When or is the death penalty alright?

[ahollars]

A negative cannot be proven. It is your responsibility to show that the death penalty contibutes in a verifiable way to genuine conversions.

Says who? You?! Why does it have to be verifiable? That is none of our business if and when someone seeks absolution, no matter what the circumstances are. I could say the same thing to you. Explain how the death penalty denies the person the opportunity to return to grace. I am not the one who made an all inclusive statement. There is no burden of proof, because there is nothing to prove. You cannot condemn that which the Pope has said is permissible. The death penalty is not forbidden. I am not defending the conduct of American prosecutors, but to say it should be abolished on the grounds of immorality is unjustified. If you believe there is a better way, I am all for it, but for you to say we supporters are murderers is a lie and a discredit to your case.

 

[CWBetts]

Says who? You?! Why does it have to be verifiable? That is none of our business if and when someone seeks absolution, no matter what the circumstances are. I could say the same thing to you. Explain how the death penalty denies the person the opportunity to return to grace. I am not the one who made an all inclusive statement. There is no burden of proof, because there is nothing to prove. You cannot condemn that which the Pope has said is permissible. The death penalty is not forbidden. I am not defending the conduct of American prosecutors, but to say it should be abolished on the grounds of immorality is unjustified. If you believe there is a better way, I am all for it, but for you to say we supporters are murderers is a lie and a discredit to your case.

It is not forbidden, but neither is it encouraged. It is actually discouraged, quite clearly, in fact. Furthermore, encouraging the death penalty is not consistent with the idea that life is to be protected from conception until natural death. I never said you were murderers. But there is a better way. Lifetime imprisonment is less expensive to the taxpayer, and monies saved could be diverted to preventative programs. Lifetime imprisonment is effective, as it keeps criminals off of our streets. Lifetime imprisonment is both merciful and just. It allows the offender to keep his life, while at the same time he can be forced to labor for the state. In fact, I am all for the return of chain gangs and hard labor. That is true punishment.

 

[fish90]

It is not forbidden, but neither is it encouraged. It is actually discouraged, quite clearly, in fact. Furthermore, encouraging the death penalty is not consistent with the idea that life is to be protected from conception until natural death. I never said you were murderers. But there is a better way. Lifetime imprisonment is less expensive to the taxpayer, and monies saved could be diverted to preventative programs. Lifetime imprisonment is effective, as it keeps criminals off of our streets. Lifetime imprisonment is both merciful and just. It allows the offender to keep his life, while at the same time he can be forced to labor for the state. In fact, I am all for the return of chain gangs and hard labor. That is true punishment.

First off, lifetime imprisonment involves no reform, since the guilty person is never reinstated as a normal citizen.

From the bold, what exactly are you advocating?

 

[Shin]

Uh, folks, if you think fear of an early and imminent death doesn’t cause prayers to God and conversions, I have a bridge to sell you.

It’s clear as day proven.

 

[diggerdomer]

I The death penalty is not a denial of repentance, and many prisoners throughout history used their time wisely to account for their actions and seek redemption. .

Whether or not the death penalty is a denial of repentance is a matter of opinion and/or individual circumstances. It’s completely unprovable to claim for a fact that the death penalty leads to conversion. It might, it might not. As with any other experience a person has on earth. What can’t be denied is that application of the death penalty removes the future option for conversion here on earth.

 

[CWBetts]

First off, lifetime imprisonment involves no reform, since the guilty person is never reinstated as a normal citizen.

From the bold, what exactly are you advocating?

Ummm prison labor. What do you think I am advocating?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

What can’t be denied is that application of the death penalty removes the future option for conversion here on earth.

Right. Conversion towards or away from God.

VC

 

[ahollars]

… What can’t be denied is that application of the death penalty removes the future option for conversion here on earth…

What kind of person needs life in prison to convert, but knowing that they were going to die soon, and toward the end, know the exact day, would not have thought about it on death row? Such a person would most likely waste the opportunity of life in prison, rather than take advantage of it. A prisoner’s experience of time is not the same as the rest of us.

Is research even possible in this area?

 

[CWBetts]

What kind of person needs life in prison to convert, but knowing that they were going to die soon, and toward the end, know the exact day, would not have thought about it on death row? Such a person would most likely waste the opportunity of life in prison, rather than take advantage of it. A prisoner’s experience of time is not the same as the rest of us.

Is research even possible in this area?

We are not only to defend life if it will be enjoyable, but all life. You are making excuses in attempt to justify. None of us have the holiness to declare that someone no longer is worthy of life.

 

[Trunicate09]

I support the death penalty given there is 100% proof (i.e. DNA evidence).

Abortion however, I do not agree with. Just my view.

 

[fish90]

Ummm prison labor. What do you think I am advocating?

How is that not slavery then?

 

[diggerdomer]

What kind of person needs life in prison to convert, but knowing that they were going to die soon, and toward the end, know the exact day, would not have thought about it on death row? Such a person would most likely waste the opportunity of life in prison, rather than take advantage of it. A prisoner’s experience of time is not the same as the rest of us.

Is research even possible in this area?

Even if they would “most likely” waste the opportunity, I’d rather give them and God the chance than remove it by the death penalty. I think mercy, hope, and grace trumps here.

 

[ahollars]

We are not only to defend life if it will be enjoyable, but all life. You are making excuses in attempt to justify. None of us have the holiness to declare that someone no longer is worthy of life.

What discourse is the Catechism referring to when it says it is permissible? In the course of discouraging it, 2267 uses the qualifier “very rare, if not practically non-existent”. If we were called to work for the abolition of capital punishment, the word “practically” would not be there. If you believe that no such situation in America exist, then that exceeds the call to action instructed by the Catechism. This is not about holiness, nor is it immoral law. If it were, the Church would have no problem stating so as they have with other issues, but they didn’t. I don’t believe that is irrelevant, and I find something unflattering about people who believe they are more Catholic than the Pope.

Even if they would “most likely” waste the opportunity, I’d rather give them and God the chance than remove it by the death penalty. I think mercy, hope, and grace trumps here.

Mercy is for people who ask for it. Until they do, they must face justice. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can save people who do not want to be saved. That is why the last thing every executed man hears is, “may God have mercy on your soul”. With our prayers, we hope they may follow in the steps of St. Dismas:

“Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

~Luke 23:40-43~

Side note: I have a childhood friend who is currently on death row in Arizona. I was asked to testify as a character witness, but his lawyer wanted me to lie, so I ended up working in the prosecution’s case. Had I simply not answered the phone, he may have ended up with life without parole. I won’t go into detail here, but given his crimes, his punishment is justice.

 

[d97c]

All Betts are off !!!..Hey, your comments, no matter what people say or post as articles here, show you have NO knowledge of history. You can’t and say what you do. You seem to know intuitively what Jesus would want, what Jesus would do, and of course it’s stated with good intention. What you fail to, or wont, realize is that for approx. 1,980 years, your Catholic Church, the one Jesus made—founded—interpreted through the Doctors of the Church (name them–Aquinas, Augustine,a hundred Popes, Catechisms, Councils etc, etc,), supported, even urged, the death penalty be used for murders.
(and please, you people who discuss “murder” in the same breath as “death penalty”…stop it ! Go to your on line legal definitions if you want to, or maybe use your common sense, and see that “murder” is the unjust killing of a human being, that’s not self defense, or justified by any other laws, with malice aforethought and premeditation, and you cant get that from the definition of the death penalty. Murder is a felony, death penalty is “just----after a trial”, abortion is not just, a baby is “innocent”, not guilty…thats why the difference in abortion and death penalty!) death penalty is legal !)…

Betts, even when the Bishops changed things in 1980 , the reason they changed things was not because they thought the death penalty immoral (read the Catechism: here we go
2266: “…the Church has acknowledged as **well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” **That’s your church! , that’s Jesus speaking through it !
Thats Jesus’ representative saying that the use of it has NOTHING to do with whether the guy might escape and kill someone in society, but talks about the DUTY of “public authority” to execute murderers. Jesus is talking about proportionality, the re-ordering of society, deterrence, the DUTY to execute…So, Betts, answer this…Why did Jesus all of a sudden change his mind on the death penalty, and do you really think He changed it because in the 20th Century, jails became more secure??? Give me a break !!! The way the modern Church has twisted itself into a pretzel to justify the change and say its because Jesus wants it…is really an embarrassment.

 

[joe_clark]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A condemned killer scheduled to become the first person in the United States to be put to death with a single drug arrived at the Ohio death house yesterday as a federal courts considered his final appeals. A federal judge earlier in the day refused to delay the execution, and Kenneth Biros immediately appealed to the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, which had not ruled by evening.

Biros, 51, is sentenced to die today for killing a woman he met in a bar in 1991. It would be the first lethal injection under Ohio’s switch to a new one-drug execution method, rather than use three drugs. In the event that method fails, a backup plan allows executioners to inject drugs directly into muscles. Ohio overhauled its procedure after the failed attempt to execute Romell Broom, a procedure halted by Governor Ted Strickland in September. Executioners tried for two hours to find a usable vein for injection, hitting bone and muscle in as many as 18 needle sticks that Broom said were very painful. Broom, 53, has appealed the state’s attempt to try again.

The state had two goals in changing its process. Switching to one drug was meant to end a 5-year-old lawsuit that claims Ohio’s three-drug system was capable of causing severe pain. Specialists and defense attorneys agree the single dose of thiopental sodium will not cause pain, but the execution could take longer. The backup procedure allowing muscle injection was created in case a situation like Broom’s execution happens again. No other state has made the switch to the one-drug method.

Biros reached the holding area for death row inmates at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville shortly before 10 a.m. yesterday. It’s the second trip to Lucasville for Biros, who spent more than 30 hours in the holding cell in March 2007 before the US Supreme Court stopped his execution and allowed him to challenge Ohio’s method at the time, involving three drugs. Injection experts agree the execution will take longer with the single dose of thiopental sodium than the previous three-drug system. Ohio inmates have generally taken about seven minutes to die. Mark Dershwitz, an anesthesiologist who consulted with Ohio, estimates death could now come in 15 minutes. Witnesses will be allowed to stay and watch for as long as it takes, prisons spokeswoman Julie Walburn said.

Biros argued that the state has failed to fix the problems that led to the unsuccessful execution attempt in September. He said the state still relies on unqualified executioners and lacks limits on how long they are allowed to try to find a vein. District Judge Gregory Frost in Columbus said in his ruling that it appears unlikely that Biros can “demonstrate that those risks rise to the level of violating the United States Constitution.’’ All 36 death penalty states use lethal injection, and 35 rely on the three-drug method. Nebraska, which recently adopted injection over electrocution, has proposed the three-drug method but hasn’t finalized the process.

So you see we have given intentional murder much thought today. On one hand we will only give them one drug to kill them, because it’s…more Humane??? My guess is we loving caring human beings would not consider inflicting pain just before murdering another human being, because that is what it is. It’s to make US feel good and not responsible when we snuff another life out! On the other hand we had a difficult time attempting to kill the other death row inmate because we couldn’t get it right and kill them fast enough so the condemn get another shot at life. Sad commentary to what we feel we want to do and what should be done..

 

[ahollars]

So you see we have given intentional murder much thought today. On one hand we will only give them one drug to kill them, because it’s…more Humane??? My guess is we loving caring human beings would not consider inflicting pain just before murdering another human being, because that is what it is. It’s to make US feel good and not responsible when we snuff another life out! On the other hand we had a difficult time attempting to kill the other death row inmate because we couldn’t get it right and kill them fast enough so the condemn get another shot at life. Sad commentary to what we feel we want to do and what should be done..

This is exactly the kind of misdirected passion that I’m talking about. See my other posts.

 

[CWBetts]

All Betts are off !!!..Hey, your comments, no matter what people say or post as articles here, show you have NO knowledge of history. You can’t and say what you do. You seem to know intuitively what Jesus would want, what Jesus would do, and of course it’s stated with good intention. What you fail to, or wont, realize is that for approx. 1,980 years, your Catholic Church, the one Jesus made—founded—interpreted through the Doctors of the Church (name them–Aquinas, Augustine,a hundred Popes, Catechisms, Councils etc, etc,), supported, even urged, the death penalty be used for murders.
(and please, you people who discuss “murder” in the same breath as “death penalty”…stop it ! Go to your on line legal definitions if you want to, or maybe use your common sense, and see that “murder” is the unjust killing of a human being, that’s not self defense, or justified by any other laws, with malice aforethought and premeditation, and you cant get that from the definition of the death penalty. Murder is a felony, death penalty is “just----after a trial”, abortion is not just, a baby is “innocent”, not guilty…thats why the difference in abortion and death penalty!) death penalty is legal !)…

Betts, even when the Bishops changed things in 1980 , the reason they changed things was not because they thought the death penalty immoral (read the Catechism: here we go
2266: “…the Church has acknowledged as **well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.” **That’s your church! , that’s Jesus speaking through it !
Thats Jesus’ representative saying that the use of it has NOTHING to do with whether the guy might escape and kill someone in society, but talks about the DUTY of “public authority” to execute murderers. Jesus is talking about proportionality, the re-ordering of society, deterrence, the DUTY to execute…So, Betts, answer this…Why did Jesus all of a sudden change his mind on the death penalty, and do you really think He changed it because in the 20th Century, jails became more secure??? Give me a break !!! The way the modern Church has twisted itself into a pretzel to justify the change and say its because Jesus wants it…is really an embarrassment.

Here is the thing, and there is no getting around this “Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.” That is hardly an endorsement of the death penalty. The executions found in the Old Testament were a Biblical “Type.” This means that they were inferior versions of something else that would be revealed at a later date. The anti-type associated with the Old Testament executions are the eternal death of Hell. And for the record, the anti-type is always greater than it corresponding type. You say I know nothing about history (a laughable concept…I have a BA in history and am a member of Phi Alpha Theta). Nothing is twisted…what is the embarrassment is your seeming lack of knowledge in basic typology.

 

[CWBetts]

How is that not slavery then?

The same way that execution is not murder. If forced labor in prison is slavery, then execution is murder. Even from a legal perspective, the Constitution allows for labor in prisons.

 

[Ender]

Here is the thing, and there is no getting around this “Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.” That is hardly an endorsement of the death penalty.

Your argument is not applicable solely to the death penalty; it is an argument against any punishment at all since in fact the woman received no punishment whatever. More to the point, unlike you, the Church has never interpreted this passage to mean that capital punishment was improper.

The executions found in the Old Testament were a Biblical “Type.” This means that they were inferior versions of something else that would be revealed at a later date. The anti-type associated with the Old Testament executions are the eternal death of Hell.

I’m not sure what point you’re making here. If you’re arguing against executions because they are inferior versions of the eternal form, wouldn’t that objection equally apply to positive attributes as well - like, love, justice, charity …? After all, these too are inferior versions of the eternal virtues. It seems more likely that while we are mortal we are meant to employ the tools available to us.
Verbum Caro:

USCCB: “The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.”

There is a valuable point contained in this statement: it explains that retribution means the restoration of the order of justice. Given that 2266 states that the primary objective of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense it is useful to be able to point out that what they are saying is that it is in fact retribution - justice - which is paramount.

Ender

 

[d97c]

Oh my!! Mr Betts. Well, of course having the degree you have, you certainly know, (and it must have been an oversight on your part, with the picture and everything, and the name) that St Thomas More, the Chancellor of England, followed the laws of England, and as a Catholic, oversaw the execution of persons (the death penalty), since the death penalty was part of England law. He had no problem with it, but Mr Betts does. Maybe you ought to find another “nom de plume” that fits your opinion. Someone who might just sluff off 1,980 years of Catholic tradition and teaching because HE doesn’t like the death penalty.
…and what are you talking about?? No one is discussing the Old Testament. The Church of the Risen Jesus, the Church that he founded, based on many New Testament writings from various doctors of the church, Popes, Catechisms, who probably had more than a BA degree, (do I need to restate those authors for ya, Mr B?), and supported the death penalty for centuries.
Oh well, Im afraid you are without redemption. Oh!! so, I wanted ask you: If we had caught Hitler after WW2 and tried and convicted him at the Hague, you would have kept him alive and all…just a jail sentence…no death penalty…is that right? (Go on, …I dare you)