InHisHands381 Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 Okay. I see where you all are coming from on this issue. I guess I just still disagree. As I said before, I'm not 100% against the death penalty. I just feel that mercy is deserved in more cases than not...in most actually. I do understand what you all are saying though - and I agree with it to a point. However, I just don't quite feel exactly the same way. Thank you all for elaborating on your points though - that was helpful.
Guest Aluigi Posted December 21, 2004 Posted December 21, 2004 no problem. though I do think, and anyone can correct me if i'm wrong here, that it'd be a matter of Revealed Catholic Truth through the Bible and the Church that anyone truly guilty of a grave crime such as murder would forfeit their own life and justly receive execution, even if the state sins by failing to consider mercy and non-lethal means. not that you cannot, when in fact not only can you but you probably should, want the state not to execute as many. but you cannot think that anyone who is really guilty of such a crime and was executed by the state was somehow "murdered" by the state, or that they didn't deserve death. we should work for mercy to be considered, but must keep in mind that it [i]is[/i] mercy, not something that the criminal deserves, it is not owed to him that his life should be spared: in fact justice demands his life be taken away. remember that any criminal of such a degree of crime that is spared the death penalty is granted mercy, undeserved and unnecessary for him because God was prepared for that to be his time seeing as he forfeited his own life (in such a way if you really think about it, technically homicide is akin to suicide).
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Dec 13 2004, 08:04 PM'] Now, I know we're all in agreement (I think actually) about whether or not Scott Peterson did commit the crime... but what do you think aobut the punishment? I personally find the death penalty totally wrong in this case. He is not a dangerous person, and not a person that cannot be contained. [/quote] If you want to get technical and be fair in the eyes of the liberals and judges, Scott should be released because his right to privacy is greater than his wife's right to live, or his childs. I firmly believe that any liberal (who supports abortion) that says Scott should be in jail or die is a walking contradiction without any logic or common sense. God Bless, ironmonk
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 19 2004, 03:47 AM'] If he did it, then he deserves to die. [/quote] If he did it, he deserves time to reflect and change for Christ. You've condemned St. Paul before Christ spoke to him... St. Paul caused the deaths of Christians before coming to Christ. Murder is murder bro. We all here deserve to die because we all have sinned against God. What about if the man was possessed by a demon? Possession is real... one might say then "he" didn't do it, but there is no way for us to know. What is better - For him to die now and loose salvation or for him to spend the rest of his life in prison and possibly change for Christ? Something to think about. God Bless, ironmonk Edited December 22, 2004 by ironmonk
popestpiusx Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 01:18 AM'] If he did it, he deserves time to reflect and change for Christ. You've condemned St. Paul before Christ spoke to him... St. Paul caused the deaths of Christians before coming to Christ. Murder is murder bro. We all here deserve to die because we all have sinned against God. What about if the man was possessed by a demon? Possession is real... one might say then "he" didn't do it, but there is no way for us to know. Something to think about. [/quote] I thought about it. My new opinion on the subject is: if he did it, then he deserves to die. If he is possessed, then he is not guilty (in the strict sense of that word). Bring in an exorcist. It would take him a very short period of time to figure out. If he is possessed, conduct an exorcism and let him go. If not, he deserves to die. In the meantime, we should all pray that he converts.
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 22 2004, 02:27 AM'] I thought about it. My new opinion on the subject is: if he did it, then he deserves to die. If he is possessed, then he is not guilty (in the strict sense of that word). Bring in an exorcist. It would take him a very short period of time to figure out. If he is possessed, conduct an exorcism and let him go. If not, he deserves to die. In the meantime, we should all pray that he converts. [/quote] St. Augustine's mother prayed for his convertion for sixteen years. What threat to society is Scott if he's locked up in prison? How is killing Scott, forgiving Scott? "Forgive us our sins, as we forgive others" If we want our sins to be forgiven, we must forgive others. What would be needed to protect society from Scott? Locking him up for 25 to life would adequatly protect society, and give him time to be won over to Christ. Are you wiser than the Church? [b]CCC 2267 [/b] 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, [b]if this is the [u]only [/u]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 common good and more in conformity with 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—[u][b]without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself[/b][/u]—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." God Bless, ironmonk Edited December 22, 2004 by ironmonk
popestpiusx Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 01:59 AM'] St. Augustine's mother prayed for his convertion for sixteen years. [/quote] And we are all better off as a result. How is this relevant? I don't recall reading anything about St. Augustine brutally murdering his wife and child. Furthermore, Augustine had no problem resorting to execution or the use of arms to enact justice. In fact, he supported military action against the Donatists. [quote]What threat to society is Scott if he's locked up in prison?[/quote] He becomes a burden on society. He is a danger to his fellow inmates. And justice remains undone. [quote]How is killing Scott, forgiving Scott?[/quote] Since when did forgiving someone preclude punishment? Besides that, my forgiveness of Scott means nothing. The state is in the buisness of restoring justice and protecting its citizens. God is in the buisness of forgiving sins. Would you have the state grant him a pardon? [quote]"Forgive us our sins, as we forgive others"[/quote] As I said before, my forgiveness of Scott means nothing (at least not in this context). In fact, it is irrelevant to this discussion. We are discussing the actions of the state in carrying out the enforcement of justice. [quote]If we want our sins to be forgiven, we must forgive others.[/quote] I'm not repeating it again. Read above. [quote]Are you wiser than the Church?[/quote] No, and that is precisely why I defend the use of the death penalty, because the Church also defends its application. The question is, are you wiser than the Church?
Guest Aluigi Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 if saul of tarsus had been executed it would have been just. we don't deal in would ofs and could ofs. there's plenty of people that have lifetime jail sentences that never repent, or get worse. there's plenty of people who repent if faced with death. it is a just execution, just like the good theif said that those two deserved to die while Jesus did not. it is always justly received by the victim. the state should consider mercy when it is possible for them not to be a threat to society by non-lethal means, but the fact remains that the punishment the criminal deserves from the state is execution and any time he is merely put to jail that is mercy, not something the state was required to do. murderers are never murdered by the state because it is a just punishment that they deserve and the state has just recourse to.
cooltuba Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "And we are all better off as a result. How is this relevant? I don't recall reading anything about St. Augustine brutally murdering his wife and child. Furthermore, Augustine had no problem resorting to execution or the use of arms to enact justice. In fact, he supported military action against the Donatists. " It's relevant because he was showing you that conversions take time, and if he's executed, he will not have the time to reflect and possibly convert. "He becomes a burden on society. He is a danger to his fellow inmates. And justice remains undone. " The way our prision system is set up, yes, it costs a lot of money to house an inmate. With some changes, prisions can become self-sufficient. His fellow inmates are not "society", and the danger to them would be minimal; he'd be more in danger himself from the other inmates. No, Justice is Mercy. And it would be done. "Since when did forgiving someone preclude punishment? Besides that, my forgiveness of Scott means nothing. The state is in the buisness of restoring justice and protecting its citizens. God is in the buisness of forgiving sins. Would you have the state grant him a pardon?" Do you not think life imprisionment w/o the possiblity of parole is a punishment? Spend a day or two without leaving your bedroom, then imagine having to live in much less comfortable circumstances for the rest of your life. The state is in the buisness of protecting it's citizens, I agree with you. We would be protected just as well if he were locked up for the rest of his life. "No, and that is precisely why I defend the use of the death penalty, because the Church also defends its application. The question is, are you wiser than the Church?" The Church defends the death penalty as A LAST RESORT, and in these days, we have the ways and means to incarcerate a murderer for the rest of his/her natural life, thereby providing a non-lethal solution, and this MUST be used before CP. If we didn't have secure prisions and people were escaping all the time, the death penalty for the worst offenders wouldn't be wrong. Try to use compassion and love when you think about this; all I've seen from you so far is hatred and vengance (for murderers). Peace, Tim
cooltuba Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Dec 22 2004, 11:58 AM'] if saul of tarsus had been executed it would have been just. we don't deal in would ofs and could ofs. there's plenty of people that have lifetime jail sentences that never repent, or get worse. there's plenty of people who repent if faced with death. it is a just execution, just like the good theif said that those two deserved to die while Jesus did not. it is always justly received by the victim. the state should consider mercy when it is possible for them not to be a threat to society by non-lethal means, but the fact remains that the punishment the criminal deserves from the state is execution and any time he is merely put to jail that is mercy, not something the state was required to do. murderers are never murdered by the state because it is a just punishment that they deserve and the state has just recourse to. [/quote] If the state should ALWAYS use mercy when a non-lethal means is available, you should be against the law that we have allowing the death penalty, because our government ALWAYS has the opportunity to incarcerate a criminal non-lethally. Basically, you're saying that the state should use mercy ALWAYS and never execute anyone, but if they do, well, they deserved it. Yes, they may have deserved it, but the state was wrong in executing them, therefore you should be against the death penalty. Peace, Tim
Apotheoun Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Catholics may freely disagree with each other on the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be applied in a particular case, but a Catholic cannot say that the State does not have the power or the right, and even in some cases the duty, to execute a criminal, because God has entrusted to the State the grave responsibility of maintaining the common good. Moverover, there is no requirement that the State in every case show mercy to a criminal who has taken an innocent life. In fact, justice may require, depending upon the case, that the State execute a criminal in order to redress the evil committed by the man in question. So, there cannot be a general rule that holds that the State can never use the death penalty. God bless, Todd
Guest Aluigi Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 the state should consider means when non-lethal means are available for the criminal to no longer be a threat to anyone. remember, Cardinal Ratzinger makes it clear I don't have to believe that these cases are "rare if practically non-existant" and I dont believe it. there will always be people too violent to be in prison without causing more harm to others. are you going to put such a violent person into solitary for the rest of his life? it would be better that he receives the punishment due to him. remember, any time non-lethal means are used to any murderer it is extra, the state is not required because that person deserves execution. extra mercy allowing him to live is something the state should consider. when it executes, it is always justly received by the criminal. i base myself on 2000 years of teaching on the death penalty, I read the catechism in the light of that not the other way around. it has been taught by the Church that a criminal who has committed grave crimes is justly executed for justice's sake. i think it would be wrong of the state to give up its just recourse to the death penalty. i think it should keep that but be more considerate of non-lethal means when the person can be contained without becoming a threat.
Guest Aluigi Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 22 2004, 12:17 PM'] Catholics may freely disagree with each other on the issue of whether or not the death penalty should be applied in a particular case, but a Catholic cannot say that the State does not have the power or the right, and even in some cases the duty, to execute a criminal, because God has entrusted to the State the grave responsibility to maintain the common good. Moverover, there is no requirement that the State in every case show mercy to a criminal who has taken an innocent life. In fact, justice may require, depending upon the case, that the State execute a criminal in order to redress the evil committed by the man in question. So, there cannot be a general rule that holds that the State can never use the death penalty. God bless, Todd [/quote] I agree. The word "should" I did not intend to say was some requirement, it should consider mercy when non-lethal means are available. if it does not and the person is really guilty, the execution is still just.
ironmonk Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 (edited) More of a burden on society is wrong. The death penalty is a bigger burden on society than life in prison. I am assuming you mean a monetary burden... it's cheaper to have someone in prison for life than to execute them. In this case the Church is clear that there is NO NEED for the death penalty. Sin is a sin... we all deserve to die because of our sins... lying, murder, fornication, etc... if we are guilty in one, we are guilty in all. Things I stated are very relevant, use your mind and think a little. Killing Scott is not punishment, it's revenge. There is no need to kill him to protect society. Maybe you should pay a little more attention to the Catechism.... [b]CCC 2267[/b] ...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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—[u][b]the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/b][/u] The execution of Scott is not an absolute necessity, if you think it is, you've got a lot to learn in life and you are in my prayers. The only case I could see where execution was necessity is Osama Bin'Laden and other terrorists, in order to protect society. God Bless, ironmonk Edited December 22, 2004 by ironmonk
popestpiusx Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Tuba, Have you ever read anything on the death penalty written prior to the CCC? The fact of the matter is this: The state has the right to execute. It may do so when it judges such action to be necessary. It is a prudential judgment made by the state. Such is the teaching of the Church. The Pope does not have the authority to change that. He is personally against the death penalty. Thats fine. But we are not bound to accept that opinion, nor are we bound his assessment of the modern prison system (if there is such a thing as A modern prison system), which is well outside the realm of faith and morals. But even the Pope acknowledges that the DP is acceptable in some circumstances.
Apotheoun Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 In the traditional doctrine of the Church there is no requirement that the State limit itself to non-lethal means, and so this idea cannot cannot be applied as a general rule, because the State has a twofold duty: (1) to protect society from further injury by rendering the criminal harmless, and (2) punishing the malefactor in order to redress the wrong committed by him. As far as the second element is concerned, it is not possible to rule out the judicious use of the death penalty by the State. God bless, Todd
Apotheoun Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 [quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 22 2004, 10:25 AM'] [b]CCC 2267[/b] ...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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—[u][b]the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/b][/u] [/quote] This is a prudential judgment, not a dogmatic one, and so no Catholic is required to accept it. God bless, Todd
Guest Aluigi Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "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." -Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Head of the CDF I do not have to believe that cases are rare if practically non-existant, and I don't think they are. All executions of people who are actually guilty are just, but maybe not all should happen. That's a question of the application of the death penalty. I think the state should sometimes consider mercy, even though the criminal deserves execution, when there is non-lethal means available by which he can still receive just punishment (limit on his freedom for the rest of his life, this is not necessarily to convert him but to punish him, conversion rate in prison I don't believe is as high as it is on death row anyway). It's not vengeance, the criminal deserves death, the state gives it to him. The traditional doctrine of the Church, as I previously mentioned with the Council of Trent (have you read through the thread?) is that such criminals deserve death from the state and the state would be completely justified in executing them. Read the CCC in that light, and you'll see that we're merely trying to have the state show some criminals undeserved mercy by non-lethal even when they deserve execution. prison is not rehabilitation, anyone who thinks that is fooling themselves. prison oftentimes makes people worse.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now