M
MonteRCMS
Guest
ACLU does not permit life at hard labor or being locked up 24/7.
Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?
- Status
R
rcwitness
Guest
American society has serious problems. Do you think that killing these sick people is going to be the cure?
Finally there is a man (though so young) who has not killed himself, and we can find out pieces of information from examining him! And some people want to snuff him out because of Old Testament laws, anger, vengeance, etc.
Finally there is a man (though so young) who has not killed himself, and we can find out pieces of information from examining him! And some people want to snuff him out because of Old Testament laws, anger, vengeance, etc.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
R
rcwitness
Guest
Prisons are under the State management and guidance. Christians are under the Church’s management and guidance.
M
mVitus
Guest
When I originally read your post, my interpretation was that you were saying that because they didn’t have to work at the prison, there wasn’t a need to exact harsh penalties because they knew the risks.
Would it be more accurate to interpret your position as: Because we have people willing to take those risks, we don’t have to execute those prisoners.
And I guess to seek clarification, what would you say your tmstance is for prisoners that have still killed while in prison? Would you consider the death penalty in such a case? And if not, what do you believe as viable alternatives to make sure they don’t kill again, even in prison?
From what you’re saying, it seems likely I misinterpreted your words before and I wish to avoid the mistake again.
Last edited:
A
adgloriam
Guest
Society should assume its responsibility foremost.
The death penalty did not prevent this tragedy from happening.
That 19 year old man should have been helped much earlier, charitably, preventing what happened.
You want cost effectiveness then treat those in need charitably and you’ll make a fortune in preventing cases like these.
All other arguments and reasoning are fallacious.
The death penalty did not prevent this tragedy from happening.
That 19 year old man should have been helped much earlier, charitably, preventing what happened.
You want cost effectiveness then treat those in need charitably and you’ll make a fortune in preventing cases like these.
All other arguments and reasoning are fallacious.
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think there are just reasons to put men to death.
But this boy is not one of them! And there are very few.
But this boy is not one of them! And there are very few.
E
Ender
Guest
Then we are agreed on the most significant question: that while there may be prudential objections to using capital punishment, there are no moral ones.
R
rcwitness
Guest
No. I dont think thats what im saying. It is a moral stance, in which the Church opposes Capital Punishment, when all efforts to avoid it are exhausted.rcwitness:
Then we are agreed on the most significant question: that while there may be prudential objections to using capital punishment, there are no moral ones.
E
Ender
Guest
It does indeed, and that’s where the investigation of this shooting ought to start.
Sick? Not evil? But yes, I think executing him would be part of the cure in that it might demonstrate that society takes the crime so seriously it is willing to exact the ultimate punishment.
Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death. And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. (Catechism of Trent)
R
rcwitness
Guest
Sick and evil. And forgivable.
Why did God not strike Cain dead?
Why did God not strike Cain dead?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I don’t think his fate should depend on the wishes of the victims’ families. For one thing, there will probably be a disparity of views among family members, and for another, emotions, no matter how understandable, should not be the determining factor in deciding upon the death penalty. I think the mental health of the gunman is critical. However, I know how possible it is for lawyers to hire and pay for a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who claims the shooter is mentally ill, while the prosecutors may hire their own mental health experts to testify the exact opposite. It is not always so easy to determine the mental health of a person at a given moment or for an extended period of time, even more challenging since the legal definition of insanity is not exactly the same as the medical definition. My own personal view is that, despite his mental problems, young age, and unfortunate life conditions, the crime he committed was so egregious that the death penalty should be exercised, as it is reserved for cases such as this. Still, I am open to contrary arguments, whether based on religion, morality, or mitigating circumstances as defined by the law.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Not exactly. Capital punishment is clearly not per se immoral, therefore objections to its use are prudential: is it an appropriate punishment in a particular situation? You interpret the (latest) catechism as saying it can only be used when it is necessary for protection, but protection is not the primary objective of punishment. Shouldn’t the nature of the punishment be determined by punishment’s primary objective?
There is another problem with the “necessary for defense” objection: suppose it is determined that capital punishment has a significant deterrent effect? I realize that this effect is not yet demonstrated, but imagine if studies in the future showed the strong likelihood that such an effect existed. Would you call for more executions given that they would result in the fewer murders? If you oppose capital punishment when it is not needed for protection, how do you oppose it when it is?
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Two trustworthy, reliable eyewitnesses were necessary, and knowledge of the criminality of the act by the perpetrator. It was already a high threshold to execute the death penalty, and Jesus was reminding the people of that as well as extending the principle of just accusation.
E
Ender
Guest
Forgiveness does not preclude punishment.
God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7). (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
Why did God strike Ananias and Sapphira dead for an apparently much less serious crime? It’s probably not a good idea to try and read God’s mind.
Last edited:
R
rcwitness
Guest
I think you miss the intention of the Church to avoid CP as much as possible. Its for the sinner to reconcile with God, and to acknowledge the dignity of life.rcwitness:
Forgiveness does not preclude punishment.
God, after describing himself as “a God merciful and gracious … forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin”, adds: “yet not without punishing” (Ex 34: 6-7). (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
Why did God strike Ananias and Sapphira dead for an apparently much less serious crime? It’s probably not a good idea to try and read God’s mind.
Cain was the first murderer, and God allowed him to live. Yes, there are examples of God striking dead men for various reasons. Touching the Ark, lying to the Holy Spirit, spilling seed, …
A
Arkansan
Guest
If a man won’t repent in the face of certain death, there’s little reason to think he’d repent if allowed to live to the natural end of his life.
A
AlNg
Guest
Capital ;punishment may be needed in cases like this.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
And, according to Jewish belief, the death penalty is the beginning of the murderer’s retribution for his crime in purgatory. Still, it should be a rare punishment.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
“The church” has no position on the use of capital punishment by particular countries. The last three popes, however, have all personally opposed its use. The church’s position on the death penalty has been clear and unchanged over two millennia. The latest catechism has not repudiated it.
On the question of the death penalty, there was a notable evolution between the first edition of the 1992 Catechism and its typical edition in Latin, published in 1997. The substance remained identical, but the structure of the arguments was developed in a restrictive sense. I do not exclude the fact that on these topics there might be variations in the type of argumentations and in the proportions of the different aspects of the problems. I would exclude radical changes, however. (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2003)
This would require us to believe that neither God nor the church are truly pro-life given that the church has always recognized the validity of its use based on what God himself had said.
- Status