And yet I **never said **John Paul the Great said “in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society”
That’s just the point, isn’t it?
has been rather clear that the death penalty should be used only in rare circumstances and that in this day and age, with our nation’s resources, executions are not necessary to protect society.
Vern, what is the hang up?
I would say John Paul the Great knew he had never run a prison nor been involved in the criminal justice system. He would realize that these matters are more complicated than simply throwing resources at them.
So based on his quotes you’re saying he’s wrong when he said, “since today the State has other means available to suppress crime effectively, without definitively depriving the offender of the possibility of redeeming himself.” and “given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it,” or do you not see ‘other means’ to be the same as ‘other resources’?
You are referring to an opinion of a pope (which is not infallible, by the way) rather than the official teachings of the Church.
Again, it all depends on the motive, and depends on the intent. Armed robbery in itself is not sufficient grounds for murder, since there is still the need to establish intent and motive. That is why we have courts, and why we still go on trials, to determine if an action would go down as murder or homicide. Now, we go back again to two situations: if there was already an intention to kill, then that is murder. If the intention was only to rob, but the victim struggled, and in the ensuing struggle the victim was killed, it can be ruled as a homicide. The court then determines, based on how it happened, if it will be murder or homicide, but more likely than not it will go down as homicide, if there was no premeditated intention to kill.
In a court of law, who carries the weapon will have weight as well. You can see that even in court rulings: the one who didn’t have a gun would have a lesser sentence than the ones who did and shot.
Actually, the burden of proof is on him, since he has to prove his innocence. That’s how the law works, however hard you try to not understand it.
yeah, I get that. That’s why I was asking about whether or not a Catholic should choose to be an executioner. While it isn’t expressly forbidden, the Pope has spoken against the necesity of capital punishment enough that it raised that question in my mind.
When did John Paul the Great deputize you to speak for him?
Plus, if any of you guys have been watching the news lately, there have been quite a few jailbreaks recently. In addition to that, an inmate was caught on tape beating a fellow inmate. I don’t really think we currently have the facilities to protect our society or even the prisons, but that’s just me.
I don’t know of any corrections officers who would say we can make our prisons either completely safe or completely escape-proof. But if we can achieve that, we ought to be able to achieve a zero crime rate, too – and we know we can’t do that.
