How Are Pro Life People For The Death Penalty?

[Lil Red]

here's a couple of topics on that...
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=91564
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=106283

[CatherineM]

Rape is about power and control, not sex.

[FutureSister2009]

The only person I would want to give the Death Penalty to would be Charles Manson. I'm totally Pro Life but that man is insane

[MagiDragon]

Really guys? What a bunch of illogical arguments.

1. The pope was speaking in a personal capacity regarding the DP. It's not official teaching.

2. It is not inconceivable that a person is a danger to people from within prison. There is such a thing as a mafia boss. If we can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons, how can we possibly hope to keep all information from reaching a mafia don?

3. It is not a valid point that there is discrimination in America. It has no bearing on whether the death penalty is acceptable in specific instances. The only thing it indicates is that the death penalty is likely overused on minorities, underused on whites, or that there are differences between races. (Out of curiousity, how often has the DP been exercised on Asians? That might indicate some social or genetic differences among races as well.)

4. The death penalty has an inhibiting effect *on some people* in the commission of violent criminal activity. Just yesterday there was [url="http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/4896325-417/repeal-of-death-penalty-backfires.html"]this case from Illinois[/url] where a guy looked up the law in Illinois to ensure they *didn't* have the death penalty before viciously murdering his former girlfriend.

5. The ten commandments have no problem with the death penalty being applied to a guilty party.

Don't act as if it's unreasonable to support the death penalty. All that said, I think the law needs to be kept on the books, and barely ever used. Only use it in the case that a guy is likely to be able to kill again. Even if it's another prisoner, they should be protected as well.

Peace,
Joe

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1303229277' post='2230199']
I'm anti-death penalty because like J-lol said, we have the means to keep violent offenders away from the public and because it can be far more expensive to pursue the death penalty. However, I am pro- "if it makes you sin, cut it off" for prisoners. Example: child molesters? ... Can you spell C-A-S-T-R-A-T-E ?

edit: spelling
[/quote]

Prisoners are people too. We can't act as if some prisoners aren't harmed or killed fairly frequently by other prisoners, so be careful claiming that "we can keep violent offenders away from the public." Unless they can be kept away from all people, including other prisoners and guards, the offenders haven't been rendered harmless.

Changing a person's anatomy isn't a decision that should be taken lightly, I believe the Church has some pretty hard hitting things to say about that practice, so be careful there.

Peace,
Joe

[thessalonian]

[quote name='LinaSt.Cecilia2772' timestamp='1303168445' post='2229954']
Okay this is one thing i've noticed about alot of politicians and people. Alot of them say they are pro life, but they are ALL FOR the death penalty. Aren't people who are pro life supposed to keep the sacredness of human life no matter what age they are and no matter what crimes they have or havent committed? This makes absolutely no sense to me what so ever. I believe that if you are pro life, you are against both abortion and the death penalty. Not just one, which is mainly abortion. I sometimes even see practicing Catholics have this mind set, when they clearly state that they are pro life. Me being a practicing Catholic, i am against both, and it's beyond me why people think that the death penalty is right. A person on death row has the same amount of life as an unborn baby does. Plain and Simple. No matter what crimes they have committed, they are still human life, and we should respect that as much as we do unborn human life.
[/quote]

Not sure how anyone could be "ALL FOR" the dp. Life is of course sacred but it is also clear from scripture that we are allowed to defend ourselves and families individually when our life is at risk. Should we be against the death penalty we personally impose when an intruder is about to harm our family?

Now in the same way governments have the responsibility to keep order and protect their citizens. Read Romans 13. It is pretty clear. Thus the Church has always had just war theology. Does this mean we are all for wars? Certainly not. ALL WAR IS UGLY. But again self defense and order.... Now with the death penaly again society has the right to impose this to keep order and protect it's citizens. This right has always been recognized by the Church. It does not mean that a state HAS to have the DP. Further it can be argued that there is little need of it now do to our very secure prison systems, which were far less secure in that past.

[Groo the Wanderer]

IMHO, the death penalty should be reserved for people who resurrect old threads on Phatmass.


...or at least extend their Lenten sacrifice an additional 120 days...

[Jesus_lol]

good point Magi dragon, obviously the best way to protect violent criminals from injury is to just round up the most violent ones and kill them.

stupidest point, ever.

Edited April 20, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Amppax]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303239994' post='2230250']
Really guys? What a bunch of illogical arguments.

1. The pope was speaking in a personal capacity regarding the DP. It's not official teaching.

2. It is not inconceivable that a person is a danger to people from within prison. There is such a thing as a mafia boss. If we can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons, how can we possibly hope to keep all information from reaching a mafia don?

3. It is not a valid point that there is discrimination in America. It has no bearing on whether the death penalty is acceptable in specific instances. The only thing it indicates is that the death penalty is likely overused on minorities, underused on whites, or that there are differences between races. (Out of curiousity, how often has the DP been exercised on Asians? That might indicate some social or genetic differences among races as well.)

4. The death penalty has an inhibiting effect *on some people* in the commission of violent criminal activity. Just yesterday there was [url="http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/4896325-417/repeal-of-death-penalty-backfires.html"]this case from Illinois[/url] where a guy looked up the law in Illinois to ensure they *didn't* have the death penalty before viciously murdering his former girlfriend.

5. The ten commandments have no problem with the death penalty being applied to a guilty party.

Don't act as if it's unreasonable to support the death penalty. All that said, I think the law needs to be kept on the books, and barely ever used. Only use it in the case that a guy is likely to be able to kill again. Even if it's another prisoner, they should be protected as well.

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]


May i refer you to a text known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? that may help you out there [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/like.gif[/img]

[havok579257]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303239994' post='2230250']
Really guys? What a bunch of illogical arguments.

1. The pope was speaking in a personal capacity regarding the DP. It's not official teaching.

2. It is not inconceivable that a person is a danger to people from within prison. There is such a thing as a mafia boss. If we can't keep drugs and weapons out of prisons, how can we possibly hope to keep all information from reaching a mafia don?

3. It is not a valid point that there is discrimination in America. It has no bearing on whether the death penalty is acceptable in specific instances. The only thing it indicates is that the death penalty is likely overused on minorities, underused on whites, or that there are differences between races. (Out of curiousity, how often has the DP been exercised on Asians? That might indicate some social or genetic differences among races as well.)

4. The death penalty has an inhibiting effect *on some people* in the commission of violent criminal activity. Just yesterday there was [url="http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/4896325-417/repeal-of-death-penalty-backfires.html"]this case from Illinois[/url] where a guy looked up the law in Illinois to ensure they *didn't* have the death penalty before viciously murdering his former girlfriend.

5. The ten commandments have no problem with the death penalty being applied to a guilty party.

Don't act as if it's unreasonable to support the death penalty. All that said, I think the law needs to be kept on the books, and barely ever used. Only use it in the case that a guy is likely to be able to kill again. Even if it's another prisoner, they should be protected as well.

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]


actually i read somewhere that after the death penalty is used, crime increases. it is not a deterent.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1303260712' post='2230378']
good point Magi dragon, obviously the best way to protect violent criminals from injury is to just round up the most violent ones and kill them.

stupidest point, ever.
[/quote]

I never said anything of the sort. I said that criminals and guards in prison need to be protected from violence. If that can't be done, we shouldn't pretend that the violence is truly contained. In that event, the death penalty *may be* justified. My point wasn't about *applying* the death penalty, it was about the containment of criminality. If the section of the catechism that claims "criminals can be contained in modern societies" is incorrect, which it very well may be; and it doesn't have anything to do with faith and morals, which it doesn't; then we needn't view that as official church teaching. (Note: I'm specifically talking about the part that says *first world countries can effectively contain prisoners*. I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but I'm sure someone could do that for us.)

Worth noting: not all criminals in prison are violent. (Most aren't violent in the US.) A non-violent druggie in jail and a drunk driver who accidentally killed someone deserve our compassion, as does anyone who truly repents.

The method of judgement we should use is "What would a loving father do" with the caveats: "Whatever this person does to someone else is my responsibility" and "Death is not final judgement." If a father would put a person in a position where they live in constant fear of beatings and physical brutality, then it would be acceptable for us to do that. Somehow, as a father of three, I can't imagine putting my kids in that position, so I think allowing violent offenders in with non-violent offenders is unreasonable.

[quote name='Amppax']
May i refer you to a text known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? that may help you out there
[/quote]

It has been opined in a number of places that the aside JP2 put in the Catechism about modern societies being able to contain criminals was personal opinion about a non-theological/moral situation, and therefore not necessary to be believed by Catholics. If you look at the facts, this is undoubtedly true; the pope's expertise was not in prison management, nor is prison/prisoner management a deep theological question. Instead, it is a utilitarian 'business' which simply needs to operate with the same moral norms as any other business. (meaning you treat people as individuals and don't demean them any more than necessary.) He didn't necessarily account for all cases, and isn't under the protection of the Chair of Peter in that type of case.


[quote name='havok579257']
actually i read somewhere that after the death penalty is used, crime increases. it is not a deterent.
[/quote]

We're kindof comparing apples and oranges: you say 'after it's used;' I say 'if it's on the books.' I don't want it to be used ever, I just think it should be an option. Basically I want it to be an option that can be plausibly deter, but not necessarily ever applied.

If you read my link, you will find that you were mistaken about its deterring effect, it was a deterrent to at least one person. I can't imagine it making much difference in a crime of passion, but to someone who was coldly calculating like this man, it made a huge difference. The Canadian man in question looked up the status of the death penalty in Illinois. Upon finding out they don't have a death penalty, he decided he was willing to spend life in prison, and proceeded to use a few more bullets than necessary to murder his former girlfriend in Illinois.

Peace,
Joe

[havok579257]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303307879' post='2230496']
I never said anything of the sort. I said that criminals and guards in prison need to be protected from violence. If that can't be done, we shouldn't pretend that the violence is truly contained. In that event, the death penalty *may be* justified. My point wasn't about *applying* the death penalty, it was about the containment of criminality. If the section of the catechism that claims "criminals can be contained in modern societies" is incorrect, which it very well may be; and it doesn't have anything to do with faith and morals, which it doesn't; then we needn't view that as official church teaching. (Note: I'm specifically talking about the part that says *first world countries can effectively contain prisoners*. I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but I'm sure someone could do that for us.)

Worth noting: not all criminals in prison are violent. (Most aren't violent in the US.) A non-violent druggie in jail and a drunk driver who accidentally killed someone deserve our compassion, as does anyone who truly repents.

The method of judgement we should use is "What would a loving father do" with the caveats: "Whatever this person does to someone else is my responsibility" and "Death is not final judgement." If a father would put a person in a position where they live in constant fear of beatings and physical brutality, then it would be acceptable for us to do that. Somehow, as a father of three, I can't imagine putting my kids in that position, so I think allowing violent offenders in with non-violent offenders is unreasonable.



It has been opined in a number of places that the aside JP2 put in the Catechism about modern societies being able to contain criminals was personal opinion about a non-theological/moral situation, and therefore not necessary to be believed by Catholics. If you look at the facts, this is undoubtedly true; the pope's expertise was not in prison management, nor is prison/prisoner management a deep theological question. Instead, it is a utilitarian 'business' which simply needs to operate with the same moral norms as any other business. (meaning you treat people as individuals and don't demean them any more than necessary.) He didn't necessarily account for all cases, and isn't under the protection of the Chair of Peter in that type of case.




We're kindof comparing apples and oranges: you say 'after it's used;' I say 'if it's on the books.' I don't want it to be used ever, I just think it should be an option. Basically I want it to be an option that can be plausibly deter, but not necessarily ever applied.

If you read my link, you will find that you were mistaken about its deterring effect, it was a deterrent to at least one person. I can't imagine it making much difference in a crime of passion, but to someone who was coldly calculating like this man, it made a huge difference. The Canadian man in question looked up the status of the death penalty in Illinois. Upon finding out they don't have a death penalty, he decided he was willing to spend life in prison, and proceeded to use a few more bullets than necessary to murder his former girlfriend in Illinois.

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]


as with any study you will find some abberations. i am going to go out on a limb here and say almost all of organized crime does not verify if there is a death penalty before they murder some one.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303240844' post='2230260']
Changing a person's anatomy isn't a decision that should be taken lightly, I believe the Church has some pretty hard hitting things to say about that practice, so be careful there.
[/quote]

When referring to such barbaric practices, the catechism mentions only "innocent persons," unfortunately.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1303338407' post='2230649']
When referring to such barbaric practices, the catechism mentions only "innocent persons," unfortunately.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
That's an apparent loophole that should be closed. I fail to see how intentional non-therapeutic mutilation could ever be performed morally.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303357300' post='2230777']
That's an apparent loophole that should be closed. I fail to see how intentional non-therapeutic mutilation could ever be performed morally.
[/quote]

Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).

Edited April 21, 2011 by Norseman82

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303364595' post='2230800']
Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).
[/quote]
Well are we talking shotgun weddings where one or both parties are pressured into the marriage? Full consent is lacking, therefore no marriage.
Aside from that, getting a girl pregnant and marrying her out of a (poorly formed) sense of obligation is not considered grounds for annulment, as far as I know (and yes, I've read that section of Canon Law). Dunno where you're getting your info from.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303365215' post='2230801']
Well are we talking shotgun weddings where one or both parties are pressured into the marriage? Full consent is lacking, therefore no marriage.
Aside from that, getting a girl pregnant and marrying her out of a (poorly formed) sense of obligation is not considered grounds for annulment, as far as I know (and yes, I've read that section of Canon Law). Dunno where you're getting your info from.
[/quote]

A continuation from another thread.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303366921' post='2230807']
A continuation from another thread.
[/quote]
Can't say I recall that, though I do recall being square in the middle of it.

[4588686]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303364595' post='2230800']
Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).
[/quote]

So a girl who get's pregnant before being married is 'broken'?


Classy.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303313676' post='2230528']
as with any study you will find some abberations. i am going to go out on a limb here and say almost all of organized crime does not verify if there is a death penalty before they murder some one.
[/quote]

Well, I agree with your sentiment; the DP probably doesn't significantly change mafia behavior, but I bet they *do* look at it . . . simply as a matter of how thoroughly they cover their hit men. *shrugs*

I'm a little disappointed that no one offered a real defense of a death penalty ban. I can't possibly have convinced y'all that banning the death penalty is a silly idea.

As a side note, I am going into this argument with the assumption that prisons and nations are fine, upstanding moral entities. I'm not convinced that this is true.

Peace,
Joe