Wanting Death Penalty

[armyross]

Suppose you are on the jury for Jodie Arias? It has to be unanimous for the death penalty. The jurors are still deliberating. If you selected the death penalty, the guilt of murdering someone would haunt you the rest of your life and it would seem to me that it would be a grave mortal sin. You are actually agreeing to murder someone.

Thou shalt not kill.

You are killing someone, no matter how heinous the crime was from the defendant.

Being a Catholic or even another denomination, you live by the commandments.

Thoughts?

So then I guess I am going to hell then since being deployed I have to do what I have to do right?

 

[Fairwinds]

The prisons you are talking about are not secured because there is probably little or no interest in having them secured. Again, the question here is whether it is possible to completely cut off someone from the rest of society and not whether some systems actually do this.

your comment shows you have zero experience with the prison system. this ends my discussion with you, until you can bring more than your opinion.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

you haven’t said anything new.

 

[Fairwinds]

So then I guess I am going to hell then since being deployed I have to do what I have to do right?

as the noted theologian P.H. Sheridan wrote, “if I owned Afghanistan and Hell, I would rent Afghanistan and live in Hell”.

 

[armyross]

as the noted theologian P.H. Sheridan wrote, “if I owned Afghanistan and Hell, I would rent Afghanistan and live in Hell”.

I like that I am going to use that line thanks:thumbsup:

 

[Forkfoot]

I oppose the DP in the vast majority of circumstances for most of the same reasons you do (primarily, the CCC) and some others, including prosecutorial discrimination. this starts with the way the police write their reports, how they “help” the prosecutors, how the government chooses who will be DP-eligible, how the cases are overcharged and over-prosecuted (someone could be guilty of a non-DP crime), how the government withholds exculpatory evidence, jury bias, etc… the use of DNA to exculpate is also a strong argument against the DP, although this is not always relevant, where guilt does not depend on DNA and I’d be careful to make that clear in a debate. in a nutshell, if you were a black man accused of killing a white woman, your chances, historically, were nil. a white man accused of killing a black woman? totally opposite.

a serial killer can be locked up for life in solitary and pose only a minimal a threat to anyone again. no matter how horrendous the facts, he’s not DP-eligible under the CCC.

but those prison gang leaders, some of those guys are psychopaths.

american prisons aren’t gulags or dungeons where guys are kept in iron masks, and there’s no devil’s island. all convicts are entitled to legal representations and the government is not supposed to eavesdrop on attorney-client communications, so, along with family connections and visits you see or imagine how the system can be abused.

a high level inmate in for life can use a go-between, some guy serving a 5 year sentence. the government will use what are called special administrative procedures to monitor, within constitutional limits, contacts between the gang leadership and attorneys, but not so much for contact with the general prison population.

tough calls here. I’m sure there are institutional measures to be taken, but I have serious doubts they’ll ever be 100%.

That’s certainly a position I can respect. I wouldn’t be on this thread ranting about the injustice of the death penalty as it exists today if the American judicial system saw it the way you do. Thanks for making me think.

 

[Fairwinds]

That’s certainly a position I can respect. I wouldn’t be on this thread ranting about the injustice of the death penalty as it exists today if the American judicial system saw it the way you do. Thanks for making me think.

your welcome. and thanks for making me dig a little deeper than usual.

as an aside, we had DP eligible client, only the government didn’t know it and made a plea offer way lower than what the guy deserved. they really dropped the ball on that one.

 

[Ender]

Or are you trying to insinuate that we are still subject to all OT laws?

I don’t insinuate; I try to say exactly what I mean, and I was speaking of God’s covenants, not the Law of Moses.

When he speaks of a “new” covenant, he declares the first one obsolete. And what has become obsolete and has grown old is close to disappearing.

In your example what is being spoken of is the Mosaic covenant which is not relevant to the Noahic covenant. Gn 9:6 is part of the covenant with Noah, about which the church says it is not now nor ever will be “close to disappearing”:58 The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.
Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

As I said before, I’m not opposed to regulation of drugs, just their criminalization, especially as it exists in the U.S.'s “war on drugs”. You get people thrown into crowded prisons for possessing, parolees getting reincarcerated for smoking a joint. It’s unconscionable. More on that below.

Well first of all this is Singapore, which means (uh-oh!) universal healthcare. Drug addiction gets treated like the medical issue it is, and taxpayers are fine with that cuz it costs them either way.

Drug addicts are treated, not punished. The war on drugs does the opposite. Dealers getting executed seems really harsh to me, and I’m sure I’d strongly object to such a thing were it to happen here, but for some reason I seem to only be bothered by the death penalty as it exists in the U.S. right now. Other countries can hang and stone people in whatever weird way their culture condones.

I don’t know how you feel about Time Magazine, but this is a cool article I just found about a nation who successfully decriminalized drugs with “resounding success”. And all without executing anybody!

Here’s a Reuters article about Swizerland’s famously successful drug policy, which many authorities feel should be a role model for the whole world to emulate.

And here’s a very nice eight-minute youtube video by an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former law enforcement professionals opposed to the criminalization of drugs. I highly recommend watching the video. leap.cc/ is their website.

I live in the part of the country where “Winter’s Bone” was set. While most of this area is not like the movie or the book, I can, without hesitation, say that the misery and viciousness portrayed is entirely accurate in certain places and among some people. I have a friend who is a forensic pathologist, who is sometimes called on by law enforcement to piece together (often literally the case) the murder methods employed in drug-related killings. It can take your breath away in more ways than one.

That’s not peculiar to here. It’s everywhere in this country. While certainly rehab can be wrothwhile, the real villains are the dealers at every level. One can praise Singapore’s rehab efforts all one wants, but it must be acknowledged that possession is a serious crime and dealing is a capital crime. The difference between the U.S. and Singapore is not just a matter of rehab. They are serious about enforcing drug laws, while we are not.

For something as harmful as street drugs, people sometimes have an astonishingly blase attitude. This government shuts down products that don’t have anywhere remotely near the deadliness of street drugs. The EPA will hound minor polluters to the ends of the earth. But a heroin pusher? Slap on the wrist. We’re not serious about it.

This country is not Singapore, granted. Nor is it Switzerland.

 

[BlaineTog]

you haven’t said anything new.

Because you haven’t answered any of my concerns.

 

[april32010]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2211 The political community has a duty to honor the family, to assist it, and to ensure especially:
–the freedom to establish a family, have children, and bring them up in keeping with the family’s own moral and religious convictions;
–the protection of the stability of the marriage bond and the institution of the family;
–the freedom to profess one’s faith, to hand it on, and raise one’s children in it, with the necessary means and institutions;
–the right to private property, to free enterprise, to obtain work and housing, and the right to emigrate;
–in keeping with the country’s institutions, the right to medical care, assistance for the aged, and family benefits;
–the protection of security and health, especially with respect to dangers like drugs, pornography, alcoholism, etc.;
–the freedom to form associations with other families and so to have representation before civil authority.15

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law

 

[Forkfoot]

I live in the part of the country where “Winter’s Bone” was set. While most of this area is not like the movie or the book, I can, without hesitation, say that the misery and viciousness portrayed is entirely accurate in certain places and among some people. I have a friend who is a forensic pathologist, who is sometimes called on by law enforcement to piece together (often literally the case) the murder methods employed in drug-related killings. It can take your breath away in more ways than one.

That’s not peculiar to here. It’s everywhere in this country. While certainly rehab can be wrothwhile, the real villains are the dealers at every level. One can praise Singapore’s rehab efforts all one wants, but it must be acknowledged that possession is a serious crime and dealing is a capital crime. The difference between the U.S. and Singapore is not just a matter of rehab. They are serious about enforcing drug laws, while we are not.

For something as harmful as street drugs, people sometimes have an astonishingly blase attitude. This government shuts down products that don’t have anywhere remotely near the deadliness of street drugs. The EPA will hound minor polluters to the ends of the earth. But a heroin pusher? Slap on the wrist. We’re not serious about it.

This country is not Singapore, granted. Nor is it Switzerland.

I liked that movie.

Do you see how you say that possession is a serious crime in Singapore, but the “punishment” for that crime, according to your article, is 100% intensive treatment and rehab? Why do you suppose they don’t just give them a good ol’ public caning and throw them in the slammer for twenty years? Don’t you think Singapore of all places would be the first to try that approach if it worked? Because all research on successful drug policy shows that that approach does not work. They would be far, far less successful without the treatment/recovery approach, an approach that is much different from anything that’s ever been tried in the States.

So that’s the drug use/possession angle of it; even Singapore realizes that the punitive approach is vastly inferior to the rehabilitative approach, something the U.S. has not realized. Hence our overcrowded prison system. With regard to dealing, that’s a completely different ballgame. I’m sure Singapore’s approach to drug dealers would be an effective deterrent, as would torture or cutting off their hands. But I’ll bet your cop friend never found any decapitated beer smugglers or chardonnay traffickers; probably nobody getting curb-stomped for failing to pay for their Bacardi. There was lots of violence tied to alcohol during prohibition, though.

I do hospice care, so I’ve seen many times up close and personal the terrible things that alcohol can do to a human body. It’s a potentially very harmful drug, indisputably more harmful than marijuana in every conceivable way, but there’s not really any violence associated with is sale and distribution, because it’s regulated and legal.

This then is to me the only sane approach to dealers: legalize drugs, tax them, and drive them out of business. You don’t see dudes selling packs of cigarettes out of suitcases in back alleys. End the trillion dollar drug war, empty out the crowded prisons, spend the new abundance of resources on treatment, education, and the security of violent criminals. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be exponentially better than what we have now.

 

[Forkfoot]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

I agree 100%. I just probably have a different idea of how society should protect itself against those evils than you do. I think it’s time to try something that actually helps and works, for example.

 

[kelvinf]

your comment shows you have zero experience with the prison system. this ends my discussion with you, until you can bring more than your opinion.

Your post shows that you don’t know that there isn’t one prison system in the world.

 

[Fairwinds]

Your post shows that you don’t know that there isn’t one prison system in the world.

no kidding? when did this happen? seriously?

 

[april32010]

I agree 100%. I just probably have a different idea of how society should protect itself against those evils than you do. I think it’s time to try something that actually helps and works, for example.

you have different ideas than the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I liked that movie.

Do you see how you say that possession is a serious crime in Singapore, but the “punishment” for that crime, according to your article, is 100% intensive treatment and rehab? Why do you suppose they don’t just give them a good ol’ public caning and throw them in the slammer for twenty years? Don’t you think Singapore of all places would be the first to try that approach if it worked? Because all research on successful drug policy shows that that approach does not work. They would be far, far less successful without the treatment/recovery approach, an approach that is much different from anything that’s ever been tried in the States.

This then is to me the only sane approach to dealers: legalize drugs, tax them, and drive them out of business. You don’t see dudes selling packs of cigarettes out of suitcases in back alleys. End the trillion dollar drug war, empty out the crowded prisons, spend the new abundance of resources on treatment, education, and the security of violent criminals. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be exponentially better than what we have now.

I did not mean to mislead. Trafficking in drugs is a capital offense in Singapore. You can definitely be imprisoned for a long time and/or caned in public for possession alone. If you are even in possession of a sufficient quantity (18 oz in the case of marijuana) you are presumed to be a traficker and can be executed.

So, yes, they have rehab, but they also have severe punishment.

People do sell “contraband” cigarettes in this country. It’s a big business. They can be, and are, bought in huge quantity in low-tax states and sold in high-tax states. I could make a lot of money right now buying cigarettes in Missouri and selling them in New York. Look at this: theawl.com/2011/06/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-state-by-state. And some do. Alcohol is legal, but I could buy moonshine within a half hour if I wanted to. And nobody should kid himself about pricing. There is no way some “legitimate” manufacturer is going to make meth more cheaply than it can be “homemade”. No way a “legitimate” seller is going to make marijuana cheaper than it can be grown clandestinely in dry creek beds in the backwoods. This talk about legalizing and taxing street drugs is pipe-dreaming (no pun intended). As with cigarettes and moonshine, taxes alone can make illegal distribution worthwhile.

The criminal drug trade will go on whether street drugs are legalized or not.

And, having had some experience with law enforcement, I think I can assure you that most drug offenders who are actually serving time in prison are not the kinds of people you want to let out. They aren’t vicious people because they are drug dealers, they’re drug dealers because they’re vicious people. Consider for a moment how depraved a person has to be to distribute “free introductory” heroin to children in order to create his market.
They do that, you know.

 

[Ender]

The application of double-effect to government institutions is not relevant to this thread.

The assertion was made that 2267 supports capital punishment by appeal to self defense, which is itself based on the principle of double effect. Since executions are properly carried out only by duly appointed governments that makes it appropriate to this thread.

Yet in the case of the death penalty protection is ultimately as necessary as retribution as a criterion for its application.

How would that work? No punishment may be applied unless it is deserved but if it is deserved how can one morally justify applying a punishment less than is deserved? If a person does not deserve to die for his crime then he may not be executed, period. But if he deserves it what is the basis for not applying the punishment he deserves? Unless of course there is a prudential reason for not doing so.

The statements about modern society are obviously prudential.

2267 is clearly doctrinal.

All right, we have at least agreed that part of 2267 is prudential and that the catechism contains prudential judgments.

The restriction based on protection is obviously not prudential, as it is stated without a limit on place or time and is devoid of any prudential context.

2267 claims punishments other than executions should be used:*“because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” *
The first part of that sentence is prudential. It is based on an appeal to what better corresponds to *“concrete conditions of the common good” *but an evaluation of what is best for the common good is not doctrinal as, as you have noted, conditions change.

Regarding the dignity of the human person, this claim reverses the meaning of passage in Scripture that identifies the source of that dignity. Gn 9:6 says that man’s dignity comes from his being made in the image of God, and it is that very dignity that requires the life of a murderer be forfeit for his crime. This new position claims that the life of a murderer is protected because his life is sacred. I find this the most troubling part of the entire section.

The Church is allowed to evolve its understanding on moral issues; the death penalty is not forbidden, but its moral dimensions have been further explored over time.

This is a bit dodgy. A number of people have said this new position is a natural development when there is nothing in church history to support it and it constitutes a reversal of doctrine.

Please remember that even saints differed on applications of the death penalty.

There were saints who preferred it not be used but none who raised moral objections to it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

A Self-Centred Paradox:

When we have sinned, we cry for mercy. When we see others sin, we cry for justice.

Then again…*
** Children are innocent and love justice, while most adults are wicked and prefer mercy. *(G.K. Chesterton)
Ender

 

[Fairwinds]

A Self-Centred Paradox:

When we have sinned, we cry for mercy. When we see others sin, we cry for justice.

I’ll remember that, the next time I kill someone.