Execute Them!

[Aloysius]

you just quoted the Holy Father expressing his opinions about the modern [b]application [/b]of the death penalty.

Catholic Teaching remains secure saying that a person who commits a grave crime deserves execution and the state has the right to execute. therefore, absolutely any time the state executes a person who is guilty of a grave crime, according to Catholic teaching that is a just action. Evangelium Vitae's mention of the death penalty clearly is a comment about its application. i.e., the state shouldn't always apply it, even though it is always just when they do it.

I don't see your argument really.. you admit we can legitimately disagree about the application of the death penalty with JPII however you cite JPII's comments on the application of the death penalty and posit them as papal teaching

[MichaelFilo]

He was with Arian sympathies. Guess why he didn't get canonized (the first ever).

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

[quote]you just quoted the Holy Father expressing his opinions about the modern application of the death penalty.

Catholic Teaching remains secure saying that a person who commits a grave crime deserves execution and the state has the right to execute. therefore, absolutely any time the state executes a person who is guilty of a grave crime, according to Catholic teaching that is a just action. Evangelium Vitae's mention of the death penalty clearly is a comment about its application. i.e., the state shouldn't always apply it, even though it is always just when they do it.

I don't see your argument really.. you admit we can legitimately disagree about the application of the death penalty with JPII however you cite JPII's comments on the application of the death penalty and posit them as papal teaching [/quote]

Unlike what the Revisionists said back when Humanae Vitae was released, Encyclicals ARE NOT JUST OPINION!!!!!

[MichaelFilo]

Wow. Ok, so this is what you are saying. The Pope has singlehandedly contradicted the Catholic teaching on this matter? That must be what you are saying, otherwise you would be saying like, that is the Pope's opinion.

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

No, I'm saying that anyone who doesn't give religious submission of mind and will to Papal teachings has.

How has the Pope contradicted the Faith? I have yet to see it...

[Aloysius]

you need to prove to me how the position you are proposing, that sometimes the state does not have a just right to execute, is consistent with the teachings of the Church for 2000 other years. the encyclical clearly makes a commentary on modern application of the death penalty where you quoted it.

[Q the Ninja]

There can never be the willing of a death of a person. (Especially not killing)...It falls under the idea of the principle of double effect actually. While it is illicit to will the death/killing of a person, it is not illicit for a person to die because of something else. But this thing must be proportional. What the Holy Father has said is that the dignity of the human person outweighs the justice that would follow (or "lesser amount") by imprisoning them for life. Everyone here has said justice is higher, but it's actually the dignity.

That I believe is Catholic doctrine.

[MichaelFilo]

I found a good link. I'd link it, but it refers to JPII as the antipope. OF course, the theology is still good. However, if I need to pull quotes for you, just ask.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

"if bloodless means are sufficient"

that's what I really take issue with.
it does not fall under the expertise of the Petrine Office to say that cases are rare if non-existant when the dp is necessary. I take issue and believe that our bloodless capability is about the same as the medieval bloodless capability, so to say bloodless means available is different now is absurd to me and thus has no bearing on the use of the dp.

anyway, yeah, intention does affect whether or not the state administers the execution justly.

however, every guilty criminal that receives the death penalty RECEIVES IT JUSTLY. They deserved it, and thus their execution is just.

A leader, judge, or jury may sin through bloodlust, revenge, and murderous intent, this is true.

[Q the Ninja]

I think that you've now made a crucial distinction.

A person can receive something justly (now disregard intent) but does that mean that the government is still just in giving it?

[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.