Troy Davis makes final appeal before execution

[Tsuwano]

Of course, it makes people uncomfortable.

I’m sorry . . . what makes people uncomfortable? Reflecting on the death penalty or not reflecting on the death penalty?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Curious headline.

nypost.com/p/news/local/jail_pen_attack_qIwDsitQ7sELD2esrAtQCP

Then read the story … the guy is in for second degree murder and now for attempted murder.

[Some people are just plain dangerous.]

 

[vz71]

I’m sorry . . . what makes people uncomfortable? Reflecting on the death penalty or not reflecting on the death penalty?

Discussing it, of course.
Why else would people wish to silence the dialogue?

 

[vz71]

Curious headline.

nypost.com/p/news/local/jail_pen_attack_qIwDsitQ7sELD2esrAtQCP

Then read the story … the guy is in for second degree murder and now for attempted murder.

[Some people are just plain dangerous.]

And the case is made for why we cannot ban the death sentence altogether.
There are some that we simply cannot safely remove from society any other way.

However, I am still of the opinion that Troy should not have been killed.
Troy is an example of people that can be locked away safely.
The criminal in the quoted story is an example of why we still need the death penalty.

We need to use it more cautiously…lest we turn it into revenge instead of justice.

 

[Tsuwano]

Curious headline.

nypost.com/p/news/local/jail_pen_attack_qIwDsitQ7sELD2esrAtQCP

Then read the story … the guy is in for second degree murder and now for attempted murder.

[Some people are just plain dangerous.]

Is this guy dangerous? Yeah, of course he is! Should he be locked away and kept in solitary? Sounds like it. But should he be annihilated? Exterminated? Wiped off the the face of the Earth? Executed? Sorry, I still have my doubts about that. It’s that darned humanity thing! I can’t get around it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Is this guy dangerous? Yeah, of course he is! Should he be locked away and kept in solitary? Sounds like it. But should he be annihilated? Exterminated? Wiped off the the face of the Earth? Executed? Sorry, I still have my doubts about that. It’s that darned humanity thing! I can’t get around it.

It would be great if we COULD lock someone up and throw away the key. BUT, the courts do not allow that option.

 

[Tsuwano]

It would be great if we COULD lock someone up and throw away the key. BUT, the courts do not allow that option.

It wouldn’t be great at all. It would be inhumane and most certainly contrary to the life and message of Jesus Christ.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It wouldn’t be great at all. It would be inhumane and most certainly contrary to the life and message of Jesus Christ.

So, I guess you are stuck with dealing with psychopaths in the SuperMax who persist in killing innocent people from prison.

 

[Hastrman]

So, I guess you are stuck with dealing with psychopaths in the SuperMax who persist in killing innocent people from prison.

But, but, we totally have the means to render them incapable of doing further harm!

Only, no, actually, several of our worse organized-crime groups only exist in prison, where they do things like run the black market.

I’m curious, all you death-penalty opponents, have you even heard of the Aryan Brotherhood, AKA “The Brand”?

 

[Tsuwano]

So, I guess you are stuck with dealing with psychopaths in the SuperMax who persist in killing innocent people from prison.

As a follower of Christ, I suppose I am stuck with that to some degree, but I am also assured that Christ is with his people and that his love is stronger than hate or fear or the desire to exterminate.

 

[Hastrman]

As a follower of Christ, I suppose I am stuck with that to some degree, but I am also assured that Christ is with his people and that his love is stronger than hate or fear or the desire to exterminate.

Yeah, because nobody has ever lost their faith because of crimes committed against them.

You want to live totally nonviolently, fine, you go right ahead, but you have no right to impose that policy on others, since they have an inalienable right to defend themselves.

 

[Tsuwano]

Yeah, because nobody has ever lost their faith because of crimes committed against them.

You want to live totally nonviolently, fine, you go right ahead, but you have no right to impose that policy on others, since they have an inalienable right to defend themselves.

I’m not imposing a policy on anyone. And I never said anything about living “totally nonviolently.” Those are your words, not mine. I do believe however, that the message of Christ does impose a certain behavior upon those who call themselves followers of Christ. It’s not my message. It’s the Lords. Take it up in prayer, but spare me the false indignancy.

 

[Hastrman]

I’m not imposing a policy on anyone. And I never said anything about living “totally nonviolently.” Those are your words, not mine. I do believe however, that the message of Christ does impose a certain behavior upon those who call themselves followers of Christ. It’s not my message. It’s the Lords. Take it up in prayer, but spare me the false indignancy.

1. Indignation.
2. The second you advocate a policy for adoption by the state, you are attempting to impose it upon the community at large. It is useless to pretend otherwise.
3. Spare me the wholly unwarranted self-righteousness, and you’ve got yourself a deal.

 

[Ender]

I do believe however, that the message of Christ does impose a certain behavior upon those who call themselves followers of Christ. It’s not my message. It’s the Lords.

You should be careful about what you consider the Lord’s message to be; it’s not what you think it is.

In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote about vengeance and analyzed this specific question: *Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men? *(II-II, 108,3) The objections he theorized were:

*(obj 1) … Therefore sinners should not be put to death.
(obj 3) … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

This is his rebuttal to those objections:

On the contrary, **These punishments are fixed by the divine law **as appears from what we have said above …

*As I said, your perception of the divine law is inaccurate.

Ender

 

[Tsuwano]

1. Indignation.
2. The second you advocate a policy for adoption by the state, you are attempting to impose it upon the community at large. It is useless to pretend otherwise.
3. Spare me the wholly unwarranted self-righteousness, and you’ve got yourself a deal.

1. I was channeling George W. Bush.
2. Then your previous post stating that I have no right to impose a view on anyone else is wrong, because, like you, I do have the right to advocate a policy for adoption by the state.
3. Deal!

 

[Tsuwano]

You should be careful about what you consider the Lord’s message to be; it’s not what you think it is.

In his Summa Theologica, Aquinas wrote about vengeance and analyzed this specific question: *Whether vengeance should be wrought by means of punishments customary among men? *(II-II, 108,3) The objections he theorized were:

*(obj 1) … Therefore sinners should not be put to death.
(obj 3) … Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.

This is his rebuttal to those objections:

On the contrary, **These punishments are fixed by the divine law ***as appears from what we have said above …

As I said, your perception of the divine law is inaccurate.

Ender

I have not told you what my perception of divine law is, so how do you know it is inaccurate? All I said is that I believe the message and ministry of Jesus compels those who claim to be his followers to behave in certain ways towards their fellow human beings. I believe even Thomas Aquinas would agree with that. The Church, through the catechism , teaches that it is only under very rare circumstances that the death penalty can be imposed on a human being morally, and that such circumstances are almost non existent in modern societies with sophisticated justice and penal systems. Is the death penalty, as imposed by human beings, fixed according to divine law as St. Thomas seems to say? I believe the question is highly debatable, but even so, it doesn’t follow that human beings absolutely must impose such punishment on “sinners.” There is room for mercy and lesser forms of punishment in law.

 

[Ender]

There is room for mercy and lesser forms of punishment in law.

Yes there is, just not as much room as you appear to believe.
*There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. *(Aquinas)
*
*Inasmuch as capital punishment for murder is set by divine law it is not clear that much mercy is appropriate in such cases.
this movement of the mind (viz. mercy) obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Augustine)
Ender

 

[ringil]

I have not told you what my perception of divine law is, so how do you know it is inaccurate? All I said is that I believe the message and ministry of Jesus compels those who claim to be his followers to behave in certain ways towards their fellow human beings. I believe even Thomas Aquinas would agree with that. The Church, through the catechism , teaches that it is only under very rare circumstances that the death penalty can be imposed on a human being morally, and that such circumstances are almost non existent in modern societies with sophisticated justice and penal systems. Is the death penalty, as imposed by human beings, fixed according to divine law as St. Thomas seems to say? I believe the question is highly debatable, but even so, it doesn’t follow that human beings absolutely must impose such punishment on “sinners.” There is room for mercy and lesser forms of punishment in law.

In addition Aquinas is a Doctor of the Faith yes, but his thoughts are not doctrine.

THe Catechism is.

 

[Ender]

In addition Aquinas is a Doctor of the Faith yes, but his thoughts are not doctrine.

THe Catechism is.

Either the doctrine on capital punishment changed after nearly 2000 years of constant teaching or 2267 is not doctrine.

None of the five previous catechisms (including the 1992 version of the current catechism) agree with 2267. No statement (that I have seen) from any pope prior to 1995 agrees with 2267. I believe there are no statements to be found in any ecumenical council that support it. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on the application of capital punishment, the USCCB said they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation” to those who disagree, and Cardinal Dulles said flat out that it represents “prudential opinion.”

I’m going with the belief that 2267 is not doctrine.

Ender

 

[Trader]

Either the doctrine on capital punishment changed after nearly 2000 years of constant teaching or 2267 is not doctrine.

None of the five previous catechisms (including the 1992 version of the current catechism) agree with 2267. No statement (that I have seen) from any pope prior to 1995 agrees with 2267. I believe there are no statements to be found in any ecumenical council that support it. Cardinal Ratzinger has stated that there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion on the application of capital punishment, the USCCB said they “offer neither judgment nor condemnation” to those who disagree, and Cardinal Dulles said flat out that it represents “prudential opinion.”

I’m going with the belief that 2267 is not doctrine.

Ender

Ender, I have seen you post many times, that #2267 contains an opinion. I have not stepped in to defend you in the past because you do an excellent job of defending yourself. Frankly, when you say that #2267 contains an opionion, you are so obviously correct I do not understand why you get so much grief for saying it.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.

Just look at the last sentence. Is there any doctrine taught for the last 2000 years that is dependent on conditions of a particular time or culture? By definition doctrine is timeless and unchanging. The catechism is clear that our Church does not forbid use of the death penalty. Its application in a particular case is a matter of prudential judgement that should be guided by the principles that really are doctrine. One of those principles is that we have a duty to protect the lives of the innocent. If that aim can be accomplished by the reasonable use of capital punishment, then it is not only allowed–it is a good and just thing.