S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
My objection to capital punishment has nothing to do with Tookie Williams, it has to do with the teachings of the Church. I personally don’t think Tookie redeamed himself, but who am I to judge.
- Status
R
rocklobster
Guest
Semper Fi:
It was a joke when Gorbachev and Arafat got one.
E
Ender
Guest
Semper Fi:
It is worth noting that the Catechism and the USCCB make arguments that are functional, not moral. Having defended the morality of the death penalty for 2000 years, that option was not available. That is why the bishops said this: “The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue.” They would never say they offer no judgment on a moral question.
Ender
Claiming that only modern societies are technologically advanced and stable enough to securely keep prisoners locked up for life shows how weak the arguments are against the death penalty. Exactly how likely do you believe escape was for someone chained to an oar in a Turkish galley or laboring in a Roman copper mine? It really doesn’t take much technology to secure prisoners - buldings like the Bastille were quite effective.
It is worth noting that the Catechism and the USCCB make arguments that are functional, not moral. Having defended the morality of the death penalty for 2000 years, that option was not available. That is why the bishops said this: “The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue.” They would never say they offer no judgment on a moral question.
Ender
P
pira114
Guest
One point that keeps comming up is the misconception that our prisons can prevent someone from hurting or even communicating with the outside. Simply not true. An easily provable fact.
Many, many, many crimes are commited in prison. Many, many, many crimes are ordered from prison and executed outside of prison. Even by death row inmates. Who, by the way, have many more privelages than you might think. Many more than the people in Special Housing Units. Like Pelican Bay Prison. Or the Super Max Prisons in Colorado. Even these inmates, who are in their cells 23 hours a day, are able to get at fellow inmates. They are able to order hits or other crimes from their cells as well. Prisons all over the world have tried everything to prevent communication, disruption, and crime. None have succeeded. Even the ancient shackling to the walls failed to prevent everything. Prisons have taught us one thing for sure. If a person percieves something as absolutely neccessary, they will find a way to do it, no matter what you do. Magyver had nothing on prison inmates.
The proof for these statements is in the thousands of court cases that origionate from inside prisons. The many murders that were ordered from prison. The convictions of 5 high ranking Nuestra Familia Gang members who were convicted of murdering several people all while they were locked up in California’s most secure prison-Pelican Bay.
So, while other arguements against the death penalty may be debatable, I don’t think this one is. We do not, never have, and probably never will, have the ability to prevent an inmate from hurting others, even while on death row.
Many, many, many crimes are commited in prison. Many, many, many crimes are ordered from prison and executed outside of prison. Even by death row inmates. Who, by the way, have many more privelages than you might think. Many more than the people in Special Housing Units. Like Pelican Bay Prison. Or the Super Max Prisons in Colorado. Even these inmates, who are in their cells 23 hours a day, are able to get at fellow inmates. They are able to order hits or other crimes from their cells as well. Prisons all over the world have tried everything to prevent communication, disruption, and crime. None have succeeded. Even the ancient shackling to the walls failed to prevent everything. Prisons have taught us one thing for sure. If a person percieves something as absolutely neccessary, they will find a way to do it, no matter what you do. Magyver had nothing on prison inmates.
The proof for these statements is in the thousands of court cases that origionate from inside prisons. The many murders that were ordered from prison. The convictions of 5 high ranking Nuestra Familia Gang members who were convicted of murdering several people all while they were locked up in California’s most secure prison-Pelican Bay.
So, while other arguements against the death penalty may be debatable, I don’t think this one is. We do not, never have, and probably never will, have the ability to prevent an inmate from hurting others, even while on death row.
P
pira114
Guest
I don’t think you can compare abortion to the death penalty.
Abortion kills babies who were never given a chance. The death penalty kills people who did something to deserve it, of their own free will.
To answer a question way back in this thread, no, I do not support abortion any more than I would support killing the people Williams killed. Abortion is simply murder. The death penalty is just that, a penalty.
Abortion kills babies who were never given a chance. The death penalty kills people who did something to deserve it, of their own free will.
To answer a question way back in this thread, no, I do not support abortion any more than I would support killing the people Williams killed. Abortion is simply murder. The death penalty is just that, a penalty.
P
phelan
Guest
Hi all, This is my first post. Glad to be a part of your family.
The topic about the death penalty really hits home with me this time of the year. Our Son was murdered on December 26th 1996. We were planning a large family Christmas party that evening when we got the call that he had been killed.
I can’t think of any reason I would want his killers dead. These men have familys who are grieving for their children as much as we grieve for our son. We do believe there should be life in prison without any possibility of parol.
In my heart I may be tempted to wish these men dead but as a Christian and a mother I would get know joy out of seeing the parents and the familys of the offenders watch their children being murdered by the state.
I’m sure many will not agree with us but for our own sanity and peace we pray for his killers. This is whar our son would have wanted. Hug your kids, hope you all have a peacfull Christmas.
The topic about the death penalty really hits home with me this time of the year. Our Son was murdered on December 26th 1996. We were planning a large family Christmas party that evening when we got the call that he had been killed.
I can’t think of any reason I would want his killers dead. These men have familys who are grieving for their children as much as we grieve for our son. We do believe there should be life in prison without any possibility of parol.
In my heart I may be tempted to wish these men dead but as a Christian and a mother I would get know joy out of seeing the parents and the familys of the offenders watch their children being murdered by the state.
I’m sure many will not agree with us but for our own sanity and peace we pray for his killers. This is whar our son would have wanted. Hug your kids, hope you all have a peacfull Christmas.
S
SydLake
Guest
The one situation that dealt with capital punishment in the NT was Jesus contradicting what was taught in Lev.
There are very few clearer admonitions of Jesus than the situation regarding the stoning of the women. It seems ironic that when Jesus illustrates a situation as clearly as the stoning and with such wisdom, it can be ignored, yet some of the more ambiguous verses in the NT have had volumes written about their ramifications.
The other notion you bring up about the context of the stoning being inappropriate is puzzling to me. The incident has great meaning from the crowd being caught up in the rage of stoning to Jesus’ perception of how the act can be justified by the state, yet any follower of His would have to be without sin to be involved in the act itself.
So do you follow Jesus or the state when it comes to capital punishment.
Peace
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
The women was caught in adultery. The stoning was a ‘punishment’ not a ‘protection.’ Punishment is something that God wants to mete out. We are allowed to protect law-abiding citizens from violence. Was the woman taken in adultery violent? No. That was not the nature of the accusation against her.
The nature of the accusation against Tookie Williams was violent crime. He was convicted of murder. While he was in prison he was responsible for the death of a prison guard during a riot which Williams planned. Williams also contracted out the killing someone on the outside.
So his lethal injection was not about punishing him. How can he understand his punishment if he is dead? It was about preventing the killing of any more law-abiding citizens at his hands.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
And this looks like what?
Please provide support for this claim.
What does ’ doing it correctly ’ look like?
S
SydLake
Guest
Ani Ibi:
As for prevention as a reason wouldn’t stoning the women prevent it from happening again? And if we want to prevent “bad” events maybe we should allow the abortion of less than able kids because of the terrible toll they take on society.
And besides when Jesus said that the first stone can be thrown by somebody without sin, that didn’t apply to us or the US. Right?
Peace
Have you considered the whole context of the stoning? Or the fact that in the OT property rights were paramount to ethical rights and that adultery was punishable by death,yet murder was not neccasarily so?
As for prevention as a reason wouldn’t stoning the women prevent it from happening again? And if we want to prevent “bad” events maybe we should allow the abortion of less than able kids because of the terrible toll they take on society.
And besides when Jesus said that the first stone can be thrown by somebody without sin, that didn’t apply to us or the US. Right?
Peace
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I am talking about protection.
I am talking about protection. Who are the victims of adultery? What kind of protection would killing the woman but not killing the man achieve?
I am not talking about preventing bad events. I am talking about protecting people from being murdered by those who have already been convicted of murder and who are sitting in penitentiaries planning more murders.
I agree that abortion is murder.
It is about us. Judging someone’s heart and determining the probability of them continuing to commit murder if left alive are apples and oranges. Judging someone’s heart is illicit. Protecting the innocent is legitimate self-defence.
S
SydLake
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Then throw the first stone and explain to Jesus that he wasn’t talking about you.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I have just declined to throw the first stone. I have not commented on the moral position of Williams.
What I think has to be done is that you explain to the families of those whom Williams killed after he had been convicted and after he had been sentenced to death and while he was frittering away everyone’s time with appeals and before he actually walked the green mile. You explain to them how not sentencing hard-core murderers to death has benefitted them and their families.
S
SydLake
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Jesus wasn’t about only being disciplined in action when it suits our sensibilities and feelings, in fact it seems Jesus had the highest standards when it went against our sensibilities and He required us to move out of our comfort zones. Being really pro all life is hard, especially when it involves some of the most despicable people we have heard about.
Peace
Your arguements are not really cogent because they are not relative to Jesus’ point about killing people at the behest of the state.
Jesus wasn’t about only being disciplined in action when it suits our sensibilities and feelings, in fact it seems Jesus had the highest standards when it went against our sensibilities and He required us to move out of our comfort zones. Being really pro all life is hard, especially when it involves some of the most despicable people we have heard about.
Peace
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
You are attempting to extend to murder what was said about adultery. You are attempting to extend to protection what was said about moral theology. Apples and oranges. The protection of the innocent is legitimate under Catholic teaching.
Protecting of the innocent from those who would murder them has nothing to do with casting the first stone. Casting the first stone has to do with judging a person’s heart – his motives for committing a crime. We cannot do that. Only God can do that. But we can legitimately judge a person’s behaviour.
Williams’s behaviour was to murder a human being. Williams’s behaviour was to cause the death of a prison guard and to cause the death of someone outside the prison – after he had been convicted of murder and after he had been sentenced to death.
When someone is sent to prison, society is responsible for their behaviour. If that person then continues to murder while in prison, then the responsibility for those murders is shared by the society in which the prison is located.
You have deftly pointed your finger – inappropriately – at me, instead of answering the question: how are you going to explain the fact that your prisoner – while he was in prison – was able to kill someone’s loved one? Please answer that question first.
What does this have to do with protecting the innocent? Do you think I am in my comfort zone when I concede that the execution of Tookie Williams was legitimate? How do you presume to know what my comfort zone is? My comfort zone has been formed by decades of not having the death penalty in my country which is Canada.
I am comfortable with the belief – false as it turns out – that we can safely confine all criminals – including violent ones – to prison. If it were true that we can safely confine all criminals to prison, then there would not be any murders in prison or from prison, would there? But there are murders in prison and from prison.
So I constate that what is comfortable for me and what is reasonable for me – in the consideration of the death penalty – are two different things.
Yes being really pro all life is hard. It has nothing to do with despicable people. It has everything to do with reading and understanding Catholic teaching on the Gospel of Life and legitimate self-defence. And to discuss these, a new thread will have to be started on the Moral Theology forum.
S
SydLake
Guest
Ani Ibi:
I guess we are cool with the legitimate self defence policies of the other death penalty countries like saudi arabia and china and all the other enlightened 'Christian " states.
Peace
Right, legitimate self defence. Also if canada’s lack of a death penalty is so good, why do they have a lower murder rate and why do the states with the most propensity to have death penalties enforced have some of the highest murder rates?
I guess we are cool with the legitimate self defence policies of the other death penalty countries like saudi arabia and china and all the other enlightened 'Christian " states.
Peace
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Correct. That is the Catholic teaching applicable here.
I am not seeing your reasoning here but have you considered the fact that Canada’s population is way lower than that of the US?
What part of ’ what I am saying is about protection after sentencing ’ do you not understand. I am not talking about deterrant. This is a red herring.
Unable to respond to what I have said about protection, you have resorted to false analogies and red herrings. Analogies cannot be made between the policy of the US and that of Saudi Arabia and China. If analogies can be made then it is contingent upon you to make them, with supporting evidence.
Also you have more than a few times resisted the invitation to explain to the families of those killed by Williams after he had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death why the death of their loved ones doesn’t matter in the larger scheme of justice for Williams.
Do those people not count? Would you ignore them as merely the cost of keeping Williams alive for the sake of keeping him alive? You have not spoken for them. Should they be without voice?
The point is this: if you can demonstrate in detail how you would protect law-abiding citizens from a particular convicted murderer, then I would oppose the death sentence for that particular murderer.
If you can demonstrate in detail how you would protect law-abiding citizens from **all **convicted murderers, then I would oppose the death sentence across the board.
S
SydLake
Guest
Ani Ibi:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Explain ‘rate’ please, using references to comparative numbers between the US and Canada.
You tell me. Was the prison in which Tookie Williams found himself badly designed? If so, then how would you design his prison?
In any case, to unravel your suggestion, it is enough to say that one convicted murderer committed more murders while in prison. That murderer was Tookie Williams.
Ani Ibi:
That doesn’t cut it. You made the analogy. It is not for me to draw your conclusion for you. If you are unable to justify equating the death sentences in China and Saudi Arabia with those of the US, then I am forced to conclude that you concede that your statement was a false analogy.
Ah! But you continue to evade the point, don’t you? Revenge has absolutely nothing to do with protection-- as I have said before. By placing the convicted murderer in prison, society attempts to remove him/her from the general population of society. Otherwise what is the point of putting him/her in prison?
For the time that the prisoner is in prison, the general population is protected – supposedly – from further predation on the part of the prisoner. ’ Supposedly ’ because in Tookie William’s case, a prison guard was killed and someone outside the prison was killed – directly as a result of William’s ability to contract killings.
Carrying out the death sentence before these killings occurred would have protected the victims. It would have had absolutely nothing to do with revenge. And it has nothing to do with soothed feelings. Soothed feelings is a strawman argument. No one on this thread has argued for soothed feelings. You just threw that in hoping it would stick. It didn’t stick.
Sarcasm doesn’t help your case. The context of how and what Jesus taught does not offend me. The fact that you have avoided several requests that I have made in the face of my having responded to your posts I find disrespectful. The fact that you have avoided any reference to Catholic teaching – which is the same as what Jesus taught – I find disrespectful.
- What is the Catholic teaching in this matter? Do you know? Or do you not know?
- What do you have to say to the families of those murdered while Tookie Williams was in prison? Do those people not count? Would you ignore them as merely the cost of keeping Williams alive for the sake of keeping him alive? You have not spoken for them. Should they be without voice?
- Can you demonstrate in detail how you would protect law-abiding citizens from a particular convicted murderer? If so, please proceed.
- Can you demonstrate in detail how you would protect law-abiding citizens from **all **convicted murderers? If so, please proceed.
- Can you design a superior prison to the one in which Tookie Williams found himself? If so, please describe this prison.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
There’s some old geezer on radio who keeps saying:“Now you know the rest of the story.”
So, if you have a strong stomach, visit this site and scroll down to where it says “Tookie Williams”.
homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
It will give you the “rest of the story”,
Why should we be so … sterile … Real life is …gritty.
So, if you have a strong stomach, visit this site and scroll down to where it says “Tookie Williams”.
homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html
It will give you the “rest of the story”,
Why should we be so … sterile … Real life is …gritty.
- Status