Wanting Death Penalty

[Fairwinds]

to we fair, we should also discuss the special efforts and successes we Catholics have made in evangelizing the convicts who would be eligible for execution under CCC guidelines, since saving their souls is a salient argument for preserving their lives.

we can break down these convicts into two categories:

first, the islamic terrorists:

second, senior prison gang leadership:

Anyone?

 

[Forkfoot]

ole wikipedia has some useful information as well .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

Statistics likely understate the actual problem of wrongful convictions because once an execution has occurred there is often insufficient motivation and finance to keep a case open, and it becomes unlikely at that point that the miscarriage of justice will ever be exposed. In the case of Joseph Roger O’Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, a prosecuting attorney bluntly argued in court in 1998 that if posthumous DNA results exonerated O’Dell, “it would be shouted from the rooftops that … Virginia executed an innocent man.” The state prevailed, and the evidence was destroyed.

Well so far we don’t “know” that we’ve executed anyone who was innocent, despite the allegations that have been made.

Yeah.

 

[Ender]

Yeah.

If I understand the comment the evidence that might have proved the innocence of someone who was executed was destroyed. Is this what you consider proof of innocence? Did you miss the part where I said that while there were (a few) instances where a reasonable case could be made that an innocent person was executed there were no cases where this had been proven? Your example accords with what I said.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

True, but a valid expectation that he would [kill again] is, according to 2267, a valid reason to execute him.

Not buying it.

*The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(2267)Do you not recognize that this statement allows capital punishment if it is believed necessary to protect life? Saying that you “don’t buy it” is not a rational argument; it is the willful rejection of an unpleasant fact.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

If I understand the comment the evidence that might have proved the innocence of someone who was executed was destroyed. Is this what you consider proof of innocence? Did you miss the part where I said that while there were (a few) instances where a reasonable case could be made that an innocent person was executed there were no cases where this had been proven? Your example accords with what I said.

Ender

Dude. Seriously. Come on. Where are you even going with this? You know innocent people have been executed. Stop playing smoke and semantics and admit it.

 

[Forkfoot]

*The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude… recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(2267)Do you not recognize that this statement allows capital punishment if it is believed necessary to protect life? Saying that you “don’t buy it” is not a rational argument; it is the willful rejection of an unpleasant fact.

Ender

And I contend that it’s still immoral, for the reasons I’ve been citing. Maybe Church teaching will catch up after all developed democratic countries have abolished the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

Dude. Seriously. Come on. Where are you even going with this? You know innocent people have been executed. Stop playing smoke and semantics and admit it.

I don’t know it any more than you do. Given that no one has yet proven that an innocent person has been executed there is no justification in claiming it has happened (since 1976). I granted that apparently reasonable cases have been made in a few instances and this may be one of them but it is not merely a matter of semantics to insist on accuracy. We cannot claim to know something that has not been shown to be true.

Let’s assume the worst case and grant that ten innocent people have been executed since capital punishment was reinstated. That’s ten over a period of 37 years or one every 3.7 years. Over that same period of time how many recidivist murders have there been? Just within prisons recidivist murderers kill about 20 people a year (this is based on 2002 statistics; prior to that the numbers were much higher) for a total of 74 deaths over that same 3.7 years.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf

Throw in the number of killings done by murderers who have been released to the public (another 20/year) and there are about a hundred and fifty times more people dying at the hands of repeat killers than die from wrongful execution by the state.
bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

No one takes wrongful executions lightly but it is important to at least recognize the cost of not executing killers.

Ender

 

[Forkfoot]

Let’s assume the worst case and grant that ten innocent people have been executed since capital punishment was reinstated.

That is most certainly not the worst case we could assume.

That whole “we don’t know for sure that we executed an innocent” line is so myopic it’s absurd. Yes we do. We DO know it. Saying otherwise is the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing.

I’m going to AGAIN bring up all the capital convictions that were overturned after the invention of genetic testing. Do you really, truly, in your heart of hearts believe that there was not a single execution that happened before that which would’ve fallen into the same category? And those are just the people lucky enough to have had the actual criminal leave behind genetic evidence, and to have had people willing to fight through all the red tape and resistant DAs to get them off death row.

 

[john78]

More interested on peoples thoughts after viewing this link.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-death-penalty

 

[Fairwinds]

deathpenaltyinfo.org/inno…-death-penalty

more interested on peoples thoughts after viewing this link.

bad link.

 

[john78]

fixed the link.

 

[Fairwinds]

fixed the link.

I think all agree that the DP should be applied only in cases where guilt is certain. but this is only one of several other conditions the DP Info Center does not track but which are important to the CCC. contrary to the **express **teaching of the Church, the DPIC is, apparently, against any use of the DP.

while DNA evidence is important to establish innocence that only works where DNA is relevant to guilt. Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman was convicted and sentenced to life based on statements he made to an FBI informant wearing a wire; he was implicated in the first WTC bombing and was convicted of planning multiple attacks on different landmark targets on the same day. He later used his lawyer to pass messages to the terrorist group Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya resulting in further deaths in Egypt.

the Dealth Penalty Information Center isn’t worried about preventing future killings, like many people who contradict CCC teaching, the issue isn’t important. however, the CCC is expressly concerned about preventing future harm, and in those few cases where guilt is certain and future carnage cannot be otherwise prevented, the DP is moral.

 

[Ender]

That is most certainly not the worst case we could assume.

True, it is the worst case one could reasonably assume.

That whole “we don’t know for sure that we executed an innocent” line is so myopic it’s absurd. Yes we do. We DO know it.

Fine, name someone who was executed who is ***known ***to have been innocent. Just one, any one will do.

I’m going to AGAIN bring up all the capital convictions that were overturned after the invention of genetic testing.

If the convictions were overturned then I’m guessing they weren’t executed … so you probably shouldn’t count them in the wrongly executed category.

Ender

 

[Faithdancer]

I say, fry 'em up!

 

[PeterGStanley]

Revenge based justice is wrong.

 

[Forkfoot]

True, it is the worst case one could reasonably assume.
Fine, name someone who was executed who is ***known ***to have been innocent. Just one, any one will do.
If the convictions were overturned then I’m guessing they weren’t executed … so you probably shouldn’t count them in the wrongly executed category.

Ender

Now you’re just deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I’m saying. You just keep that head in the sand then, buttercup.

 

[Portrait]

Revenge based justice is wrong.

Dear PeterGStanley,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Misunderstanding occurs, dear friend, when men falsely identify retributive just with sinful revenge. Properly understood, retribution is a satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a sort of restoration of a disturbed moral balance. Sacred Scripture clearly distinguishes between such a concept and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and actions that arise out of them - “Recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom. 12: 17a). However, public reparation, as in the case the death penalty, is when legitimate authority passes sentence upon an evil person who has murdered his fellow-man, made in the image of God (Gen. 9: 6). Private revenge is when those who are not magistrates take the law into their own hands and retaliate against those who have wronged them, or others, on the grounds that they are ‘out for justice’. The former is permissible, for St. Paul, the very same apostle that expressly forbids personal retaliation, has declared that lawful state authority acts as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13: 4).

Unfortunately, dear friend, our Western culture has been poisoned by the godless ideology of secular humanism, which has resulted in sympathy being directed to the criminal rather than the victim. Moreover, we have almost arrived at the point where men believe that retribution, i.e. the idea that crime inherently deserves punishment, is an outmoded and morally repugnant concept, or at least only a socialized and measured form of revenge. We have gradually lost sight of the fact that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, reflecting its weight and gravity, no more and no less. Such a balancing of crime and punishment is consonant with the basic moral instincts of mankind and it also protects the criminal inasmuch as the punishment has its limits.

Capital punishment for murder was mandated by God (Gen. 9: 6) because a just order is disturbed by murder and only the death of the murderer can restore that justice. Moreover, dear friend, the image of God in man gives a rationale for the death penalty, for when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against our Maker. The very act of unlawful killing lays profane hands on that which is divine, but, alas, our post-Christian age is no longer informed by such beliefs, as were former generations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[PeterGStanley]

Dear PeterGStanley,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Misunderstanding occurs, dear friend, when men falsely identify retributive just with sinful revenge. Properly understood, retribution is a satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a sort of restoration of a disturbed moral balance. Sacred Scripture clearly distinguishes between such a concept and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and actions that arise out of them - “Recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom. 12: 17a). However, public reparation, as in the case the death penalty, is when legitimate authority passes sentence upon an evil person who has murdered his fellow-man, made in the image of God (Gen. 9: 6). Private revenge is when those who are not magistrates take the law into their own hands and retaliate against those who have wronged them, or others, on the grounds that they are ‘out for justice’. The former is permissible, for St. Paul, the very same apostle that expressly forbids personal retaliation, has declared that lawful state authority acts as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13: 4).

Unfortunately, dear friend, our Western culture has been poisoned by the godless ideology of secular humanism, which has resulted in sympathy being directed to the criminal rather than the victim. Moreover, we have almost arrived at the point where men believe that retribution, i.e. the idea that crime inherently deserves punishment, is an outmoded and morally repugnant concept, or at least only a socialized and measured form of revenge. We have gradually lost sight of the fact that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, reflecting its weight and gravity, no more and no less. Such a balancing of crime and punishment is consonant with the basic moral instincts of mankind and it also protects the criminal inasmuch as the punishment has its limits.

Capital punishment for murder was mandated by God (Gen. 9: 6) because a just order is disturbed by murder and only the death of the murderer can restore that justice. Moreover, dear friend, the image of God in man gives a rationale for the death penalty, for when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against our Maker. The very act of unlawful killing lays profane hands on that which is divine, but, alas, our post-Christian age is no longer informed by such beliefs, as were former generations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Spin it how ever you want.

 

[severus68]

Dear PeterGStanley,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Misunderstanding occurs, dear friend, when men falsely identify retributive just with sinful revenge. Properly understood, retribution is a satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a sort of restoration of a disturbed moral balance. Sacred Scripture clearly distinguishes between such a concept and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding such feelings and actions that arise out of them - “Recompense to no man evil for evil” (Rom. 12: 17a). However, public reparation, as in the case the death penalty, is when legitimate authority passes sentence upon an evil person who has murdered his fellow-man, made in the image of God (Gen. 9: 6). Private revenge is when those who are not magistrates take the law into their own hands and retaliate against those who have wronged them, or others, on the grounds that they are ‘out for justice’. The former is permissible, for St. Paul, the very same apostle that expressly forbids personal retaliation, has declared that lawful state authority acts as “the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Rom. 13: 4).

Unfortunately, dear friend, our Western culture has been poisoned by the godless ideology of secular humanism, which has resulted in sympathy being directed to the criminal rather than the victim. Moreover, we have almost arrived at the point where men believe that retribution, i.e. the idea that crime inherently deserves punishment, is an outmoded and morally repugnant concept, or at least only a socialized and measured form of revenge. We have gradually lost sight of the fact that the punishment should be commensurate with the crime, reflecting its weight and gravity, no more and no less. Such a balancing of crime and punishment is consonant with the basic moral instincts of mankind and it also protects the criminal inasmuch as the punishment has its limits.

Capital punishment for murder was mandated by God (Gen. 9: 6) because a just order is disturbed by murder and only the death of the murderer can restore that justice. Moreover, dear friend, the image of God in man gives a rationale for the death penalty, for when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against our Maker. The very act of unlawful killing lays profane hands on that which is divine, but, alas, our post-Christian age is no longer informed by such beliefs, as were former generations.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

As Christians, “an eye for an eye” is not what we believe or should believe in. Christ said that the greatest commandment is LOVE…

Not wanting the death penalty is not about forgetting/ignoring/having no sympathy for victims. It is about not going down to the level of people who do terrible deeds, it is about not affirming a culture of violence.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Not wanting the death penalty is not about forgetting/ignoring/having no sympathy for victims. It is about not going down to the level of people who do terrible deeds, it is about not affirming a culture of violence.

in the very few cases in which the CCC approves of the DP, knee-jerk opposition to the DP requires “forgetting/ignoring/having no sympathy” for future victims, because it is a fact that people will die because the prison system is unable to protect society from some convicts.