Scott Peterson Death Sentence

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='JesusSaves1000s' date='Dec 14 2004, 04:47 PM'] This is coming from a person who respects a jury who let a cold blooded killer like O.J. Simpson go free. I never said "It happened in the movies!" I was using it as an example. [/quote]
Sorry, but personal disagreement with a jury doesn't mean jack. We all have our personal opinions but public opinions and emotions in the court of law are not handled in the same light. It's called being objective and looking at facts. Just now you were bellyaching that Peterson was innocent, and now accusing me of complacency about a cold blooded killer? Do your personal emotions and opinions give you some God-given crime-solving psychic abilities that the rest of us don't have? And what's more, juries don't have? At least I take [b]innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a court of law[/b] for what it is, am willing to respect the fact that trials are meant to be governed by recorded facts rather than emotions, and I'm not in over my head about the legal system claiming that I can do a better job when I've never walked in those shoes.

Don't you dare [b]ever[/b] accuse me of such complacency about murder. [b]Ever.[/b]

[InHisHands381]

I posted this in the John Kerry thread also, but I didn't figure it would hurt to post it here too:

[quote]CCC 2267  Asuming that the guilty party's identity and repsonsibility have been fully determined, the[b] 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.[/b]
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 commonm good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possiblities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possiblity of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."*
[/quote]
Aluigi: This sounds to me that it is not just to execute someone unless they are a threat to society. Can you show me any other documents or site the Scripture you spoke of to show me otherwise?

[JesusSaves1000s]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 14 2004, 05:00 PM'] Sorry, but personal disagreement with a jury doesn't mean jack. We all have our personal opinions but public opinions and emotions in the court of law are not handled in the same light.  It's called being objective and looking at facts. Just now you were bellyaching that Peterson was innocent, and now accusing me of complacency about a cold blooded killer? Do your personal emotions and opinions give you some God-given crime-solving psychic abilities that the rest of us don't have? And what's more, juries don't have? At least I take [b]innocent until proven guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a court of law[/b] for what it is, am willing to respect the fact that trials are meant to be governed by recorded facts rather than emotions, and I'm not in over my head about the legal system claiming that I can do a better job when I've never walked in those shoes.

Don't you dare [b]ever[/b] accuse me of such complacency about murder. [b]Ever.[/b] [/quote]
There was plenty of evidence against O.J. but because he had massive amounts of money he was able to steal the show and make the jury believe he was innocent. You want facts? Review the case before you go any further and realize there were a number of things riding against O.J. Who said I'm over my head about the legal system? You can't think of anything good to say so you throw dumb remarks at me. God given crime solving psychic abilities? I follow how much evidence there is not what the jury says unlike you. You'll buy anything the jury says. Stop acting like a child and grow up.

Edited December 15, 2004 by JesusSaves1000s

[Benedict]

Sorry, JesusSaves, but judicially the man is not guilty. The evidence in the OJ Simpson case was collected so poorly that one can hardly rely on it at all, inside the court room or out.

[JesusSaves1000s]

That is not true because there was a lot of blood tests that came out positive matching O.J.'s blood but because they used Fuhrman's use of the N word against him the court dismissed the blood evidence.

[Don John of Austria]

jesussaves -- he is saying that the blood test cannot be trusted because of poor collection techniques.

Edited December 15, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[Benedict]

I think you are overgeneralizing the issues of the trial. I have not studied much of the courtroom events but as far as the forensics go I have learned that they were lucky to get in what little they did.

[quote]jesussaves -- he is saying that the blood test cannot be trusted because of poor collection techniques.[/quote]

Exactly.

Edited December 15, 2004 by Benedict

[JesusSaves1000s]

Overgeneralizing? Nope. Cochran's strategy of using the N word against the prosecution was a big deal in the court room that sent all the African Americans in the USA nuts. How is that overgeneralizing.

[Benedict]

Perhaps not the correct word.

But the main issue was already made clear by Don John - the blood evidence was not collected properly. Regardless of the detective's use of the word nice black man, improper handling of evidence disqualifies it from use at a trial.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='JesusSaves1000s' date='Dec 14 2004, 09:16 PM']I follow how much evidence there is not what the jury says unlike you. You'll buy anything the jury says. Stop acting like a child and grow up.[/quote]
I find your resorting to personal insult and rhetoric to be hypocritical and, well, obtuse. (You've apparently seen Shawshank, so I think you can figure that out.)

Through wasting my time dealing with you. :wavey:

[JesusSaves1000s]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 14 2004, 09:40 PM'] I find your resorting to personal insult and rhetoric to be hypocritical and, well, obtuse. (You've apparently seen Shawshank, so I think you can figure that out.)


Through wasting my time dealing with you. :wavey: [/quote]
You don't find your threatening tone with me as obtuse? Oh, well I guess I'm the bad guy, the boogie man then.

[crusader1234]

[quote]if he did it, then he DESERVES the death penalty and no matter what the state is morally justified in giving him the death penalty.

when a person guilty of murder is containable the government should grant mercy to the person and give them life imprisonment. if they do not, their moral wrong would not be putting them to deatH (that would be just if the person murdered) but rather not considering mercy in their judgement.

the killing of a murderer by the state is always a just action because it is their God given right as the authority to give them this just punishment [/quote]



[quote]2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
[b]"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.' [68][/b] [/quote]

While I do agree to a large extent that we should eliminate murderers from our society, I think locking them away forever is a good enough way to eliminate them. If, it so happens, that jail [i]is[/i] worse for them than death... well I really think its only fair for the persecuted to make that decision.

[InHisHands381]

Thank you Crusader. I posted that as well, but Aluigi never posted a response showing me specifically where the Church says executions are just even if the person isn't a threat to society as he said:
[quote]so long as a person is guilty of such a crime, it is just for them to be executed. [/quote]
I'm still waiting....Until then, I'm sticking with the CCC!

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='InHisHands381' date='Dec 17 2004, 10:45 PM'] Thank you Crusader.  I posted that as well, but Aluigi never posted a response showing me specifically where the Church says executions are just even if the person isn't a threat to society as he said:

I'm still waiting....Until then, I'm sticking with the CCC!  [/quote]
The power of the State to execute a criminal is a part of the divine and natural law, and is affirmed as such in both scripture and tradition. Now, that being said, no one is required to support its use in a particular case, but then again, no one is prohibited from advocating its use either. A Catholic, as Cardinal Ratzinger indicated, is free to disagree with the Holy Father on the whether or not the death penalty should be applied in a particular case, for as he put it, "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [u]Letter to the US Bishops on Communion[/u], no. 3] But because the death penalty is a part of the immutable divine and natural law, a Catholic is not permitted to say that its use is either illicit or immoral, for no authority on earth, not even the Magisterium of the Church, can declare the use of the death penalty to be illicit or immoral.

God bless,
Todd

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 14 2004, 12:33 AM'] Well here in texas most people ar e for the death penelty, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

I guess I am in the minority here, but i don'tthink Peterson should have been convicted on the paltry amount of physical evidence that there was. That doesn't mean he didn't do it, I have no idea if he did it, butthere was no where near enough evidence to convict him justly. As for the Death penelty, I don't think thatthat punishment is out of line with the crime, i just don't think He should have been convicted of the crime.


I also think OJ was innocent. [/quote]
Well, I'm one those Texans in support of the death penalty.

First of all, Church Doctrine does not state that execution is wrong. That is a perpostorous claim! Just like the abuses after Vatican II, people in this case literally make up doctrine stating that the death penalty is immoral.

Show me where the Death Peanlty is wrong.

Second, OJ was clearly guilty. So what if the glove barely fit. lol

Have a good evening.

Edited December 19, 2004 by conservativecatholic

[I Choose to Be Holy]

Death Penalty Wrong: Jesus for one.
Also, what about those countless people that they thought were 100% guitly and then they turned out to be innocent...whoops.

[cmotherofpirl]

The death penalty itself is not wrong or immoral, however its application in a specific case may be.

Please re-read Apotheoun's post, he is giving your CHURCH teaching.

[popestpiusx]

If he did it, then he deserves to die.

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 19 2004, 01:47 AM'] If he did it, then he deserves to die. [/quote]
Simple yet well stated.

[Guest Aluigi]

that's all i was saying. the CCC in the light of the 2000 year old teaching of the Church is right that the state should consider mercy when it is possible. it still stands as doctrine that anyone who has committed murder would justly receive execution because they deserve punishment, whether or not the state is wrong in doing it because it fails to consider mercy and non-lethal means.

in the other thread I cited Trent and Pope Pius XII for a couple instances of the light of the 2000 year old INFALLIBLE Teaching of the Church that exection is a just recourse of the state (admitted by the CCC) then the Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who said we can legitimately disagree about the application (meaning I don't have to think the cases are rare or practically non-existant). The Doctrine of the Church demands you admit it as the just recourse of the state and a just punishment to anyone who has committed a grave crime. The Magisterium now tells us that the state should consider mercy when non-lethal means are available and practical, this too must be listened to. But CHURCH TEACHING still stands that anyone who commits murder forfeits their own life and that if they were executed as punishment there would be no injustice done to them (though the state and decision makers may be sinning failing to consider mercy)

like qfnol's example in the other thread: if you are giving money to the Church with the bad intention of being recognized (like the Pharisees used to do) by others, it becomes an evil action on your part. however, the Church still justly receives the money you give and the Church deserves that money. so too, the state's intention can make it an evil action, but the murderer (so long as he really is guilty) always deserves that punishment.