F
Forkfoot
Guest
What? You do know what many means, do you not? Stop being silly.
- Status
A
april32010
Guest
because a conviction is overturned doesn’t mean the person is innocent .
F
Forkfoot
Guest
“But-but- maybe some of them were guilty!”because a conviction is overturned doesn’t mean the person is innocent .
You people are really grasping at straws now.
B
Baelor
Guest
Are you asking whether self-defense is permissible? If so, then the answer is obviously yes, as the Church teaches.
Redressing the disorder is not the sole objective of punishment. In the case of the death penalty, the Church has clearly stated that the objective of redress is subordinate to the objective of protection of society.
The Church teaching is still what it is. 2267 clearly states that there must be a condition of no other recourse.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Many people here in Britian, dear friend, still actually lament the abolition of the death penalty for murder and do not necessarily believe that it is inherently barbaric, having no place in a civilised society. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that in Britian, at least, the abolition of capital punishment offended every section of society, irrespective of age, gender, class or political sympathies. In 1964 opinion polls estimated public support for abolishing the rope to be no more that 23% and by June 1966, after the five-year suspension had commenced, this had fallen to 18%. Peter Hitchen’s verdict that the abolition of hanging was a “victory for the elite over the people’s”, is, I would say, jolly accurate. The abolition of capital punishment was foisted upon an unwilling British public, as were many other things during that decade of decadence, including that depraved sensory material, rock/pop music.
Sadly, dear friend, as with many of the other permissive reforms of the 1960’s, politicians were choosing to ignore the wishes of the electorate and altering the law in a way directly opposed to the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of British subjects. The whole new climate of liberalism and cultural freedom certainly facilitated the passing of legislation to engender a more permissive and ‘touchy-feely’ society. Moreover, there was general and excessive confidence in the power of ‘experts’ to usher in social change by ‘educating’ the public to adopt allegedly more enlightened opinions that chimed with the liberal attitudes and progressive ideology. Alas, the intelligentsia did not care that what they were proposing, regarding capital punishment, homosexual vice and abortion etc., was completely at variance with the great Christian consciousness, which had informed and moulded public thinking down through the ages. After all, man had now finally come out of the dark ages and no longer required outmoded religious ideas to influence the formation of his thinking. You now had a ‘whole generation with a new explanation’ and they arrogantly asserted that this new explanation about morals and divers social issues, including capital punishment, was superior and more humane than what had gone before. Only the old guard refused to budge and offer any real resistance and they were fast starting to look like oddities amidst the permissive revolution and social change. To some extent one must move with the times and change is inevitable, but the problem is when change is not decidedly not for the better and only serves to undermine the well-being of society and public morality. Opposition to the death penalty is, I am afraid, just part of the sad legacy of the permissive Sixties, when a mawkish secular humanism began to raise its ugly head and triumph over wholesome and sound Christian teachings. Those so called halcyon days of ‘love, joy and peace’ have bequeathed to us a very unhappy and confused world where secular humanism has become the new religion.
It is, dear friend, important that those viewing this thread understand that whilst the current Church Catechism strongly discourages the death penalty it does not overtly condemn it either. This it clearly could not do, since the constant teaching of the Church has always held capital punishment to be morally licit and that the civil authority, as “minister of God”, has the right and duty to impose it (Gen. 9: 6; Rom. 13: 4). Moreover, the Church has never shied away from the concept of just retribution or penalties being commensurate with the gravity of the crime - “The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence” (CCC, para. 2266), which necessarily implies retributive justice. Indeed, earlier it cites Genesis 9: 5-6 (para. 2260) and then states that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”. In other words, the teaching of the Genesis passage, which unequivocally speaks the language of just retribution, continues to be perpetually valid and is not subject to cultural variation. Blood is “a sacred sign of life” and thus should not be shed by “man’s murderous violence”. Moreover, man is created in God’s image so that when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against God that demands retributive justice, which is precisely what the Genesis passage states, to “redress the disorder caused by the offence”.
Finally, dear friend, a major obstacle that must be surmounted by the Catholic abolitionist is that if there has been no suspension of man being in the image of God, or the fact that blood is “a sacred sign of life”, then the whole rationale for the death penalty must be as true today as it was in the days of Noah (Gen. 9: 6). Moreover, God Himself sanctioned the death penalty for our race and did not deem it to be unworthy or barbaric and so neither must we. The Catholic Church in its constant teaching throughout the ages has always taught that the death penalty is morally licit and in its current Catechism (para. 2260), after citing Genesis 9: 5-6, states that “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.** This teaching remains necessary for all time**”, that is the teaching of the entire paragraph, not merely a part of it.
This will be my final post in this thread but I pray that those viewing it will carefully weigh all the compelling arguments in favour of the death penalty, especially those adduced by Ender, and not be swayed by the maudlin sentimentality of secular humanism, which now has Western society firmly in its grip.
God bless and goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Many people here in Britian, dear friend, still actually lament the abolition of the death penalty for murder and do not necessarily believe that it is inherently barbaric, having no place in a civilised society. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that in Britian, at least, the abolition of capital punishment offended every section of society, irrespective of age, gender, class or political sympathies. In 1964 opinion polls estimated public support for abolishing the rope to be no more that 23% and by June 1966, after the five-year suspension had commenced, this had fallen to 18%. Peter Hitchen’s verdict that the abolition of hanging was a “victory for the elite over the people’s”, is, I would say, jolly accurate. The abolition of capital punishment was foisted upon an unwilling British public, as were many other things during that decade of decadence, including that depraved sensory material, rock/pop music.
Sadly, dear friend, as with many of the other permissive reforms of the 1960’s, politicians were choosing to ignore the wishes of the electorate and altering the law in a way directly opposed to the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of British subjects. The whole new climate of liberalism and cultural freedom certainly facilitated the passing of legislation to engender a more permissive and ‘touchy-feely’ society. Moreover, there was general and excessive confidence in the power of ‘experts’ to usher in social change by ‘educating’ the public to adopt allegedly more enlightened opinions that chimed with the liberal attitudes and progressive ideology. Alas, the intelligentsia did not care that what they were proposing, regarding capital punishment, homosexual vice and abortion etc., was completely at variance with the great Christian consciousness, which had informed and moulded public thinking down through the ages. After all, man had now finally come out of the dark ages and no longer required outmoded religious ideas to influence the formation of his thinking. You now had a ‘whole generation with a new explanation’ and they arrogantly asserted that this new explanation about morals and divers social issues, including capital punishment, was superior and more humane than what had gone before. Only the old guard refused to budge and offer any real resistance and they were fast starting to look like oddities amidst the permissive revolution and social change. To some extent one must move with the times and change is inevitable, but the problem is when change is not decidedly not for the better and only serves to undermine the well-being of society and public morality. Opposition to the death penalty is, I am afraid, just part of the sad legacy of the permissive Sixties, when a mawkish secular humanism began to raise its ugly head and triumph over wholesome and sound Christian teachings. Those so called halcyon days of ‘love, joy and peace’ have bequeathed to us a very unhappy and confused world where secular humanism has become the new religion.
It is, dear friend, important that those viewing this thread understand that whilst the current Church Catechism strongly discourages the death penalty it does not overtly condemn it either. This it clearly could not do, since the constant teaching of the Church has always held capital punishment to be morally licit and that the civil authority, as “minister of God”, has the right and duty to impose it (Gen. 9: 6; Rom. 13: 4). Moreover, the Church has never shied away from the concept of just retribution or penalties being commensurate with the gravity of the crime - “The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offence” (CCC, para. 2266), which necessarily implies retributive justice. Indeed, earlier it cites Genesis 9: 5-6 (para. 2260) and then states that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”. In other words, the teaching of the Genesis passage, which unequivocally speaks the language of just retribution, continues to be perpetually valid and is not subject to cultural variation. Blood is “a sacred sign of life” and thus should not be shed by “man’s murderous violence”. Moreover, man is created in God’s image so that when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against God that demands retributive justice, which is precisely what the Genesis passage states, to “redress the disorder caused by the offence”.
Finally, dear friend, a major obstacle that must be surmounted by the Catholic abolitionist is that if there has been no suspension of man being in the image of God, or the fact that blood is “a sacred sign of life”, then the whole rationale for the death penalty must be as true today as it was in the days of Noah (Gen. 9: 6). Moreover, God Himself sanctioned the death penalty for our race and did not deem it to be unworthy or barbaric and so neither must we. The Catholic Church in its constant teaching throughout the ages has always taught that the death penalty is morally licit and in its current Catechism (para. 2260), after citing Genesis 9: 5-6, states that “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.** This teaching remains necessary for all time**”, that is the teaching of the entire paragraph, not merely a part of it.
This will be my final post in this thread but I pray that those viewing it will carefully weigh all the compelling arguments in favour of the death penalty, especially those adduced by Ender, and not be swayed by the maudlin sentimentality of secular humanism, which now has Western society firmly in its grip.
God bless and goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
F
Forkfoot
Guest
There are no compelling arguments in favor of the death penalty. Not one. Typing them out in purple prose doesn’t make them “compelling”. They only *look *compelling to people who, for reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with God, are looking for an excuse to meet violence with violence, death with death, hatred with hatred, and who desperately want to believe that they live in a society where only the guilty are executed and for the right reasons. This isn’t “maudlin sentimentality”, it’s just opening your eyes.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t think you can say that, categorically. The Aryan Brotherhood killer who is executed will kill no one, in prison or out, thereafter.
And again, odious as Ted Bundy was, he made the same argument in saying it was right that he be executed since he would surely kill again if given the opportunity. That there are opportunities even in prison cannot be ignored.
As I said before, I oppose CP because JPII did. But that’s not to say I have chosen to ignore every argument in its favor or simply discount their merits. I certainly can’t say CP serves no societally useful purpose until every prison in this country for violent offenders and sociopaths is a supermax prison. We’re a long way from that right now.
E
Ender
Guest
The death penalty is wrong for you but you acknowledge that I may think it right. This means one of two things: either one of us is mistaken or the concept of right and wrong is meaningless.
The same action cannot be both moral and immoral in any meaningful sense. Right and wrong cannot be different for each individual or the terms would be nothing more than preferences, like preferring chocolate over vanilla. So if you want to hang on to the concept of morality you really have to accept that some things are wrong regardless of our personal opinion of them. We can argue about what those things are and how we can know one from the other, but if we cannot agree that there are correct and incorrect positions there can be no meaningful conversation about the morality of anything.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
This assumes he ever killed anyone in the first place, which he may not have. Cast against the reality that we can’t know for certain if every single convict is actually guilty, I’ve been unable to find a single compelling argument for capital punishment.
E
Ender
Guest
No, I’m not denying the right of self defense. What I’m saying is that principle of double effect, which justifies the actions of individuals, would not justify an execution based on a governmental claim that it was acting in self defense.
Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence. These are all valid but all but one are secondary. The primary objective and, absent mitigating circumstances, the one that must always be satisfied, is retribution.
If 2267 is prudential then the argument is about what action is best in the context of modern societies but there are no moral arguments against its use. If 2267 is doctrinal then it is a repudiation of 20 centuries of church teaching and we have to accept that the church was in serious error for two millennia and virtually all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church, along with over 260 popes, were wrong on this issue.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
It’s highly unlikely that Ted Bundy would be left alone with any attractive young blonde women in a maximum security prison serving life without parole.
E
Ender
Guest
There may well be no compelling argument for the person who thinks that right and wrong are whatever he believes them to be. For a Catholic, however, the compelling argument is that the church has unequivocally acknowledged the moral right of states to employ capital punishment and has for two millennia defended this right against every group that challenged it. For Catholics the compelling arguments are known as the Traditional teachings of the church.
Ender
F
Forkfoot
Guest
I believe that the death penalty can possibly be moral, in a just society where only the guilty are convicted and one’s odds of acquittal aren’t directly influenced by the size of their bank account. We do not live in such a society, unfortunately. Anyways, the Church also allowed slavery.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
I haven’t seen any coherent reason to preserve the lives of DP-eligible convicts who are likely to continue harming society by murder, terrorism and narcotics trafficking, in spite of the best efforts of prison officials to prevent this.
moreover, I don’t understand the immoral decision to allow or ignore future innocent deaths in order to preserve the life of their killers, all on the incredibly nonexistent chance that they will repent.
I do see many strawman arguments and an unwillingness to look at established facts.
moreover, I don’t understand the immoral decision to allow or ignore future innocent deaths in order to preserve the life of their killers, all on the incredibly nonexistent chance that they will repent.
I do see many strawman arguments and an unwillingness to look at established facts.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
perfect example of the strawman argument favored by anti-DPers, this is a predictable misinterpretation of CCC, cherry picking inapplicable examples to make a general rule.
Bundy would not qualify for the DP under the CCC because this kind of killer is not going to continue to kill if locked up. the FBI knows, even if forkfoot doesn’t, that narco-gang leaders continue to kill and operate narcotics distribution rings from inside prison.
why aren’t the lives of these future victims important to the categorically never anti-DPers?
they won’t say.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
I didn’t bring up Bundy, good sir. The man I’m replying to did.
With regard to gang bosses calling hits from inside jail cells, our society has yet to address that issue. They aren’t executed on the spot when it’s discovered that they’re still participating in murder, and they’re not in reality sentenced to death based on the likelihood that they will; they’re sentenced based on the severity of past crimes, not possible future ones.
If we were to address this issue, we could really rule that such people be kept in total isolation without any outside contact.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Serial killers can be eclectic in their choice of victims. Personally, I am inclined to take Bundy’s word for it. He knew his proclivities better than you do, I’m sure.
People are killed in prison by psychopaths and others.
F
Fairwinds
Guest
with the very highest restrictions in prison permitted in the USA, you still could not prevent attorney-client confidential communications as a conduit to the outside, as Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and every other convict knows.
F
Forkfoot
Guest
Well, seeing as we’re addressing an issue we’ve never actually addressed before, we’re making new laws anyway. We could opt to write new laws allowing for the swift execution of inmates known to have called hits in prison as you seem to be suggesting, or we could write new laws allowing for those people’s true isolation. Either way we’re re-writing the law in a big way, and either way they’re unable to call out hits anymore. I just prefer the option we can take back if it turns out they were really innocent.
- Status