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.
Respectfully, how could anyone possibly know this? I do think the death penalty is warranted for this horrendous crime, however.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt disagree. But Jesus only addressed the fact that even the accusers are in need of forgiveness.

Jesus came to be the substitute for what we all rightly deserve.
 
rcwitness said:
I think you miss the intention of the Church to avoid CP as much as possible.
Click to expand...
I think the intention of the last three popes was indeed to reduce the use of CP except where necessary.
… It’s for the sinner to reconcile with God…
Click to expand...
That is the obligation of the sinner, but the State has its own obligation, and that is to punish crimes with a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crimes committed.
…and to acknowledge the dignity of life.
Click to expand...
To hold a man accountable for his sins is to recognize his dignity as a moral being; to fail to hold him accountable is to reduce him to the level of an animal.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia #16)
 
It was Aquinas’s argument.

In any case, common sense would say that someone repenting while serving a life sentence, who wouldn’t have repented had he been executed, is a lot rarer than the reverse (repentance before execution by a person who wouldn’t have repented during life in prison).
 
BTW, neither does Judaism. That often used phrase “an eye for an eye” actually means, as you may already know, that one should not extract MORE than one’s due. It is meant to limit our desire for retribution rather than to exercise it.
 
This is quite interesting although, I think, it does assume one is completely a free agent without regard for the influence of ANY external factors. I suppose that is the intention, but it does contrast with the law as well as psychological research.
 
Do you think that part of the severity of the law to excecute murderers from God had anything to do with their situation as being in excile?

They could not possibly detain criminals. And to go unpunished as necessary would seem to condone.
 
Ender said:
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.
Click to expand...
In modern times I meant.

In the days before cameras, stun guns and pepper sprays and other less than lethal defensive measures, electronic prisons and security measures, electricity, and so much more, the death penalty was necessary.

What I should have said was “within the context of living in the USA in the 21st century, one cannot claim to uphold a truly pro life platform while advocating capital punishment.”
 
Last edited:
Death belongs to the murderer why do you think so much crime happens in America and the West these days, the death penalty is the only way to actually deter such crimes from happening again although it might seem merciless I’d say it’s better then letting him live in shame and fear for the rest of his life knowing what he did. He was no child nor was he mentally ill he knowingly did it and he should be given the same punishment. As Christ said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus would forgive a child or someone who didn’t know what he was doing or a sick person this person was neither of these things. I say death for a murderer.
 
Masihi said:
Jesus would forgive a child or someone who didn’t know what he was doing or a sick person this person was neither of these things. I say death for a murderer.
Click to expand...
First of all Jesus forgives everyone. Secondly, what makes you think that this crime was done by a mentally-well human-being?
 
Last edited:
I see no legitimate medical report. Infact to many crimes in the West were sweeped under the rug due to false charges of mental illness. I believe Jesus can forgive him in the next world.
 
Yes he should. LEX TALIONIS. This is the problem with our country. Criminals have rights. The minute you decide to commit a crime, your rights are null and void. Do not coddle these people. Look at Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries. They don’t mess around with criminals.
 
Masihi said:
I see no legitimate medical report. Infact to many crimes in the West were sweeped under the rug due to false charges of mental illness. I believe Jesus can forgive him in the next world.
Click to expand...
You need to see a medical report in order to understand that some actions make no rational sense and are probably caused by mental illness? There is no evidence that the person is a terrorist, so what else can make sense of his behavior. It’s not like he went in to a bank and killed a few people in order to get away with the crime.

What happened at that school was the behavior of somebody that had lost the plot. He is not right in the head. Normal criminals, even ones that don’t value life above their own profit, don’t do things like that.

Sure, he needs to be kept away from society but he is no ordinary murderer.
 
Last edited:
He fits the perfect definition of terrorist to me but I say to you is your opinion and to me is mine.
 
Ender said:
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?
Click to expand...
I don’t think I am misinterpreting it in any way. The words are quite clear.

As for the “punishment” angle, article 2266 of teh Catechism states:
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.
Click to expand...
It has to “redress” the disorder. Executing a person does not restore the lives of the murdered. So execution fails to redress the disorder. We can argue that execution propitiates the aggrieved in the community - in a lex talionis sort of way. This would work within a Jewish Law context in which the only possible remedy for murder is execution.
Ender said:
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?
Click to expand...
Given that this has never been historically observed I see no point in speculating. But … the only way I could see it “working” is in a “tyranny of fear” type of way - something which I would oppose since it would fear is not compatible with the notion of a common good.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top