Execute Them!

[Aloysius]

I meant to make that distinction but apparently failed to in this thread. I remember I made it in a previous discussion somewhere on PM.

Anyway, all criminals guilty of a grave crime would receive the death penalty justly, but the state should not always administer it. I think we can agree here and continue with the point where we disagree on the application;

I think bloodless means are not sufficient in most cases of grave crimes in the modern world.

[Q the Ninja]

Now that I would say is possibly an expression of opinion.

[MichaelFilo]

So basically is that, what we have been saying is correct, Catholic teaching is that it is always just to hand out the death penalty for grave crimes. That still does not resolve why you insist our opinion be that of the popes... which you did...

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

Actually, I insisted you give to the Pope what is due the Pope, religious submission of mind and will to that which was taught from his office. That's basically all I asked.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='May 6 2005, 10:13 PM'] So basically is that, what we have been saying is correct, Catholic teaching is that it is always just to hand out the death penalty for grave crimes. That still does not resolve why you insist our opinion be that of the popes... which you did...

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
Plus, the Holy Father while teaching disagreed with you here. It is not always just, and if you're honest with yourself, you know what I say is true.

You need to rethink what you're saying. That's all I ask.

[MichaelFilo]

It is always just to apply the death penalty to grave crimes. The person who hands out the sentence may not do so on just terms, but if the person did commit the crime, then he is still justly condemned.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

and there's the distinction that reconciles us all together as one big happy family: it is always justly received but not necessarily always justly dished out. me n mich think there are many cases nowadays that it should be justly dished out, Q and JPII think that in modern times most cases it shouldn't be used. there is the legitimate disagreement about the application.

[Q the Ninja]

I would just like to add that there is something in his words that cannot be forgotten.

There is a resason the Holy Father said what he did in the encyclical. I think that we still owe a religious submission of mind and will to the limitation of capital punishment to those cases that the good of society may prevail.

[Matt Black]

Increasing sentencing on paedophiles, rapists etc. is something as a father I would love to do. Unfortunately, it has been tried and one very, very major flaw came to the light. That is, no one counted on just how sick some of these people were. There were reported cases of paedo's admitting, once convicted was that the only reason they killed the child rather than let them go was because the sentencing was so strict that it made no difference to their lives whether they killed or not.

Let me make that clear. If you give a paedo 25+ years for not killing, the chance of him coming out alive are slim. Yet, because there is a material witness, the chances of him being caught are increased. If he kills and gets 250+ years for killing, there is no difference to the paedo. Yet, in killing the victim, the chance of him being killed (so long as he disposes of the body where it won't be found) is much slimmer. He also gets the chance to murder a child.

I don't have any answers in what to do with them, but the emotional, parental response will cause the deaths of more children than it will save. Obviously, paedophiles cannot be allowed to live in society and be an active danger to children and something must be done. It is also obvious that the current idea of simply locking them up does not an in any way help to cure the problem.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[cmotherofpirl]

Connecticut Executes Serial Killer
By PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press Writer

SOMERS, Conn. - A serial killer who fought to hasten his own execution and was forced to prove he wasn't out of his mind was put to death early Friday in New England's first execution in 45 years. Michael Ross, 45, died by injection at 2:25 a.m. after fighting off attempts by public defenders, death penalty foes and his own family to spare his life.

"Today is a day no one truly looked forward to, but then no one looked forward to the brutal, heinous deaths of those eight young girls," Gov. M. Jodi Rell said. "I hope that there is at least some measure of relief and closure for their families."

The Ivy League-educated Ross was sent to death row for the murders of four young women and girls in Connecticut in the 1980s, and confessed to four more such slayings in Connecticut and New York. He also raped most of the women.

One of Ross' victims was the sister of Debbie Dupris, who witnessed the execution.

"I thought I would feel closure, but I felt anger just watching him lay there and sleep after what he did to these women," Dupris said. "But I'm sure I will feel some closure soon."

Last fall, Ross announced he was abandoning all remaining appeals, which could have kept him alive for many years, because his victims' families had suffered enough.

"I owe these people. I killed their daughters. If I could stop the pain, I have to do that. This is my right," the former insurance agent and Cornell University graduate said last year. "I don't think there's anything crazy or incompetent about that."

Death penalty opponents warned that Ross' execution could break down a political and psychological barrier against capital punishment in New England and start a domino effect in the region.

"The whole thing is just disheartening to me and I think we're going to live to regret this day," said attorney Antonio Ponvert III, who represented Ross' father and filed several lawsuits trying to block the execution.

On Thursday, a federal appeals court in New York and the U.S. Supreme Court rebuffed a lawsuit brought on behalf of Ross' father that claimed the execution would lead to a wave of suicide attempts among Connecticut inmates. The courts also rejected an attempt by Ross' sister to stop the execution.

Ross' family, friends and attorneys visited with him after he was moved Thursday to a holding cell near the death chamber at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers. He had with him a Bible, a book of Bible verses, a coffee cup and some candy.

About 300 people had gathered outside the prison as Ross was put to death.

"My heart is pounding," said Suzanne Strum of Waterford, who opposes capital punishment. "I can't believe Connecticut has become that state that's done it."

Among the death penalty supporters was Craig Miner of Enfield, who painted "Ross must go, 5/13/05" on the side of his car. "I have four kids of my own and I really feel sorry for the families of the girls," Miner said.

Ross was hours from death in January when a federal judge scolded Ross' attorney and threatened to lift his law license for trying to hasten Ross' execution. The lawyer agreed to a new round of hearings on whether Ross was mentally competent.

Desperate to save his life, public defenders and Ross' family had argued that Ross suffered from "death row syndrome" — that is, he had become deranged from living most of the past 18 years under a death sentence.

At the hearings, two psychiatrists testified that Ross was mentally incompetent. They said he has a personality disorder that compels him to choose death to avoid looking cowardly. Two other experts disputed the finding of incompetence and said he was genuinely remorseful.

Last month, a judge again found Ross competent to decide his fate.

"This was not an act of suicide by Michael Ross, as some have so fervently claimed," said defense attorney T.R. Paulding, whom Ross hired to help him end his appeals. "It was a decision that required courage."

The last execution in New England was in 1960, when Joseph "Mad Dog" Taborsky went to the electric chair in Connecticut. Of the six New England states, only Connecticut and New Hampshire have the death penalty. New Hampshire has no one on death row and has not executed anyone since 1939.

[Jaime]

Here's a couple of interesting facts about the death penalty.

It has never been shown to be deterrent to criminals. Capital crimes have not dropped in states with the death penalty.

Believe it or not, it is cheaper to put away a criminal for life than it is to execute them.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 14 2005, 10:08 AM'] Here's a couple of interesting facts about the death penalty.

It has never been shown to be deterrent to criminals. Capital crimes have not dropped in states with the death penalty.

Believe it or not, it is cheaper to put away a criminal for life than it is to execute them. [/quote]


[quote]
It has never been shown to be deterrent to criminals.  Capital crimes have not dropped in states with the death penalty.[/quote]


That is a silly statement, can you name me one state which has passed the death penalty in recent years? how could the capitail crime rate " drop" in states the have it if those states that have it have had it for a very long time.

[quote]
Believe it or not, it is cheaper to put away a criminal for life than it is to execute them.[/quote]

Also a silly statement, this is a total fabrication-- it cost almost nothing to put some one to death, now if you stated " because of the Supreme Courts requirements for appeal and public defense in death penalty cases bringing a criminal to the finallity of execution often cost more than simply imprisoning them for life, which has no such requirements" that would be correct.

[Jaime]

[quote]hat is a silly statement, can you name me one state which has passed the death penalty in recent years? how could the capitail crime rate " drop" in states the have it if those states that have it have had it for a very long time.[/quote]

How many states do you want Don? Well you asked for only one

Texas reinstated the death penalty in 1974

Let's look at the statistics shall we?

1973 1506 convicted of murder
1974 1652 ''
1975 1639
1976 1519 (hey maybe he's right)
1977 1705 (oh I guess not)
1978 1853
1979 2235
1980 2392

Stats taken from DOJ and FBI resources.

Yeah it continues to rise. The death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes.

[quote]Also a silly statement, this is a total fabrication-- it cost almost nothing to put some one to death, now if you stated " because of the Supreme Courts requirements for appeal and public defense in death penalty cases bringing a criminal to the finallity of execution often cost more than simply imprisoning them for life, which has no such requirements" that would be correct.[/quote]

Trans: The death penalty is more costly than life imprisonment. Yup that's what I said.

The Supreme Court requires it. Its a part of the death penalty process. So its an expensive process.

While I am prone to being silly in opinion, I don't make statements around here without having a bit of knowledge on the subject

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='May 14 2005, 12:32 PM']
How many states do you want Don? Well you asked for only one

Texas reinstated the death penalty in 1974

Let's look at the statistics shall we?

1973 1506 convicted of murder
1974 1652 ''
1975 1639
1976 1519 (hey maybe he's right)
1977 1705 (oh I guess not)
1978 1853
1979 2235
1980 2392

Stats taken from DOJ and FBI resources.

Yeah it continues to rise. The death penalty is not a deterrent to capital crimes.



Trans: The death penalty is more costly than life imprisonment. Yup that's what I said.

The Supreme Court requires it. Its a part of the death penalty process. So its an expensive process.

While I am prone to being silly in opinion, I don't make statements around here without having a bit of knowledge on the subject [/quote]
Agian this is false logic, the death penalty was not "reinstated " in the since that it had ever left either the books or the culture of the states in question. The supreme court interfered with the legal workings of the State, and in result the Legislators altered the Laws to bring it in line with the new federal demands, secondly numbers of this sort are quite meaningless and an obvious attemp at manipulation, I would argue that in fact the muder[i] rate[/i] went down, look at the explosion in the Population of Texas during the time in Question more than theat look at the exodus to the Urban centers both from rural Texas and out of state, murder is always more prevelent in urban settings, particularly in a Boom town enviornment ( Houston of the late 70's and early 80's). But all of those social thing mean little when compared to the population increase during that time frame.

[Don John of Austria]

I gotta go, I'll respond more to this later