Wanting Death Penalty

[vz71]

The appeals process has nothing to do with other people confessing to the crimes the convicts were convicted of. The appeals process had nothing to do with the invention of genetic testing.

Sure it does.

It has to do with time.

Once convicted and sentenced to death, the name of the game (at least one of them) is delay. Delay as long as possible.

Lot’s of things can change with time. Including the evidence that breaks the case.

 

[Forkfoot]

Once convicted and sentenced to death, the name of the game (at least one of them) is delay. Delay as long as possible.

Lot’s of things can change with time. Including the evidence that breaks the case.

I think you mean the evidence that ***overturns ***the case.

BTW, have you read about Cameron Todd Willingham yet?

 

[vz71]

It’s not an impasse; we both already know you’re fulla malarkey. It only looks like an impasse to you cuz you’re not sucking me into your idiotic mind game.

Claiming you don’t know that innocent people have been executed is like saying you don’t know that …

Who would bet on something that cannot be proven?
Why the need to utilize ugly behaviors to attempt to illustrate the point?

I have simply asked for the proof that you did say was available.
If you simply provided that, there would be no such problem.

Of course, if you cannot…and cannot back down from the assertion, then I could see a certain amount of frustration.

 

[vz71]

I think you mean the evidence that ***overturns ***the case.

New evidence can go both ways.

Breaks the case refers to either way there. Either it removes them from death row or it solidifies the state case and moves them closer to execution.

 

[Forkfoot]

Who would bet on something that cannot be proven?
Why the need to utilize ugly behaviors to attempt to illustrate the point?

I have simply asked for the proof that you did say was available.
If you simply provided that, there would be no such problem.

Of course, if you cannot…and cannot back down from the assertion, then I could see a certain amount of frustration.

Ugh… I’m done wasting time on you. You should still read about Cameron Todd Willingham though.

 

[vz71]

Ugh… I’m done wasting time on you.

It would seem you are too close to the argument at hand.

Parting thought for the night though…

Are you sure you want me sifting through the websites you keep pushing?
It has been shown that yours is not the only view, and you may well find my results even more infuriating.

 

[BlaineTog]

What I find baffling is the bit of doublethink that trusts the system to be able to invariably determine guilt or innocence but doesn’t trust that same system to be able to keep the convicted imprisoned safely. It’s like you imbue our justice system with supernatural powers in once place while claiming it totally powerless in another.

 

[Fairwinds]

Ok, now you’re just being hypocritical. I phrased my response so as to be the twin of your original statement. You, too, used an argument of personal experience. I chose one as well to highlight the invalidity of your point.

Now you’re moving the goalposts.

no one is really interested in what you personally think the prison system can or can’t do. argument from ignorance.

I’ve cited evidence showing how it fails. and you still wont’ address the facts.

 

[Fairwinds]

What I find baffling is the bit of doublethink that trusts the system to be able to invariably determine guilt or innocence but doesn’t trust that same system to be able to keep the convicted imprisoned safely. It’s like you imbue our justice system with supernatural powers in once place while claiming it totally powerless in another.

you’re giving an opinion, based on nothing. when you want to discuss the FBI report on how prison gangs control outside operations, or how criminals and terrorists have abused the attorney-client communications privilege in spite of the best the federal system can do, we can move forward.

until then, there’s no point in doing anything more than to observe that you won’t address adverse facts or provide your own to support your beliefs. which I’m happy to do, since every time you assert claims without offering support, you further separate yourself from credibility.

your opinion remains contrary to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Forkfoot]

you’re giving an opinion, based on nothing. when you want to discuss the FBI report on how prison gangs control outside operations, or how criminals and terrorists have abused the attorney-client communications privilege in spite of the best the federal system can do, we can move forward.

until then, there’s no point in doing anything more than to observe that you won’t address adverse facts or provide your own to support your beliefs. which I’m happy to do, since every time you assert claims without offering support, you further separate yourself from credibility.

your opinion remains contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Do you only support the death penalty in cases where the prisoner is convicted of ordering hits from inside prison, Fairwinds? Cuz if so, we disagree a lot less than I thought. I only object to the death penalty as it actually exists in this country; an imaginary hypothetical where only gang bosses convicted of ordering hits from in prison get executed would be a tremendous improvement on what we have in real life.

 

[BlaineTog]

no one is really interested in what you personally think the prison system can or can’t do. argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was calling you out for hypocrisy:

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.

(Emphasis added.)

So it’s ok for YOU to use an argument from ignorance, but no one else is allowed to do that?

your opinion remains contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Does it? Let’s quote the section from the Catechism that touches on this, shall we?

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, non-lethal 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 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."

Emphasis added.

 

[Fairwinds]

Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I was calling you out for hypocrisy:

that’s not very original, every other post on this forum calls someone out for hypocrisy.

So it’s ok for YOU to use an argument from ignorance, but no one else is allowed to do that?

I argue from sources, which I’ve cited repeatedly. I’ve cited my own experience as having been made an offer to act as a go-between prisoners and the outside, just like Lynne Stewart got and just like many, many, many other defense counsel have gotten, are getting and will always get. although I refused, Steward took up the offer to pass messages from her client, resulting in numerous deaths. this is a fact you don’t seem to grasp.

Let’s quote the section from the Catechism that touches on this, shall we?

Emphasis added.

let’s not. its been quoted a dozen times already.

if the CCC wanted to bar the DP, it would have said so unambiguously. it says there are exceptions to the general rule, it says that very plainly.

the bottom line is that your dogmatic opposition to the DP, based as it is on an imperfect knowledge of real world conditions that apply to a plain reading of the CCC is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

 

[Fairwinds]

Do you only support the death penalty in cases where the prisoner is convicted of ordering hits from inside prison, Fairwinds? Cuz if so, we disagree a lot less than I thought. I only object to the death penalty as it actually exists in this country; an imaginary hypothetical where only gang bosses convicted of ordering hits from in prison get executed would be a tremendous improvement on what we have in real life.

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%.

 

[BlaineTog]

that’s not very original, every other post on this forum calls someone out for hypocrisy.

I don’t care about originality. I care about the truth.

I argue from sources, which I’ve cited repeatedly.

But you also made an arguments from ignorance and then called me out for using your same language against you. That’s an extremely straightforward (and well-documented) case of hypocrisy. I’m honestly somewhat surprised you think there’s any sort of defense to be mustered about this.

let’s not. its been quoted a dozen times already.

Yet you still seem dead-set on skewing its plain words.

According to the Catholic Church’s Catechism, “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’” “Practically nonexistent” doesn’t mean never ever under any circumstances, but it DOES mean that it shouldn’t be a regular practice, if it’s to be practiced at all.

the bottom line is that your dogmatic opposition to the DP, based as it is on an imperfect knowledge of real world conditions that apply to a plain reading of the CCC is contrary to the teaching of the Church.

I’m not dogmatically opposed to the death penalty. What makes you think that? Like the Church, I think the Death Penalty can be our only option occasionally. But also like the Church, I think that those situations basically never happen anymore. They may happen in specific instances, but we are largely capable of controlling our convicts to a sufficient degree.

Too many people want criminals put to death, though. They see the regular enforcement of capital punishment as a necessary component for justice but the Church’s position is just the opposite. This is a problem. The death penalty should be a measure of absolute last resort. If we were capable of perfectly preventing our prison inmates from harm, the death penalty would never be appropriate, according to the Catechism. As it stands, the Church has explicitly judged the modern world’s penal system as good enough at its job that the death penalty should be very rare. If not practically nonexistant.

 

[kelvinf]

I’m assuming you actually want to know.

2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

Lynne Stewart
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

family members and lawyers pass information to street gangs and terrorist organizations, the latter in spite of special administrative procedures.

I’m also assuming you can’t do any better at stopping this than the prison officials. but let the handwave arguments begin again.

For the billionth time: by your logic, such criminals would have to be executed on the spot instead of being arrested. Because when you arrest suspects, you would have to grant them access to a lawyer and probably some family members. So your concern still applies in this scenario doesn’t it?

Most justice systems do not practice (complete) isolation. If it can be proven that a criminal would still be extremely dangerous in an ordinary prison or jail, he could be held in isolation instead. This is rarely the case but was recently done in the case of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway.

The question here is whether it is possible or not to completely isolate someone from the rest of society and the answer is YES! You can continue to argue if you like.

 

[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?

100% for death penalty. I don’t lose any sleep over it.

 

[kelvinf]

this will be my last response to you because I think you’re intentionally misstating my position and the CCC itself.

Alessandro Serenelli would not be subject to the DP under CCC rules because he can be locked up without risk of him committing future offenses, he is unlike the prison gang leaders, who in fact keep directing gang activities from prison through intermediaries such as attorneys. see the FBI report and the wiki article on Stewart for particulars.

How would you have known? Did you know that he was going to kill Maria Gorretti in the first place? If not, and if he wasn’t converted, what would have made you to think that he wouldn’t have been dangerous to society upon his release for instance?

 

[kelvinf]

Wasn’t it Samuel Johnson who said (probably paraphrasing) “nothing so wonderfully clears the mind as the prospect of one’s own imminent hanging…”? We don’t know who goes to heaven or hell more often; those who live long lives in prison or those who are executed. But knowing the day and the hour, one could argue, would have a powerful psychological effect as it draws near. Even Ted Bundy acknowledged the justice and propriety of his execution toward the end. He said if he were not executed, he would kill again if given the opportunity.

One cannot seriously argue that the death penalty is NOT the only possible way of effectively defending human lives in some circumstances, since there are murders, rapes and maimings in prison and ordered from prison to the outside. That is, in fact, one of the things that makes the Aryan Brotherhood so powerful. It is well known to order killings from prison and in prison; killings that are relentlessly carried out.

Having said that, I will disclose that I oppose the death penalty because JPII did. I oppose it out of respect for him. But it still seems to me his statement about the virtual non-existence of the necessity for CP left out a step. It would be true if prisons were sufficiently secure, and perhaps that was his mesne, but unspoken, message…that if we devoted the resources to it, we could make them sufficiently secure so that there would be no need for CP. But we manifestly have not done that.

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.

 

[kelvinf]

I think you should be very careful about claiming that God’s earlier covenants have been abrogated and are no longer relevant.

Please read what I wrote carefully: “However, we are no longer subject to some OT laws. There was an old covenant between God and man (as mentioned in 2260). The first coming of Christ was a fulfillment of the new covenant between God and man.”

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

Hebrews 8:7-13
Old and New Covenants.*
7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, no place would have been sought for a second one.
8
But he finds fault with them and says:*
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord,g
when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
9
It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers
the day I took them by the hand to lead them forth from the land of Egypt;
for they did not stand by my covenant
and I ignored them, says the Lord.
10
But this is the covenant I will establish with the house of Israel
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds
and I will write them upon their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they shall be my people.h
11
And they shall not teach, each one his fellow citizen
and kinsman, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for all shall know me,
from least to greatest.
12
For I will forgive their evildoing
and remember their sins no more.”
13

• i 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.

 

[kelvinf]

The consensus on the death penalty in Europe is irrelevant to me! The people of Europe have voluntarily turned their backs on God and YES they have done that and are beginning to suffer the consequences for doing so, just as we will if we allow secular repressives to take over here. European society is no less authoritarian today than it ever was. Legislation on what constitutes free speech (hate speech), complete government control over children’s education (nevermind the parent’s (name removed by moderator)ut) indoctrinating them, socialist economics that keep and encourage people to remain in poverty, and on and on. Europeans have embraced ALL of these authoritarian controls on their personal lives, just ask the parents who sought asylum here in the U.S. because the German government will not allow them to teach their children according to their own values. The Europeans are living in a jail cell that, for the moment is sealed with golden (or perhaps silver) bars and they like them. So I can unapologetically say based on these and other reasons, LET EM’ ROT! I don’t wish anyone harm on anyone, but this is something they chose for themselves.

Wow!

Mt 7:3 “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”

The death penalty and it’s opposition, of which I am unashamedly declaring right now, has NOTHING to do with one’s religious affiliation, but rather with one’s conscience. The death penalty is just plain wrong and immoral to me, that’s all. I would never tell anyone that they HAVE to agree with me and I believe that European opposition to the death penalty has more to do with a change in the authoritarian ideology that has always been prevalent in Europe and still is today, than it has to do with anything else.

Prove me wrong!!!

The US Bishops oppose the death penalty. I am not sure if they are now Europeans. Based on my observations on this forum, there seems to be more American Catholics who oppose the death penalty than those who support it.