Should the jurors consider that in the case of the Boston marathon bomber, a death penalty sentence would be less severe than a life imprisonment one?

[Robert_Sock]

It is not necessary to give him life in prison to save his soul. It only takes a moment of perfect contrition to save a soul. He’s old enough to know that murder is wrong and to know that what he did isn’t excusable on religious or patriotic grounds. He doesn’t need years to repent of what he already knows is sin. I’m not advocating for either sentence here, I’m just stating the facts.

Conversions very often take time, which life imprisonment could allow.

 

[Robert_Sock]

For many, forgiveness is a difficult virtue to master. When we learn the power and wisdom of forgiveness, we are bound to have reached an advanced level of spiritual maturity. Regardless the nature of any possible abuse that we may have endured, nor the severity of that abuse, full recovery from abuse cannot be achieved until we truly forgive our abuser(s). Any anger or resentment we hold within us, live and thrive within us, and become a part of our very self. We will never rid ourselves of this anger and resentment until we experience true forgiveness towards all. Seeing our tormentors suffer a thousand times over will only add to our own misery.

On the other hand, to endure unnecessary torment and misery is never righteous, but a perversion. Also, the righteousness of forgiveness should never involve our condoning abuse or any other forms of evil.

True forgiveness requires our valuing peace and love above all else. Experiencing forgiveness towards those who have wronged us resembles perfect love more so than perhaps any other human experience. Forgiveness involves recognizing and valuing the potential for love that exists within every human soul, including our own soul. Sins cannot be completely forgiven until we forgive, and find an inner peace with, everyone who has ever wronged us; for every ounce of anger and resentment that we hold against any other(s), there will surely exist an ounce of sin held against us – for harboring anger and resentment within our self is sin.

The Golden Rule states: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Our forgiving everyone, especially those we consider our enemies or adversaries, is to demonstrate to God that we are worthy of His forgiveness. Likewise, to find love for all our enemies and adversaries is to demonstrate to God that we have suffered long enough with our anger and resentment, and we are ready to receive His love.

Again, to experience the true power and wisdom contained within the virtue of forgiveness is to develop great spiritual growth!

 

[Della]

For many, forgiveness is a difficult virtue to master. When we learn the power and wisdom of forgiveness, we are bound to have reached an advanced level of spiritual maturity. Regardless the nature of any possible abuse that we may have endured, nor the severity of that abuse, full recovery from abuse cannot be achieved until we truly forgive our abuser(s). Any anger or resentment we hold within us, live and thrive within us, and become a part of our very self. We will never rid ourselves of this anger and resentment until we experience true forgiveness towards all. Seeing our tormentors suffer a thousand times over will only add to our own misery.

On the other hand, to endure unnecessary torment and misery is never righteous, but a perversion. Also, the righteousness of forgiveness should never involve our condoning abuse or any other forms of evil.

True forgiveness requires our valuing peace and love above all else. Experiencing forgiveness towards those who have wronged us resembles perfect love more so than perhaps any other human experience. Forgiveness involves recognizing and valuing the potential for love that exists within every human soul, including our own soul. Sins cannot be completely forgiven until we forgive, and find an inner peace with, everyone who has ever wronged us; for every ounce of anger and resentment that we hold against any other(s), there will surely exist an ounce of sin held against us – for harboring anger and resentment within our self is sin.

The Golden Rule states: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” Our forgiving everyone, especially those we consider our enemies or adversaries, is to demonstrate to God that we are worthy of His forgiveness. Likewise, to find love for all our enemies and adversaries is to demonstrate to God that we have suffered long enough with our anger and resentment, and we are ready to receive His love.

Again, to experience the true power and wisdom contained within the virtue of forgiveness is to develop great spiritual growth!

All that is lovely but it has nothing to do with a government exacting justice against criminals for heinous acts they’ve committed. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Governments are not in the business of forgiving unrepentant murderers. It’s not up to me to forgive this criminal, either. He committed no crimes against me personally, but against those present for the marathon, and in a larger sense, against America. Many of his victims have forgiven him, and that’s fine for them and quite right, but that doesn’t mitigate his guilt nor his need to pay for his crimes as the jurors decide is appropriate.

 

[Robert_Sock]

All that is lovely but it has nothing to do with a government exacting justice against criminals for heinous acts they’ve committed. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it. Governments are not in the business of forgiving unrepentant murderers. It’s not up to me to forgive this criminal, either. He committed no crimes against me personally, but against those present for the marathon, and in a larger sense, against America. Many of his victims have forgiven him, and that’s fine for them and quite right, but that doesn’t mitigate his guilt nor his need to pay for his crimes as the jurors decide is appropriate.

I would urge you dig deeper into the virtue of forgiveness.

 

[Della]

I would urge you dig deeper into the virtue of forgiveness.

LOL! Thanks, but I’ve got a very firm grasp of the concept.

 

[marymary1975]

Wouldn’t he be moved to a Fed. facility outside of MA? Besides, the jurors are all from MA. If they decide he deserves the death penalty the Feds will carry out the sentence no matter who might object. I believe only the president could rescind such a sentence, and he’s not likely to–although you never know what the present administration might do to placate terrorists. But that’s another topic for another thread.

Yes all the jurors are from MA. That is why I said I’d be surprised if the jurors picked death penalty because people in MA have very strong feelings against the death penalty. Now if they decide for it not necessarily they can carry out the sentence no matter what. There is currently an ongoing Rhode Island case with a similar situation. Feds choose death penalty, RI case, RI is non death penalty jurisdiction. They have been fighting for a very long time and the Feds can’t carry the sentence because of RI. It went to the SCOTUS and was certiiriri was denied which made the fight even worst. That case seems to be stuck in a never ending legal battle so I am not sure of the Feds are going to want to go through the same when RI (which is in the same Federal Circuit) is still being fought in the first circuit and they haven’t been able to get anywhere.

Now because this is terrorism they may want to try this one in the SCOTUS to see if this may hit. But still it would be a fight and again I just don’t know if the Feds may want that.

 

[Ender]

For many, forgiveness is a difficult virtue to master.

It is a responsibility of the individual to forgive, although not in all circumstances, but it is an obligation of the government to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
Justice demands a punishment with a severity “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” Again, this is an obligation; it is not optional.

Finally, there is nothing incompatible with hoping for a person’s salvation and imposing a sentence of death. The catechism itself recognizes that the latter may lead to the former.Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
*(67) Lk 23: 40-43 - ref the salvation of the good thief *(CCC 2266)
We’ve made this situation much more confused than it ought to be.

Ender

 

[Della]

Yes all the jurors are from MA. That is why I said I’d be surprised if the jurors picked death penalty because people in MA have very strong feelings against the death penalty. Now if they decide for it not necessarily they can carry out the sentence no matter what. There is currently an ongoing Rhode Island case with a similar situation. Feds choose death penalty, RI case, RI is non death penalty jurisdiction. They have been fighting for a very long time and the Feds can’t carry the sentence because of RI. It went to the SCOTUS and was certiiriri was denied which made the fight even worst. That case seems to be stuck in a never ending legal battle so I am not sure of the Feds are going to want to go through the same when RI (which is in the same Federal Circuit) is still being fought in the first circuit and they haven’t been able to get anywhere.

Now because this is terrorism they may want to try this one in the SCOTUS to see if this may hit. But still it would be a fight and again I just don’t know if the Feds may want that.

I’m not disputing what you’ve cited–not at all. I’m simply confused. If the RI jury decided that the criminal should receive the death penalty in a Federal case, who is objecting to it being carried out? RI or someone else? Truly, I’m confused–no doubt my fault.

 

[Robert_Sock]

It is a responsibility of the individual to forgive, although not in all circumstances, but it is an obligation of the government to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
Justice demands a punishment with a severity “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” Again, this is an obligation; it is not optional.

Finally, there is nothing incompatible with hoping for a person’s salvation and imposing a sentence of death. The catechism itself recognizes that the latter may lead to the former.Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
*(67) Lk 23: 40-43 - ref the salvation of the good thief *(CCC 2266)
We’ve made this situation much more confused than it ought to be.

Ender

What you quoted is fine, but the Church has come out to condemn the death penalty. Seems like pope Francis is especially against it.

What would Christ do? Do you really believe that He would want anybody to die?

Again, it takes time to change, and a life sentence could provide that extra incentive to repent.

 

[Della]

It is a responsibility of the individual to forgive, although not in all circumstances, but it is an obligation of the government to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
Justice demands a punishment with a severity “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” Again, this is an obligation; it is not optional.

Finally, there is nothing incompatible with hoping for a person’s salvation and imposing a sentence of death. The catechism itself recognizes that the latter may lead to the former.Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)
*(67) Lk 23: 40-43 - ref the salvation of the good thief *(CCC 2266)
We’ve made this situation much more confused than it ought to be.

Ender

Exactly. We have substituted reason and law with warm fuzzies and sentimentality. The duty of government is not to forgive offenders but to bring justice to the offended. It’s the Church duty to offer forgiveness for sins large and small.

 

[marymary1975]

I’m not disputing what you’ve cited–not at all. I’m simply confused. If the RI jury decided that the criminal should receive the death penalty in a Federal case, who is objecting to it being carried out? RI or someone else? Truly, I’m confused–no doubt my fault.

Yes it is the State of Rhode Island disputing the sentence. What happens is that the RI case (just like the bomber) is a case in which charges exists both in Federal and State. Now I am not sure that the jury in the RI was all from RI, that may be one difference and another differencemay be that my understanding was that in that case state and feds from the beginning were let’s say not working harmoniously. In the bomber case there has been full cooperation on both sides until now, another difference (or maybe they learned from the RI one ?). So ever since the sentence came out RI has been fighting in the First District Courts over it.

I think that the fact that with the bomber they have been working harmoniously is a good thing but because they have the other case still ongoing I just don’tknow if the Feds are going to want to push it because all the conflicts they had in the other case.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Exactly. We have substituted reason and law with warm fuzzies and sentimentality. The duty of government is not to forgive offenders but to bring justice to the offended. It’s the Church duty to offer forgiveness for sins large and small.

You seem to ignore that Pope Francis has publicly stated his disapproval of the death penalty.

You also failed to discuss how the enactment of the death penalty is Christlike?

 

[Ender]

What you quoted is fine, but the Church has come out to condemn the death penalty. Seems like pope Francis is especially against it.

Yes, Pope Francis is against its use, but that is a personal preference; it assuredly is not the doctrine of the church.

What would Christ do? Do you really believe that He would want anybody to die?

Apparently, yes.***Mt 15:3-6 **Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
**Mt 18:6 **But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
**Acts 25:11 **If, however, I (Paul) am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.
**Rom 1:29 **Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
**Heb 10:28 **Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
**Rev 13:10 **If any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth: if any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
*

Again, it takes time to change, and a life sentence could provide that extra incentive to repent.

As the catechism noted, so can the death penalty.

Ender

 

[graciew]

Well,when it comes to life and death it is kind of weird to speak of personal preferences.
I understand Ender 's prudential,the only thing I object to is the " preference"
The decision over life and death implies breaking a commandment,no matter how one wishes to see it. It cannot boil down to a personal preference.
Yes,maybe it is the wording that rattles me,and I am not precisely good at that…
Life and death require a moral question to a higher level,I think . and that is where I believe 3 popes must have asked themselves the proper question,and answered it with a much higher level or discernment than I can.

Mine is just a thought. Only that.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes, Pope Francis is against its use, but that is a personal preference; it assuredly is not the doctrine of the church.
Apparently, yes.***Mt 15:3-6 ***Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
**Mt 18:6 **But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
**Acts 25:11 **If, however, I (Paul) am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.
**Rom 1:29 **Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
**Heb 10:28 **Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
**Rev 13:10 **If any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth: if any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
As the catechism noted, so can the death penalty.

Ender

On a major social and moral issue such as the death penalty, do you think the Pope’s personal preference is not founded on Catholic teaching?

 

[Ender]

On a major social and moral issue such as the death penalty, do you think the Pope’s personal preference is not founded on Catholic teaching?

The church has always recognized that there could be prudential reasons making the application of capital punishment unwise, however there is nothing in church doctrine that makes it immoral.

Ender

 

[Della]

I’m sorry but the quote is not self-explanatory, which means you are trying to convey some idea to me but I must rely on your interpretation of a papal statement to “get it.” I don’t doubt your good intentions, mind, but I am perfectly capable of translating the pope’s words into real life as anyone else. Thank you. :tiphat:

I’ll make myself clear–nothing I have stated is in any way opposed to Church teaching. Period. No more discussion about my comments needed. Thank you.

Once again the topic has strayed from the OP’s question. This is not about the rightness/wrongness of the death penalty. The Church’s statements in the CCC are a bit vague. It’s like the composers of the document are hedging their bets by saying we’re not for it, but we can’t say it’s intrinsically evil, either because it isn’t.

The reality is the Church cannot tell governments that they cannot use the death penalty if warranted. Therefore, it is up to governments to enact fair laws with regard to punishment for crimes committed. In this case, it is up to the jury to decide–that’s the law by which we all abide.

I have no axe to grind with anyone. I am not arguing for or against the death penalty in this case or any other. I think the heinousness of the crimes speak for themselves, still, I am not on the jury, I have not heard all the evidence nor do I know all the circumstances of the case, therefore, I make no judgment one way or the other. But I will not say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil because it isn’t. Plain and simple.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Yes, Pope Francis is against its use, but that is a personal preference; it assuredly is not the doctrine of the church.
Apparently, yes.***Mt 15:3-6 ***Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
**Mt 18:6 **But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
**Acts 25:11 **If, however, I (Paul) am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.
**Rom 1:29 **Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
**Heb 10:28 **Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
**Rev 13:10 **If any man is for captivity, into captivity he goeth: if any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
As the catechism noted, so can the death penalty.

Ender

There is not one bit of evidence that Christ ever sought revenge or willed any kind violence upon anyone.

 

[Brendan]

There is not one bit of evidence that Christ ever sought revenge or willed any kind violence upon anyone.

Tell that to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. That was Christ that did that.

He also send the Angel of Death to kill the first born of Egypt as well.

And that whole flood thing that killed off most of the humans in the world, same guy…

And the one who directed Joshua to kill all the Canaanites, men, women and kids… yep… Christ…

 

[Robert_Sock]

Tell that to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. That was Christ that did that.

He also send the Angel of Death to kill the first born of Egypt as well.

And that whole flood thing that killed off most of the humans in the world, same guy…

And the one who directed Joshua to kill all the Canaanites, men, women and kids… yep… Christ…

These are all Old Testament events, under the Old Covenant. Do you have something from the Gospels depicting Christ directly as being pro-death penalty?