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

[Maximilian75]

I think that a pardon in this case is unthinkable, and I don’t think I have ever heard of someone escaping from a high security state prision.

 

[AlNg]

I think that a pardon in this case is unthinkable

That is now. But 20 years from now is different.

I don’t think I have ever heard of someone escaping from a high security state prision.

Two inmates escape Alabama prison with ‘most restrictive custody level’

Two inmates escape Alabama prison with ‘most restrictive custody level’ – New York Daily News

Men Escape American High Security Prison

Men Escape American High Security Prison

 

[Maximilian75]

I would assume that he will be in solitary confinement, which, from what I have read, is a deterrent from escape- most escapees are paired with others.

And, parole/pardon in this case, after murdering 17 people, I really think is impossible.

 

[AlNg]

And, parole/pardon in this case, after murdering 17 people, I really think is impossible.

What you think is impossible, and what is impossible in real life thirty years from now, may not be the same thing.

I would assume that he will be in solitary confinement,

How long do you expect him to be in solitary confinement? Once again this is an assumption on your part.

There’s no chance that he will ever leave prision.

Not true. Although the chance may be slight, it is not absolutely impossible.

 

[o_mlly]

I assert they placed a prudential judgment in the catechism, with all that implies.

Curious that you deem only 2267’s closing phrase prudential and not its prefatory phrase. Or do you deem fully determining the identity and guilt as also merely prudential? If not, why not?

 

[Ender]

Curious that you deem only 2267’s closing phrase prudential and not its prefatory phrase. Or do you deem fully determining the identity and guilt as also merely prudential? If not, why not?

Typically I address one thing at a time.

 

[o_mlly]

Typically I address one thing at a time.

I request you address only one sentence.

 

[Ender]

I request you address only one sentence.

" do you deem fully determining the identity and guilt as also merely prudential?"

The determination of guilt is a prudential judgment of the facts as presented in a court.

The responsibility to fairly determine guilt is a moral obligation. It is a part of justice.

 

[o_mlly]

The determination of guilt is a prudential judgment of the facts as presented in a court.

And if the court determines that the accused is not guilty, does 2267 allow capital punishment?

 

[o_mlly]

And if the court determines that the accused is not guilty, does 2267 allow capital punishment?

Rhetorical, of course.

The point is that the affirmation of all three conditions: identity, guilt, and no other means to protect society are necessary to execute. All are prudentially arrived at but if all are not found to be true then capital punishment is immoral.

 

[Miri]

I selected No because I believe the death penalty is premeditated murder.

 

[Ender]

The point is that the affirmation of all three conditions: identity, guilt, and no other means to protect society are necessary to execute. All are prudentially arrived at but if all are not found to be true then capital punishment is immoral.

The determination of the identity and guilt of a person are necessary for there to be any punishment at all, and they are prudential judgments of fact. So, by the way, would be the determination of “necessary to protect society”. If I wanted to argue this point I would assert that its necessity does not flow from the threat of that individual, but rather from what is implied by not executing him in that it reduces society’s respect for both life and the law.

‘…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.’ (Pius XII)

What I reject is the assertion that capital punishment is legitimate solely when it is needed to provide physical protection from the particular felon. Pius XII explicitly rejected that position as well.

 

[o_mlly]

What I reject is the assertion that capital punishment is legitimate solely when it is needed to provide physical protection from the particular felon. Pius XII explicitly rejected that position as well.

? Your citation does not show Pius XII rejects that capital punishment is moral if other means are available to protect society.

Here’s a hypothetical to draw the distinction between what is prudent and what is moral:
The judge and jury determine with due process that Frank is truly Frank and that Frank murdered. The judge and jury determine that the penal system can effectively protect society from Frank. May the judge and jury morally sentence Frank to death?

 

[Ender]

Here’s a hypothetical to draw the distinction between what is prudent and what is moral:

The judge and jury determine with due process that Frank is truly Frank and that Frank murdered. The judge and jury determine that the penal system can effectively protect society from Frank. May the judge and jury morally sentence Frank to death?

This is precisely the situation that I said Pius XII rejected. The primary concern of retribution is not providing physical protection:

this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law…

The real concern is more significant.

… but with the very law itself.

Pius XII wrote extensively on punishment, probably more so than any other pontiff.

Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

 

[o_mlly]

… but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty

As 2267 does not teach that no punishment may be assigned, Pius XII’s position is confirmed, not contradicted.

So I ask again, Yes or No?
The judge and jury determine with due process that Frank is truly Frank and that Frank murdered. The judge and jury determine that the penal system can effectively protect society from Frank. May the judge and jury morally sentence Frank to death?

 

[jim1130]

I remember when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing.

Was anything really accomplished by McVeigh’s death?

I feel to be pro-life means to be pro-all life, even for serial killers and mass murderers.

I pray that I would have the strength to continue that path should someone I love die violently.

 

[MonteRCMS]

McVeigh is not going to do it again.

Nor will he regale his cell mates with stories.

 

[jim1130]

He would also not do it again if you lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[rcwitness]

And isnt their the choice of the judge to say no parole?

 

[rcwitness]

An argument was made that its unfair for the families to know this man is alive, while their loved ones are dead.

This is true. But this man’s death will not change the fact that either here, or in Purgatory, they must forgive him.

Purgatory will be much less pleasant.