Is The Death Penalty Ever Necessary In Our Society

[ThyWillBeDone]

I agree the abortion problem is worse but that is beside the point, we can not allow the death penalty problem to continue simply becuase abortion is a worse problem.
Chris

[StColette]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jul 8 2004, 07:23 AM'] My question was if Bin Laden were captured, would it be better for us to keep him alive and risk lots of innocent lives because of terrorism, or should he be given the death penalty?

Same with Saddam. [/quote]
I don't think we would give him the death penalty, he has too much information he could give us. The gov't would keep him alive just for that purpose.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I've been wondering about situations like Bin Laden and Hussein:
1. They are murderers, they must be captured and held.
But does this merit death?
1. Their very existence is motivation for terror activity.
2. There would be daily (and deadly) attampts to free them, and reinstitute their reign of terror.
3. As ironmonk said, hostages would be taken daily in an attempt to free these murderers through negotiation. But they can't be freed, because they are mass-murderers...

I'm thinking this is one of those very rare instances where the death penalty would be justified for the good of the public.

[StColette]

It may be one of those rare cases but I highly doubt our gov't will go through with it because like I said they both hold tooooooo much information. If anything giving them the death penalty would make people more angry. They would become martyrs for the people who believe them .

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

The death penalty is allowable in certain cases. Abortion is not (except in the rare double effect cases)

Back on topic:

A good certain case for allowing the death penalty is for high-profile prisoners where hostages would likely be capture to try and free him as ironmonk mentioned. Another would be if you were on a ship or in the wilderness where you are unable to effectively imprison a criminal who has committed heinous acts (and will again if not imprisoned). Given that in the modern world it's possible to effectively contain any prisoner, this second scenario doesn't come up much.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ClaireBear' date='Jul 8 2004, 10:39 AM']I think this is what the Pope says about it... The death penalty is immoral, because God is the author of life.  [/quote]
The death penalty is not immoral; instead, it will always be morally licit, and this truth is founded upon scripture, tradition, and the natural moral law. The Pope can ask that it be used infrequently, but not even the Pope can alter divine revelation or the natural moral law, and so the death penalty, properly applied by the State, will always be morally acceptable. Moreover, the Church has always distinguished between [i]murder[/i], which is never permitted because it is the taking of an innocent human life; and [i]killing[/i], which is sometimes required because of a man's criminal actions, by which he has forfeited his right to life, and which as a consequence empowers the State, for the sake of the maintenance of the common good, to execute him.

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='thedude' date='Jul 8 2004, 04:46 PM']I've been wondering about situations like Bin Laden and Hussein:
1. They are murderers, they must be captured and held.
But does this merit death?
1. Their very existence is motivation for terror activity.
2. There would be daily (and deadly) attampts to free them, and reinstitute their reign of terror.
3. As ironmonk said, hostages would be taken daily in an attempt to free these murderers through negotiation.  But they can't be freed, because they are mass-murderers...

I'm thinking this is one of those very rare instances where the death penalty would be justified for the good of the public.[/quote]
We can not kill them becuase their followers would kill to get them out. This would be unjustified according the what the catechism says

2267 "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient [b] to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor[/b] , 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 with the dignity of the human person"

Saddam or Bin Laden would be the agressor referred to in the quote, they would no longer be a threat, even it their followers are, so they should not be excuted.

God Bless,
Chris

[StColette]

I agree Chris !!

[CatholicCrusader]

"A Christian should argue with a blasphemer only by running his sword through his bowels as far as it will go." St. Louis, King of France

[ThyWillBeDone]

Yay some one agrees with me
Chris

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

What is a double effect case?

[Apotheoun]

Because of the heinous nature of Bin Laden's crime, and the fact that the punishment inflicted must be proportionate to the offense committed; the State would have every right, and in fact a duty, to execute him, in order to redress the grave disorder he caused through the mass murder of thousands of innocent people.

[StColette]

lol Chris yep someone agrees with you

[StColette]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 8 2004, 04:13 PM'] Because of the heinous nature of Bin Laden's crime, and the fact that the punishment inflicted must be proportionate to the offense committed; the State would have every right, and in fact a duty, to execute him, in order to redress the grave disorder he caused through the mass murder of thousands of innocent people. [/quote]
well the State isn't God !!

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 8 2004, 05:13 PM'] Because of the heinous nature of Bin Laden's crime, and the fact that the punishment inflicted must be proportionate to the offense committed; the State would have every right, and in fact a duty, to execute him, in order to redress the grave disorder he caused through the mass murder of thousands of innocent people. [/quote]
What gives the state this right. The catechism doesn't mention such a right to excute someone, don't you think it would have been mentioned there if it were true.
Chris

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 8 2004, 04:17 PM'] well the State isn't God !! [/quote]
Of course the State isn't God, nor did I say it was, but God in Sacred Scripture has revealed His will, and He has given the sword to the State in order to execute His judgment, therefore, the State may execute a malefactor. [cf., Romans 13:1-5] So, on this matter, I will side with divine revelation.

[b]Romans 13:1-5[/b]
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience."

Edited July 8, 2004 by Apotheoun

[CatholicCrusader]

Apotheoun said exactly what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says, except he was a bit less absolute on the necessity of capital punishment

[CatholicCrusader]

[quote]What gives the state this right. The catechism doesn't mention such a right to excute someone, don't you think it would have been mentioned there if it were true.
Chris[/quote]

The Roman Catechism (a.k.a. Catechism of the Council of Trent) states it VERY clearly. Certainly a catechism mandated by an ecumenical council is much more weighty than something the Pope wrote by his own initiative. Adam (amarkich) already explained this clearly previously in this thread. God bless.

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 8 2004, 05:20 PM'] Of course the State isn't God, nor did I say it was, but God in Sacred Scripture has revealed His will, and He has given the sword to the State in order to execute His judgment, therefore, the State may execute a malefactor. [cf., Romans 13:1-5] So, on this matter, I will side with divine revelation. [/quote]
So you have decide to trust your own interpetation of scripture instead of the Magisteriums. I will trust the Magisteriums interpetation.
Chris

[ThyWillBeDone]

[quote name='CatholicCrusader' date='Jul 8 2004, 05:23 PM']
The Roman Catechism (a.k.a. Catechism of the Council of Trent) states it VERY clearly. Certainly a catechism mandated by an ecumenical council is much more weighty than something the Pope wrote by his own initiative. Adam (amarkich) already explained this clearly previously in this thread. God bless. [/quote]
In the front of the Catechism you find the APOSTOLIC LETTER FIDEI DEPOSITUM, in it the Pope says

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion"

Sounds to me like I can trust what it says in the Catechism, and it is very clear on the death penalty
Chris