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

[Crocus]

The teaching in 2267 is quite clear.

You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

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."68

 

[Ender]

The conditional admits of no assumptions that one may accept or reject. If one accepts the truth of the conditional then one must accept the truth of the consequence. The teaching in 2267 is quite clear.

The teaching is anything but clear, as any number of people have pointed out.

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. (R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

The assumption you make, and the one that I reject, is that there is a new doctrine that allows capital punishment solely if it is required for protection. That is, its use is determined by whether it is deemed necessary to satisfy a secondary objective.

I believe that its use is determined by whether it is necessary to satisfy the primary objective, a point 2267 simply ignores.

 

[guanophore]

This is blasphemy you know.

How is that blasphemy? If Rome considered it treasonous for Jesus to proclaim Himself a King, are you suggesting He should not have told Pilate that He was a king, so that he would not be guilty of whatever Rome believed?

Said timer is also likely to cause it.

I don’t think so. Conversion can only be “caused” by the heart responding to the call of the Holy Spirit. However, I do agree that the timer can expedite it. “There are no atheists in foxholes”.

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

Yes, He was King of the Jews, and the Jews said they had no King but Ceasar. Pilate could not really afford to ignore someone claiming to be a King, even if the Jews rejected His claim. As soon as they told Pilate “you are no friend of Ceasar’s” if you let Him go free, it was all over. Pilate could not afford to have any such accusation get back to Rome.

What other Roman governmental authorities do you think were involved?

“Friend of Ceasar” was a title that gave the bearer status with the Empire. It was given to those loyal to the emperor. One can speculate, that since Pilate was stationed in the most hated province of Palestine/Jerusalem, that he either offended someone, or was paying some dues to be able to move to a more hospitable position elsewhere. In any case, rumors going back to Rome that he had done anything disloyal, failed to control the “Jewish rabble” or let a prisoner go free who claimed to be a King of the Jews, it would not have gone well.

 

[rcwitness]

This is very interesting to me!

Mark 15

And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.”

Now im not so sure about my claim…

But surely, the official record must be treason, right? Jusus’ answer is quite neutral! Haha!

He didnt say yes, but He didnt deny it!

 

[Fauken]

But surely, the official record must be treason, right? Jusus’ answer is quite neutral! Haha!

He didnt say yes, but He didnt deny it!

I’d say he pled No Contest.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I see you have not stopped despite my calling an end to this. Well, what does this writing by St. John Chrysostom say about HIM when he talks this way about the Jews? I wonder. And whom do you believe regarding the Jews: this particular saint or Jesus Himself, who did NOT speak this way?

One other point. Do you honestly have much idea what the Talmud is about? Where have you gotten your information regarding what the Talmud says about Jesus and Christians? My hunch is you don’t know much about the Talmud because if you did, you wouldn’t talk this way, unless somehow you get a kick out of your repetitious “recant” and “heretical” themes.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I see you have not stopped despite my calling an end to this. Well, what does this writing by St. John Chrysostom say about HIM when he talks this way about the Jews? I wonder. And whom do you believe regarding the Jews: this particular saint or Jesus Himself, who did NOT speak this way?

Yes he did, please read John 8. Please read the woes against the Pharisees as well. Please read Revelation 2 and 3 as well.

One other point. Do you honestly have much idea what the Talmud is about? Where have you gotten your information regarding what the Talmud says about Jesus and Christians? My hunch is you don’t know much about the Talmud because if you did, you wouldn’t talk this way, unless somehow you get a kick out of your repetitious “recant” and “heretical” themes.

Yes, I do. I’ve read much of the Mishnah and the commentaries in the Gemara. A lot of it contains man made blasphemous traditions that are the basis for Rabbinic Judaism.

 

[Karen]

It is either solitary confinement or he could be a threat to fellow prisoners. I believe solitary confinement is cruel and would drive anyone insane

 

[meltzerboy2]

Jesus was able to differentiate the good from the bad Pharisees. He did NOT condemn them all. Certainly he did not speak the way St. John Chrysostom did about Jews. Are you aware that the Mishnah is considered the Oral Law, which was codified but existed in oral history together with the Torah? It was NOT an invention by so-called rabbinical Judaism. Further, are you aware the Talmudic rabbinical commentaries fill in the missing information (ellipses) of the Written Law (Torah) as well as serve to apply the Written Law to contemporary society? It is not unlike the oral tradition of the Church.

 

[Talitha712]

I believe solitary confinement is cruel and would drive anyone insane

Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but I’m taking this to mean you’d prefer to see him executed rather than experience this. Solitary confinement absolutely is cruel. The Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia used to run on the idea that solitary confinement would somehow lead to remorse and rehabilitation, but instead most of those prisoners did go insane. I went there with some friends for Halloween several years ago (supposedly it’s haunted) but I found the experience depressing more than anything. So many people were destroyed there… I know this is off topic, but I mention it because I agree with your assertion. Solitary confinement is cruel. In fact, there are a lot of problems in the prison system that need fixing.

That being said, I don’t think reform is coming anytime soon. I don’t even have the foggiest idea of what that reform should consist of. But the young man’s future - or lack of - is being decided now. He took the lives of seventeen people. Seventeen families are mourning. Seventeen souls had the misfortune of an unexpected death. Many others will be haunted by that day for the rest of their lives. They’ll relive it in fireworks. They’ll count every anniversary. They’ll never feel safe in a school again. This young man is responsible. Can you imagine going to God with all this on your hands? That’s why I’m petrified for his soul. That’s why I want him to live. He needs prayer and God’s grace. The decision is not up to me but if it was, I’d give God every chance to work with him by not letting him die until his natural death.

Of course, I’d want him to be treated humanely, of course I don’t want him driven insane, but honestly his comfort isn’t so important that we must kill him to prevent misery. It’s nothing to the misery that might yet be waiting for him. Call me cruel if you like, but I stand by my belief that it’s better to suffer in this life than the next.

 

[EricF]

The timing of this man’s death is God’s call. God doesn’t need my (name removed by moderator)ut on this.

 

[guanophore]

It is either solitary confinement or he could be a threat to fellow prisoners. I believe solitary confinement is cruel and would drive anyone insane

Actually even those who do the most violent crimes are easiest to maintain in the prison system. most do not re-offend even when they have been very violent in the past. The structure and predictability of the environment seems to stabilize them.

I believe solitary confinement is cruel and would drive anyone insane

While I agree that it is the worst thing for prison systems, especially for those with mental illnesses, one must be mindful that this current prison system was derived from Catholic Monasteries. It was believed that, if a person could commune with God in isolation, one would “come to himself” and be turned to a right way of living. The first prison systems were based on the “cell” used by monks and nuns, which is one reason they were furnished with a Bible.

 

[guanophore]

That being said, I don’t think reform is coming anytime soon. I don’t even have the foggiest idea of what that reform should consist of.

It is important to know that the majority of prison management has now passed into the public sector. Facilities and services that used to be managed by government are now managed by for-profit companies. It is in their best interest NOT to rehabilitate, as they make more money if people do not get better. Unfortunately, the same is true for methadone clinics. They get at least $12 per dose per client a day, and may serve as many as 400 people per day. This is a HUGE profit business, so those who run such clinics don’t want them to get better.

 

[Arkansan]

Of course, I’d want him to be treated humanely, of course I don’t want him driven insane, but honestly his comfort isn’t so important that we must kill him to prevent misery. It’s nothing to the misery that might yet be waiting for him. Call me cruel if you like, but I stand by my belief that it’s better to suffer in this life than the next.

And how is driving him completely insane going to do that?

 

[Inisfallen]

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.

It generally costs more to execute someone than to imprison that person for life.

Costs | Death Penalty Information Center

 

[guanophore]

It generally costs more to execute someone than to imprison that person for life.

Generally, yes, but we are talking about a 19 year old who is already willing to confess.

 

[Inisfallen]

Generally, yes, but we are talking about a 19 year old who is already willing to confess.

Mandatory appeals, psychiatric evaluations, competency hearings, it will add up.

Not that it matters to me – I oppose executing a quite possibly insane person. I oppose executing anyone. It just isn’t necessary.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

Quoting from the Catechism was always reasonable.

The stumbling block between us seems the definition of moral order. I could find only one Catholic definition:

The proper direction of human actions to a person’s ultimate end, namely the eternal destiny. On a universal scale, the relationship of all human actions, under divine Providence, toward the final purpose that God has for the human race. In ecclesiastical and civil law, the legally established body of rights and duties among human beings either in general or in a given society.

Nor could I find a Latin definition of ordinis moralis (or its grammatical variants).

ordinis can mean arrangement or governance

I believe you read it as the hierarchical ordering of morality (e.g. pride is ordered as more serious than lust) and, consequently, the ordered application of sanctions and remedies.

I read moral order as the opposite of disorder. In other words, as synonymous with will of God. (not an ironclad definition). I argue that moral order in Church documents could be replaced by will of God.

Does God will us to execute? The Old Testament supports that. But does the New Testament? I argue that being subject to legitimate authority is. If legitimate authority, in its obligation to preserve the common good, decides that execution is the best option, then we are subject to that. However, the Catechism advises that if non-lethal means are available, then the legitimate authority should limit itself to that.

I agree that “warehousing” criminals may be against moral order because it may fail to apply the medicinal aspect of punishment, which as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

Finally, this quote is highly fragmentary. I do not post it in the spirit of bias or misrepresentation, but to argue that moral order is not understood as arrangement but as the opposite of disorder:

The principle of the entire moral order is the last end, which stands in the same relation to matters of action, as the indemonstrable principle does to matters of speculation (Ethic. vii, 8). Therefore when the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin. For even as in the body, the disorder of death which results from the destruction of the principle of life, is irreparable according to nature, while the disorder of sickness can be repaired by reason of the vital principle being preserved, so it is in matters concerning the soul. … [H]e who, by sinning, turns away from his last end, if we consider the nature of his sin, falls irreparably, and therefore is said to sin mortally and to deserve eternal punishment: whereas when a man sins without turning away from God, by the very nature of his sin, his disorder can be repaired, because the principle of the order is not destroyed; wherefore he is said to sin venially, because, to wit, he does not sin so as to deserve to be punished eternally. - Summa Theologiae, Question 72, Article 5

 

[RichardsPlanet]

I am sorry thephil-s-pher6 is being rude.

Remember one of the cardinal rules on the Internet is: Don’t feed the trolls.

And for those Catholics who don’t understand what Jewish Oral Law is: the Catholic equivalent is Apostolic Tradition.

For example, in 2 Timothy 3:8, St. Paul writes:

Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth.

Who exactly are these two men? According to Jewish Oral Tradition, they were the pharaohs magicians. But they are not mentioned in the Torah or any other part of the Tanak (Old Testament for us Catholics).

In 1 Corinthians 11:34, when St. Paul writes:

Anyone who is hungry should eat something at home, so that when you meet together it may not result in judgment. And when I come I will give further directions.

Where are these additional instructions recorded? They are recorded in the Apostolic Tradition handed down in face to face conversation, not written records.

Over time, these things did get written down, both in the Jewish and Christian faiths.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

But surely, the official record must be treason, right? Jusus’ answer is quite neutral! Haha!

He didnt say yes, but He didnt deny it!

I’d say he pled No Contest.

I have to admit, that I was wrong. I thought it was clear that Jesus did commit treason against Rome by affirming Himself to be King of the Jews.

Actually, He did not make the claim, but only acknowledged that others were saying it. And interestingly, His response to Pontius Pilate’s question, “You are the King of the Jews?” Is the same (with a slight greek difference) as His reply to Judas asking “Is it I” who will betray Him.

So Pilate’s “sign” above the cross (Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews) was done out of accussation from Pilate.

Still, i hve to think that the official reason, which Pilate charged Jesus with, was Treason. Though he confessed Jesus to be innocent and guilty of no Capital crime.