The death penalty is justified

[whatevergirl]

Making sense? You denied the possibility of truth in the matter of the death penalty, or at least of our finding that truth in this debate. You denied, in other words, the very possibility of “making sense.”

Or did you know that that’s what “it’s just your opinion” means? If it means anything, it means that.

And I didn’t “change the subject”; those were rhetorical questions. Tell me, did you pass 9th grade English? Because I’m fairly sure anyone who did would know that. Neither did I “put words in your mouth”; I was saying that it is as legitimate to try to convince people on this question as on those. Again, as any literate person would know.

I am mystified by your hostility towards me. If I have offended you in some way, I apologize, but I find your tone to be rude to me, and I was joking about ‘making sense.’ Let’s just agree to disagree…for, I have no desire to spar with someone who chooses to namecall me, nor expresses himself in such a rude manner. ‘Being right,’ even if you hurt a sister in Christ, isn’t much gain. Take care.

 

[wow]

2266
“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.”

I believe the CCC’s endorsement of the death penalty covers an officer who has to save lives once someone has proven they will kill. A multiple hostage situation for instance where one hostage has been killed.

CCC 2267 covers my thoughts below.

Once you incarcerate someone into the penal system the death penalty is not necessity. I saw an arguement on the gangs. Better security could have stopped that. Those who assisted the gangs are complicit in my opinion.

2267
“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Add in the Evangelium Vitae and it’s even more clear.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[whatevergirl]

2266
“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.”

I believe the CCC’s endorsement of the death penalty covers an officer who has to save lives once someone has proven they will kill. A multiple hostage situation for instance where one hostage has been killed.

CCC 2267 covers my thoughts below.

Once you incarcerate someone into the penal system the death penalty is not necessity. I saw an arguement on the gangs. Better security could have stopped that. Those who assisted the gangs are complicit in my opinion.

2267
“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Add in the Evangelium Vitae and it’s even more clear.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Thank you for posting that–the Church’s stance on this is really interesting.

 

[Hastrman]

I am mystified by your hostility towards me. If I have offended you in some way, I apologize, but I find your tone to be rude to me, and I was joking about ‘making sense.’ Let’s just agree to disagree…for, I have no desire to spar with someone who chooses to namecall me, nor expresses himself in such a rude manner. ‘Being right,’ even if you hurt a sister in Christ, isn’t much gain. Take care.

I do apologize for getting a bit rude, but you said

You do not have the right or wrong answer–it’s your opinion, as well

which is both mortally insulting, and flat-out not true. I may be mistaken, you may be mistaken, but it is not a matter of opinion. If there is right and wrong in morality, and there is, it is not a matter of opinion.

As for you, wow, when I said “And neither does the Pope,” I did not mean that the Pope was not right on the death penalty–I meant he didn’t think you were right, either. Since he never has, and never would (since it would be to contradict the deposit of faith) said the death penalty is wrong.

He is, however, not a criminologist, and his prudential judgment about the necessity for it in the modern world, is utterly mistaken. But then, they don’t have the Brand (formerly the Aryan Brotherhood) in Europe. Neither, for that matter, do they have as many young men as America.

 

[whatevergirl]

I do apologize for getting a bit rude, but you said

no buts But, thank you for apologizing.

which is both mortally insulting, and flat-out not true. I may be mistaken, you may be mistaken, but it is not a matter of opinion. If there is right and wrong in morality, and there is, it is not a matter of opinion.

I agree there–but the death penalty, from a faith perspective, seems wrong. Not intrinsically wrong, because the reasoning behind it is based on protecting society. From a moral perspective, one can see that as good…but also, as bad. Every human being has intrinsic value, not based on their actions, but based on being a child of God. Now, of course, violent criminals need to be punished, but I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the death penalty is not our only option.

 

[wow]

As for you, wow, when I said “And neither does the Pope,” I did not mean that the Pope was not right on the death penalty–I meant he didn’t think you were right, either. Since he never has, and never would (since it would be to contradict the deposit of faith) said the death penalty is wrong.

Saying … ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ is pretty close to wrong wouldn’t you agree?

As for him being a criminologist…neither was Jesus who ask his Father to forgive those who crucified him.

When I first got out of the military, I worked in a prison system in the state of Florida. That’s been a lot of years ago, but I still felt that way then and now.

 

[Hastrman]

Saying … ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ is pretty close to wrong wouldn’t you agree?

As for him being a criminologist…neither was Jesus who ask his Father to forgive those who crucified him.

No, because “wrong” means immoral. “Not necessary” means there’s no need to do it. And it’s not consonant with the facts–as I argue time and time again, there’s never not a need to kill someone whose crime deserves it, since there is absolutely no way, short of a frontal lobotomy, of keeping someone from doing anything they want to do. The Pope knows what the Europeans tell him, and they’re in a fantasy world caused by living too long on a reservation America’s military set up for them.

And forgiving people, for God, means “not damn their souls to hell.” They might still have to take their consequences here on earth. In fact the usual penance, I’m told, when one confesses a sin that is also a crime, is to turn oneself in and take the punishment bestowed by the state.

We do give Catholics on Death Row Last Rites, you know. And everyone else gets the same mercy God offers all non-Catholics, if they repent.

 

[wow]

No, because “wrong” means immoral. “Not necessary” means there’s no need to do it. And it’s not consonant with the facts–as I argue time and time again, there’s never not a need to kill someone whose crime deserves it, since there is absolutely no way, short of a frontal lobotomy, of keeping someone from doing anything they want to do. The Pope knows what the Europeans tell him, and they’re in a fantasy world caused by living too long on a reservation America’s military set up for them.

And forgiving people, for God, means “not damn their souls to hell.” They might still have to take their consequences here on earth. In fact the usual penance, I’m told, when one confesses a sin that is also a crime, is to turn oneself in and take the punishment bestowed by the state.

We do give Catholics on Death Row Last Rites, you know. And everyone else gets the same mercy God offers all non-Catholics, if they repent.

I bolded the part that blew me away at this hour…

So, I guess I’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Peace,

 

[Hastrman]

So, I guess I’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Don’t insult me. This is essentially your way of saying, “You’re either crazy or stupid, so I’m not going to argue anymore.” It’s disrespectful to me, to the topic, and to yourself. Not to mention the Common Master, Truth, which is a title of God.

And in what way, exactly, is Europe not living in a reservation we created for them? Whose troops, exactly, kept the Soviets from invading them? Wasn’t theirs, other than the French and the Swiss (contrary to popular belief, the French are extreme pragmatists in foreign policy–down to having a huge nuclear arsenal and one of the best special forces in the world).

 

[wow]

Don’t insult me. This is essentially your way of saying, “You’re either crazy or stupid, so I’m not going to argue anymore.” It’s disrespectful to me, to the topic, and to yourself. Not to mention the Common Master, Truth, which is a title of God.

And in what way, exactly, is Europe not living in a reservation we created for them? Whose troops, exactly, kept the Soviets from invading them? Wasn’t theirs, other than the French and the Swiss (contrary to popular belief, the French are extreme pragmatists in foreign policy–down to having a huge nuclear arsenal and one of the best special forces in the world).

I’m sorry if you took it as an insult. I did not mean it to be that way. But I can see there’s no way we are going to agree and it’s getting very late here.

As for the Europe statement, that’s probably another thread all together.

Peace,

 

[Hastrman]

As for the Europe statement, that’s probably another thread all together.

Now that is possible, I will concede.

G’Night, I guess.

Would someone, anyone, care to answer my question of what you do if someone sent to prison for life, kills somebody in prison? Because it seems there’s nothing left to do to them, that probably wouldn’t constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

This is very important, you see, because when people are in prison, we have to take away their means to defend themselves. That means we become responsible for them. And in order for the prisoners to be able, in conscience, to submit to the guards’ discipline, they have to know the guards will protect them. The threat of death may be all that keeps some prisoners from killing their fellows.

I would argue CP is definitely called for in that instance, anyway–to protect that society.

 

[Ender]

the death penalty, from a faith perspective, seems wrong.

In forming your opinion on this you might want to be guided by the Church’s perspective - which holds that the death penalty is a just sentence for some crimes in some situations.

Not intrinsically wrong, because the reasoning behind it is based on protecting society.

The reasoning behind it - until Evangelium vitae - was justice, not protecting society.

Now, of course, violent criminals need to be punished, but I don’t think I’m alone in saying that the death penalty is not our only option.

Sin calls for punishment. The state has the obligation of inflicting a punishment proportionate to the severity of the crime and there are some crimes for which the only proportionate punishment is the life of the criminal.

Ender

 

[joseph_virgen]

regardless of what anybody states here or anywhere else, the death penalty will always pit the believer against the none believer. those with mercy vs those without. in the end each will answer to either the Father of light or the father of lies.

truth being, we all fall to the rationalization in facts, we learn to love order and detest when someone intrudes with this thing called faith. we don’t understand it, it is foreign to us. it has no meaning. it is as though infinity is mocking us.

unless called upon certain individuals will never understand the beauty that is our faith.

 

[Hastrman]

regardless of what anybody states here or anywhere else, the death penalty will always pit the believer against the none believer. those with mercy vs those without. in the end each will answer to either the Father of light or the father of lies.

truth being, we all fall to the rationalization in facts, we learn to love order and detest when someone intrudes with this thing called faith. we don’t understand it, it is foreign to us. it has no meaning. it is as though infinity is mocking us.

unless called upon certain individuals will never understand the beauty that is our faith.

Or in other words, “everyone that disagrees with me is the son of Satan.” There’s a rational argument–argumentum ad hominem, ab diabole.

Of course, Satan did not fall by lack of faith–he fell by spiritual pride.

 

[pnewton]

I understood that something like that happened before but that it was due largely to bribing of prison guards to get info from gang leaders to the outside world. At any rate, such leaders couldn’t physically murder anyone themselves.

That is part of the problem. We must not forget the human element in watching prisoners. Cell phones smuggled in can go for $500-$1000. The risk of temptation is always a problem. There are other ways, though, of communication. The law does not allow us to keep anyone completely isolated from phone, mail and media. Yet.

 

[pnewton]

You at least acknowledge the concept of truth (though I don’t think you have it on that last point.

I believe, as do all here, in the concept of truth as an absolute. However, that does not mean there is a truth in all areas. There are many areas of judgement where to people may disagree and absolute truth does not apply. Whether capital punishment is appropriate for a specific place at a specific time is one such area.

 

[whatevergirl]

I believe, as do all here, in the concept of truth as an absolute. However, that does not mean there is a truth in all areas. There are many areas of judgement where to people may disagree and absolute truth does not apply. Whether capital punishment is appropriate for a specific place at a specific time is one such area.

that makes a lot of sense–i agree here.

 

[Ender]

I believe, as do all here, in the concept of truth as an absolute. However, that does not mean there is a truth in all areas. There are many areas of judgement where to people may disagree and absolute truth does not apply. Whether capital punishment is appropriate for a specific place at a specific time is one such area.

Whether capital punishment is appropriate for a particular individual is, as you said, a matter of judgment; whether capital punishment is ever appropriate as a matter of justice is true or false. That is, the principle is a question of objective truth, the application of the principle is subjective.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Whether capital punishment is appropriate for a particular individual is, as you said, a matter of judgment; whether capital punishment is ever appropriate as a matter of justice is true or false. That is, the principle is a question of objective truth, the application of the principle is subjective.

Yes, and that is even a third issue. Is killing a murder injust? The answer is no. The “eye for an eye” of the Mosaic law is a principle of justice. What we often forget is that it was also a limitationm more than vengence. Meaning that one can not take a life for an eye, or several lives for a life. That is where vengence exceeds justice.

The prudence part, where we may agree or not, is whether justice should prevail or mercy. Both are atributes of God. Both play a role in Christian moral theology. Both have their place in a penal system.

 

[Ender]

regardless of what anybody states here or anywhere else, the death penalty will always pit the believer against the none believer.

Anyone who says “regardless of what anybody states” doesn’t understand the situation. If we’re merely discussing opinions then what someone else says or believes is immaterial to our own belief, but in matters of truth then what someone else says ought to matter. As between the believer and the non-believer it is interesting to note that it was precisely those nations who lost their faith that were first to abolish capital punishment; not the other way around.

those with mercy vs those without.

If you would like to argue that mercy forbids the use of capital punishment, go for it. Let’s hear the rationale.

in the end each will answer to either the Father of light or the father of lies.

I console myself when I think I may be standing in the wrong line that I am in the same line that includes Augustine, Aquinas, and pretty nearly every pope and priest who has ever written on the subject prior to JPII. I will take my chances with the company I keep.

truth being, we all fall to the rationalization in facts, we learn to love order and detest when someone intrudes with this thing called faith. we don’t understand it, it is foreign to us. it has no meaning. it is as though infinity is mocking us.

unless called upon certain individuals will never understand the beauty that is our faith.

*“Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God … hence there can be no contradiction between them … Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it.” *(JPII Fides et ratio)

Ender