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.
Apache75 said:
Why waist good tax payers money?
Click to expand...
For his life. For his soul. Jesus paid His Blood for that teen’s chance at salvation. Money is too insignificant in comparison to any of these things for me to consider it a waste.
 
o_mlly said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. They can. If they determine that other, more primary, considerations, necessitate the use of capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
These criminals must learn they will not get slapped in the hand and given a life sentence. So we need to feed & bed and give them an education? But his soul will be judged by God.
 
No I wouldn’t. But if I’m correct there is a verse in the bible that talks about the laws of men and how we should follow these laws. I may be incorrect though. But I don’t see nothing wrong with the death penalty for those who commit serious crimes like the young man that killed those 17 souls.
 
My point, is that all of you who are making a case for this mn to be put to death should imagine yourelf making the case to Jesus!

This is actually what you are doing.

Trust me, I say many awful things that if I were speaking to Jesus (though I really am) I would never say!!
 
rcwitness said:
My point, is that all of you who are making a case for this mn to be put to death should imagine yourelf making the case to Jesus!
Click to expand...
We are protecting more innocent children from being gunned down. These school children did nothing to deserve a vicious and horrible death.
Apache75 said:
But I don’t see nothing wrong with the death penalty for those who commit serious crimes like the young man that killed those 17 souls.
Click to expand...
It is right because it may act as a deterrent to others. It is important to protect innocent schoolchildren who are going to class, trying to improve their education.
 
Last edited:
Miri said:
I selected No because I believe the death penalty is premeditated murder.
Click to expand...
Well, granted, it is pre-meditated, but the question is whether it is murder.

murder (mûrˈdər)►
n. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Murder is the “unlawful” or “unjustifiable” killing of one human being by another.

Whether the death penalty is “unjustifiable” is a point you would have to make a case for.

Killing would be unjustifiable if the victim has done nothing to deserve death.

If capital punishment is always unjustified and, in principle, unjustifiable, that would mean no one, no matter how heinous, could ever do anything to merit or deserve death at the hands of another person.

For one thing, that would rule out killing in self-defence because your argument would then rule out the possibility that the would-be murderer could be justifiably killed because killing another human being, you claim, can never be a justifiable act.

That would also entail that God could not decide on death as a just punishment because if capital punishment is, in principle, unjustifiable it cannot be justified by God either.

That would be a bit of quandary you have put yourself into, no? 🤔
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
Was that true even during the time of the Inquisition? Or has the teaching changed since that time?
Click to expand...
Since I was not there during this time I can only answer from the things I have read. Everything I have read shows that the Church was truly remorseful and sorry for the things that happened during that shameful period in the churches history. Since we can’t change the past we as a church have learned from it and changed practices and also I would like to think over time we change and for the better. This is my option.
AlNg said:
if you are pro-;life can you favor war and the use of nuclear weapons in war?
Click to expand...
Again, this is only going to be my option on this matter. I think there are times when a Nation has to go into war in order to 1.) save their nation and 2) protect the innocent. But, that being said I do believe that everything should be tried before war is agreed upon. But personally I am against Wars and I also think that every Nation should dispose of all nuclear weapons.

Thank you for those questions and I hope that I answered them for you.
 
o_mlly said:
As 2267 does not teach that no punishment may be assigned, Pius XII’s position is confirmed, not contradicted.
Click to expand...
You interpret 2267 as saying capital punishment may not be applied unless it is necessary for protection. Pius was very clear in saying that protection from the individual was not the primary objective of punishment.
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?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. This is what the church has taught for 2000 years.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
You interpret 2267 as saying capital punishment may not be applied unless it is necessary for protection. Pius was very clear in saying that protection from the individual was not the primary objective of punishment.
Click to expand...
Pius XII and the 1997 Catechism are not in contradiction. Both agree that some punishment is necessary to redress the disorder. It appears you would put more into Pius’ comments than is there.

Pius does not teach that only capital punishment can satisfy and the Catechism teaches that imprisonment can satisfy the objective of expiation.
 
o_mlly said:
Pius XII and the 1997 Catechism are not in contradiction. Both agree that some punishment is necessary to redress the disorder.
Click to expand...
You interpret 2267 to say that capital punishment may only be used if it is necessary for physical protection. Pius said that physical protection was not the primary objective of punishment. That capital punishment is not necessary to achieve a secondary objective cannot mean it is also unnecessary to achieve the primary objective…which is not protection.
Pius does not teach that only capital punishment can satisfy and the Catechism teaches that imprisonment can satisfy the objective of expiation.
Click to expand...
It is true that Pius never stated that capital punishment was required, but it is not true that the catechism teaches that prison is sufficient. It simply ignored that point entirely.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
That capital punishment is not necessary to achieve a secondary objective cannot mean it is also unnecessary to achieve the primary objective…which is not protection.
Click to expand...
Certainly, it can mean just that.

If life imprisonment satisfies a primary objective then life imprisonment also satisfies a secondary objective.

I think the citation you need to support your argument that the 1997 Catechism contradicts Pius XII is one in which Pius teaches that only capital punishment satisfies an objective of punishment.
 
No…

Wasn’t he eleven or twelve when the authorities first became aware of his problems? Apparently he was a very troubled child. He’s still young, so jail for life is going to be a long time but what is best.
 
Last edited:
More students arrested in California as they threaten to shoot up the school and murder innocent students. I suppose these poor troubled young people like the idea of having their names and photos printed in the news all over the world and realize that they would get off easy with time in prison, playing basketball and eating all that free food, and there is the possibility of a pardon down the line. This is what happens when you do away with the death penalty. More threats to innocent students. More murders of innocent children.
 
prisoner takes on ten prison guards:


click here google youtube prisoner
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top