrible death he clearly misused that right.

 

[rcwitness]

So the Cardinal’s point could be used to support crucifying Jesus too.

 

[rcwitness]

Actually Jesus was guilty of treason, and thats why he was crucified.

 

[Ender]

So the Cardinal’s point could be used to support crucifying Jesus too.

Really? That’s your takeaway? Surely if it seems bizarre to you (as I’m sure it must) the reasonable conclusion would be that no bishop would actually believe such a thing.

 

[Luke6_37]

rcwitness:

So the Cardinal’s point could be used to support crucifying Jesus too.

Really? That’s your takeaway? Surely if it seems bizarre to you (as I’m sure it must) the reasonable conclusion would be that no bishop would actually believe such a thing.

Your entire line of reasoning is wrong, which is why it leads to absurd conclusions. The Church declares when a war is just or not. Same with the death penalty.

 

[rcwitness]

Why wouldnt a Bishop believe it?

Its no secret that the government has the right to make its own laws and execute them.

Whether it be Jesus, or Timothy McVeigh both governments acted lawfully in those death sentances.

 

[rcwitness]

Right…

And im assuming that the sentance would be decided by the judge, right?

And that death penalty would never be the only choice for the judge?

So that judge would be free to rely on the Church’s position to make his decision?

 

[Ender]

Your entire line of reasoning is wrong, which is why it leads to absurd conclusions. The Church declares when a war is just or not. Same with the death penalty.

No, this is demonstrably incorrect. I just posted the catechism statement about who is to make the determination of when the principles of a just war have been met. And it is not the church.

2309…These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good

My line of reasoning is surely not responsible for your conclusions. I think you would see that if you tried putting together a logical argument showing how you get from my statement to your conclusion.

 

[buglady]

Yes, you are right. It seems that if he was possessed, nobody would try to find out. It is not something the law would pursue. Unless he asked for a priest, he is probably never going to be evaluated.

 

[Arkansan]

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!

He can do that with a death sentence as well.

Actually Jesus was guilty of treason

This is blasphemy you know.

 

[Fauken]

This is blasphemy you know.

I’m pretty sure that he meant to say that Pilate found Him guilty of treason, not that Our Lord was actually treasonous. Otherwise the Romans would have no real reason to crucify Him.

 

[SanRafael1102]

I personally vote no. I’m sitting on the sidelines in respect to what the Church actually teaches on the death penalty, mainly because some grey language is used to describe when it would be applicable. Instead, my decision is based on gut instinct; this kid has to be messed up, he’s already wracked up a list of casualties, I don’t want to have to add one to the list.

Thoughts?

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

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!

He can do that with a death sentence as well.

Actually Jesus was guilty of treason

This is blasphemy you know.

The difference is that you set an egg timer to his conversion.

And no, he was crucified for claiming to be king of the Jews. I know He was. But the State did not recognize Him as king, so it truly was treason.

 

[Arkansan]

Arkansan:

This is blasphemy you know.

I’m pretty sure that he meant to say that Pilate found Him guilty of treason, not that Our Lord was actually treasonous. Otherwise the Romans would have no real reason to crucify Him.

That would be non-blasphemous, though it’s worth pointing out it’s also false. Pilate explicitly found him innocent of wrongdoing but let Him be killed anyway.

The difference is that you set an egg timer to his conversion.

Said timer is also likely to cause it.

And no, he was crucified for claiming to be king of the Jews. I know He was. But the State did not recognize Him as king, so it truly was treason.

If we know someone to be innocent of murder, robbery, arson, or any other crime, we don’t say “he was guilty of (the crime)”.

 

[rcwitness]

His kingdom was not of this world. Treason, according to Rome still stands, i think.

 

[AlNg]

It sure is! But how?

For one thing - more security. I can’t think of anything more stupid than to make a school a gun free area while at the same time have no effective security to prevent the insane from coming into the area to shoot and kill children. These politicians put children in gun free areas, but provide no effective security for children to defend themselves or to be defended against the insane killers. Please tell me. Why should it be so easy for a monster armed with guns and weapons to enter a gun free area and kill children?

 

[Ender]

For one thing - more security. I can’t think of anything more stupid than to make a school a gun free area while at the same time have no effective security to prevent the insane from coming into the area to shoot and kill children. These politicians put children in gun free areas, but provide no effective security for children to defend themselves or to be defended against the insane killers.

Israel has faced the threat of mass school killings for decades, took active measures to prevent them, and has apparently been quite successful at doing so.

Israel Figured Out How to Prevent School Shootings 40 Years Ago-It's Time the US Followed Suit