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.
The catholic way of thinking is that we would hope he would repent, do penance and amend his life and save his soul
 
MonteRCMS said:
Without the option of the death penalty, there is no way of applying sanctions to the worst of the worst.
Click to expand...
True.
But I doubt that to be the case with him.
On a moral note, I do not see him being a danger to anyone anymore.
He needs help, and perhaps God will reach him in peison.

It is also more economical.
It is simply cheaper to incarcerate for life then to fund the endless appeals that arise from execution.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Are you suggesting that we should execute democratically representatives because

they don’t agree with you?
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to elected members of the democratic party who support abortion? I suppose, if these persons participate in abortion they will answer to their Maker for it. Unfortunately, they “represent” a constituency that supports abortion, and that is their function. Unfortunately, they are following the law of the land, so under that law, cannot be executed for violating it.

I am unclear what position you think I hold with which they do not agree that would lead you to believe I support their execution.
Crocus said:
The religious position would appear to be the one that is on topic, however, not the opinion of a portion of the taxpayers.
Click to expand...
I think you are saying that those with the strongest religious convictions should compel the remainder of the taxpayers to comply with their notion of what is morally correct.
Hereiam said:
i disagree with the evil despots holdong power in this once righteous nation
Click to expand...
What are you referencing here? During the previous administration, Catholics were legally compelled to act against their values or be fined/prosecuted.
vz71 said:
It is also more economical.

It is simply cheaper to incarcerate for life then to fund the endless appeals that arise from execution.
Click to expand...
Not if he pleads guilty.

Besides, it would be hard to compare the costs of appeal against 50 some years at $ 75,000 a year.
 
I can only say that Pope John Paul II would be against it. I’m fairly certain of that. I know so many hurting families want to see justice done, which, in their eyes, would be execution.

But as an objective bystander, I must side with Saint John Paul the Great.
 
Ender said:
Like rehabilitation, protection is a valid objective, but it, too, is a secondary one. The primary objective, and the only one that alone can justifystrong text any punishment is retribution - retributive justice: does the criminal deserve the punishment he receives?

That’s the question that has to be answered here: does this individual deserve to be put to death because of his crime?
Click to expand...
Ender said:
And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas)
Click to expand...
What the perpetrator deserves becomes less our decision/judgment when we heed the direction the Church leads us, in response to God, the author of laws, who ultimately wants to write “Love” on our hearts:
The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life:
—Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999

When the state, in our names and with our taxes, ends a human life despite having non-lethal alternatives, it suggests that society can overcome violence with violence. The use of the death penalty ought to be abandoned not only for what it does to those who are executed, but for what it does to all of society.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

For the Catholic community, this issue – like all life issues – is more than public policy. It involves our faith and the central principle that human life is sacred. Church teaching on the life and dignity of every human person should guide all our decisions about life, including the use of the death penalty. We are called to reflect on what the Lords command, You shall not kill (Ex 20:13) means for us today.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

In his encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II told us that we have an inescapable responsibility … It poses an old and fundamental choice: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live. (Dt 30:19)
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
Click to expand...
 
The death penalty is the best route as it will prevent the killer from killing more people, and it helps the man by preventing him from harming himself.
 
rcwitness said:
We live in the New Testament…
Click to expand...
Genesis 9:6 is part of God’s covenant with Noah, a covenant that we still live under today.

58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.
… and in the United States…
Click to expand...
Yes, and it applies to us as well.
we have the means to prevent this person from harming others without taking his life.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but, again, protection does not determine the nature of the punishment; it is only a secondary objective.
In certain times and situations where it may be too difficult to prevent the guilty from harming others, then that is a different story.
Click to expand...
I suspect that convicts in galleys were able to cause less trouble than convicts in prisons with access to lawyers and cell phones.

…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council, 1512-1517)

Life sentences are not new.
 
guanophore said:
I think you are saying that those with the strongest religious convictions should compel the remainder of the taxpayers to comply with their notion of what is morally correct.
Click to expand...
If the strongest religious convictions align with recognition of human dignity, I must continue to persuade those opposed, that the right thing to do is abolish the death penalty, as have so many other countries.

Let’s not be embarrassed that the Church leads the way.
 
Melodeonist said:
The death penalty is the best route as it will prevent the killer from killing more people, and it helps the man by preventing him from harming himself.
Click to expand...
To the bolded part: We can’t let him hurt himself. What kind of people would we be to let him damage his body? Kill him!

I just wanted to point out the irony of that portion in your post. And overall, it is reasonable to believe, unless further evidence comes up, that incarceration will prevent him from harming others again. And for self-harm, that’s why there are suicide protocols in jails.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Those officers dont have to work there.
Click to expand...
This post made me mad. If people didn’t work at prisons, we wouldn’t have a good chance of keeping incarcerated felons incarcerated. It’s kind of like saying that cops shouldn’t get mad about getting liked because they don’t have to be cops. We need people who do dangerous jobs to keep society functioning.

And for the record, unless we are able to keep someone in the kind of conditions necessary to prevent any contact with anyone, I believe we can have an honest debate about the death penalty for those that kill in prison as they are a case where society needs means to keep them from harming others and incarceration hasn’t worked.
 
mVitus said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Those officers dont have to work there.
Click to expand...
This post made me mad. If people didn’t work at prisons, we wouldn’t have a good chance of keeping incarcerated felons incarcerated. It’s kind of like saying that cops shouldn’t get mad about getting liked because they don’t have to be cops. We need people who do dangerous jobs to keep society functioning.

And for the record, unless we are able to keep someone in the kind of conditions necessary to prevent any contact with anyone, I believe we can have an honest debate about the death penalty for those that kill in prison as they are a case where society needs means to keep them from harming others and incarceration hasn’t worked.
Click to expand...
My point was that as long as we have people willing to work as these officers do, then we are able to keep them alive!

They are aware of the risk, and they are not forced to do it.

I am not calling it evil to allow for Capital Punishment, in certain cases. But I think we should do what is in our capacity to afford everyone as much time to let the death of God’s Son substitute their own.

I would not want to be the one who takes even the life of a murderer, unless it is to protect the life of another or myself.
 
Ender said:
40.png
rcwitness:
We live in the New Testament…
Click to expand...
Genesis 9:6 is part of God’s covenant with Noah, a covenant that we still live under today.

58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.
… and in the United States…
Click to expand...
Yes, and it applies to us as well.
we have the means to prevent this person from harming others without taking his life.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but, again, protection does not determine the nature of the punishment; it is only a secondary objective.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
Of course we are under the Covenants of old, and we are under the Commandments of God too.

Murderers, and all sinners, are subject to God’s punishment. Jesus died so that we do not have to suffer the ultimate price. So we ought to afford one another as much time to turn to Jesus and to do penance as possible.

But I keep repeating that it is not a sin to lawfully enact Capital Punishment in certain cases.
 
Last edited:
I am surprised only one person has quoted from the Catechism, which clearly states that capital punishment is acceptable only if there are no other non-lethal ways of of protecting people:
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.

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...
 
Curious11 said:
Yes. He’s a big boy. He knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...
I took a look at the photos of the children and adults that this man shot dead. I saw their faces. I saw the faces of some beautiful people. I am sorry, but in some cases, such as this, the crime is so heinous and the threat to school children is so great, that yes, society may need to resort to the ultimate penalty to protect young school children and deter future crimes such as this. It was death by hanging for Nazis some of whom claimed that they were only soldiers following orders in a war. But this man was not a soldier following orders. He acted on his own and destroyed many lives and many families. It is true that these children can never be brought back even if he were to be hanged, but perhaps the ultimate penalty may deter others from doing the same.
In the meantime as his lawyers use all kinds of strategies to evoke sympathy for him and for other killers, and as there appears to be no end to the proliferation of guns in America, I strongly support an increase in security at all schools. There are many ways that security can be improved and the cost would be well worth it. Why does America have to spend so much money keeping troops in Germany today? What good did the billions spent on the Vietnam war, accomplish? There is more than enough money to improve school security if you consider the amount wasted on various government projects including on military spending overseas.
 
Last edited:
The Catechism is NOT a policy & procedures manual for prison management and treatment of prisoners.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top