That’s Aquinas’ concern too, hence the metaphor of doctor amputating the infected limb (convicted) to save the body (society) from the infected limb. No argument that the limb should be cut off bc the limb has no worth. It may have some worth but it’s danger to the body outweighs any worth it has.BUT, my concern here is the safety of others, not killing this person because he/she has no value or worth.
I understand and it’s a solid argument but practically I can’t see how it could “never” happen. Less likely? Sure. But humans are fallible hence any system run by humans including prison system is fallible thus always risk of escape or political corruption leading to release. Especially someone like a Hitler with proven past of massive political influenceSo my point is, in theory I could see a situation where the death penalty is needed but in actuality this situation will never happen.
Risk isn’t a valid reason. It must be an imminent threat, not a perceived one. Otherwise we just go down a witch hunt of killing anyone who we perceive as dangerous.always risk of escape or political corruption
Can’t base this action on the past, people can redeem themselves and change. This must be built on the current and threat, otherwise we are punishing based on past deeds, not present ones. In effect, we are rendering conversion impossible and worthless.proven past of massive political influence
It is valid reason because the claim was “this situation will never happen” implying zero risk. Hence any risk refuted that assertionRisk isn’t a valid reason
But again the assertion isn’t that they can, it’s that they must (so that “this situation will never happen”) , thus only need to show it’s not certain they’ll change.Can’t base this action on the past, people can redeem themselves and change
Not true, I’m implying our prison and policing abilities are enough with new innovation to reduce and eliminate this risk to a healthy degree. There are violent prisoners, that would imply risk. I’m saying they are secured enough where the risk to others is minimal if proper measures are taken and put into placeimplying zero risk
And how does one show this? Quoting their past actions isn’t how you show they haven’t changedthus only need to show it’s not certain they’ll change
That’s different than prisoner reoffending “will never happen”the risk to others is minimal
Ageed… the country needs lots of prayers and action… this presidency has been so very bad. Let’s hope that the words spoken at the March start to manifest themselves in actionsThe one thing we can all agree on, as others have said on CAF: Pray for Donald Trump and the government!
I’m 100% behind ranked choice. More choice, more voice. Puts more power in the hands of the citizens and will eventually break the two party systemLast I looked Maine is still too complex to count completely yet and release the data. Once it is though, the analytics are going to be insane to see. I think proportional representation is likelier to take hold than ranked-choice but of course PR is impossible in a two-party system so nobody get your hopes up lol
But then need for death penalty is not “impossible” or “never happen”.Reoffending may happen if they are released but they served their term
No I’m saying the need for death penalty is not “Impossible” or “will never happen” (as your post asserted) if someone is released & kills again which (you’ve conceded is possible).If a guy murders someone, serves 25 years then is released and kills someone again, you are saying he should get death penalty?
No, DP is needed so they can’t reoffendwhy you think the DP is needed if someone reoffends
Australia has for decades had a system called “preferential voting” in the lower house (sounds very similar to ranked voting in that candidates are ranked by the voters in order of the voter’s preference) and it hasn’t caused notable confusion. By the way, we also have proportional representation in our upper house.In terms of catholic morality, all ranked choice is, is instead of picking the lesser of two evils, you line up all the evils from least evil to most evil, the morality doesn’t change in this system.
From a political standpoint, it seems the most logical but is highly confusing which will lower turnout, voting takes minutes as opposed to seconds, and it requires voters to actually know who the candidates are, every single one. This system would not work if people shirk half their ballot which people already do, and the need for knowledge of all candidates increases shirking. I read multiple scholarly articles on this, it’s in concept great but in practice unbelievably flawed.
Proportional representation is the best thing if people want more choice, they will get more influence. But this system can’t be two-party, as you know in your comment, so in the US this system wouldn’t work unless we fundamentally changed our entire electoral system
This is interesting.If I was even consider supporting the death penalty it would be if we are talking about a prisoner who might kill other inmates or the guards or is a risk to escape and kill civilians. BUT, my concern here is the safety of others, not killing this person because he/she has no value or worth. I believe everyone, the worst murderer or the holiest person has worth not deserves death. Also, considering how strong our prisons are due to new innovation, security, and weaponry, the inevitability someone escapes is very low and if such a risk to others in the prison is there, the innate would face additional security and privatization measures.
So my point is, in theory I could see a situation where the death penalty is needed but in actuality this situation will never happen. This is also the view JPII had, he conceded in theory it is possible a situation needs it but in actuality it would never be needed.