High Treason

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Carolou' date='Dec 16 2005, 02:18 PM']I don't think any person can be the judge of whether another person deserves to die or not...
[right][snapback]828461[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The state can, however.

[crazymaine catholic]

stupid states. what do they know anyway? :

[Carolou]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 16 2005, 03:35 PM']The state can, however.
[right][snapback]828478[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't think they have a right to, though. That's my opinion. State is people..just with more power over others.

[qfnol31]

[quote]2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

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...[/quote]

[crazymaine catholic]

but how do we determine who is worthy of the death penalty? how can we tell who will remain enough of a threat to human life that the only way to preserve life is by death?
oh yeah, and is that from the catechism? i remember reading stuff like this in there.

Edited December 16, 2005 by crazymaine catholic

[qfnol31]

It is in fact from the Catechism.

It is again up to the state to decide who's a threat to society.

[Carolou]

darn it.

Still..I have a hard time accepting that it's okay for a person to decide that it's okay to have someone killed. Even if they are part of the state..doesn't make them not human anymore. They cast a judgement that is Gods alone to cast.

How does someone know that another person would kill another person, even if they have killed in the past? They don't know. Only God does. So, no person on this earth can say they know for a fact that someone else needs to die in order to keep others safe.

*sighs*

[crazymaine catholic]

the issue is that God granted men the ability to bring justice here on earth. it's difficult to accept that now, because so many judges and justice systems are corrupt. that makes it really hard to tell who is using the death penalty as an excuse, and who is using it with extreme discretion.

[Socrates]

In Merrie Olde England, the penalty for Treason was to be hanged, drawn and quartered. I won't go into the details of what that entailed here, but needless to say, it's not for the feint of heart.

(And now, people throw a fit if someone is given a lethal injection!)

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 16 2005, 04:40 PM']2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

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...
[right][snapback]828486[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

[b]Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which [u]the state[/u] has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."[/b]

Consistency is the key. An important part of the Catechism was left out of that post.

[qfnol31]

Not really. What you posted was irrelevant to what I was saying.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31']Not really. What you posted was irrelevant to what I was saying.[/quote]

How do you figure? You said:

[quote]The state can, however.[/quote]
In regard to being the judge as to who deserves the death penalty.

I simply stated that in order to be consistent, the whole of CCC #2267 should be quoted. The reason being, the part that I bolded AND underlined.

[quote name='CCC #2267 (par. 3)']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 definitely taking away from him the possibility 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]

So, while the state does have the ability to judge in favor of capital punishment, IF it is the ONLY possible means to protect society; the part that you left out is the important part.....the possibilites which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering the one has committed an offense incapable of doing harm, is far more important than the part that you posted.

Why? Because what you posted is the last and worst case scenario. What you didn't fully post is what is the best case scenario. That the non-lethal means which render the aggressor incapable of doing harm DOES NOT take away the the possibility of redeeming himself.

[qfnol31]

Actually, that's innacurate. The state can choose death anytime there is a major crime that deserves such, but it is a better good to choose the life.

It doesn't change what I said though. All I said is that the state has the authority to choose to put a person to death, and regardless of the circumstances that does not change. Of course choosing to kill someone only happens in certain circumstances, but you didn't choose to name them all yourself. You only mentioned that one that it's the only means necessary to preserve a society...but you only mentioned the one criteria. That would be correct consistency.

However, my point here isn't to make a debate about that, because I really don't care so much here. I just wanted to point out that the Church holds that the state can (in certain circumstances) put people to death.

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 07:43 PM']Actually, that's innacurate.  The state can choose death anytime there is a major crime that deserves such, but it is a better good to choose the life.

It doesn't change what I said though.  All I said is that the state has the authority to choose to put a person to death, and regardless of the circumstances that does not change.  Of course choosing to kill someone only happens in certain circumstances, but you didn't choose to name them all yourself.  You only mentioned that one that it's the only means necessary to preserve a society...but you only mentioned the one criteria.  That would be correct consistency.

However, my point here isn't to make a debate about that, because I really don't care so much here.  I just wanted to point out that the Church holds that the state can (in certain circumstances) put people to death.
[right][snapback]829132[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually it is not. The state can choose capital punishment anytime there is a major crime that deserves such AND IT IS A JUST REASON, but it is a better good to choose the life.

According to what you said, no it doesn't change what you said, however, when you add "just reasoning," it does change the meaning. And that is what you left out.

Yes, the Church does say the state can use capital punishment, if it is the ONLY POSSIBLE way of effectively defending human life. However, the Church is just as clear in stating that if non-lethal means are available, those should be used, because it is more in keeping with the dignity of the human person. And the Church teaches that the application of the death penalty, should be rare, if not practically non-existent.

You continually leave that out of your arguments though. It is as if the Church never said it, in your world, and that is your error.

[qfnol31]

Cam, I do put it in there.

You don't give me enough credit, I think.

[Cam42]

I give credit when it is due.

And you didn't put it in there. If you had put it in there, I wouldn't have to insert it and expand the understanding.

I also have not seen you discuss that in any post in the recent past, on this thread or any other. If you have, please show me.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 16 2005, 11:55 AM']I study under the daughter of the second worst traitor in history.

I'm glad he's only in jail for a long, long time.  I think that's most appropriate. 
[right][snapback]828231[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Hey! I know who you're talking about! LOL : Good thing there aren't family reprocussions.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='TheoGrad07' date='Dec 17 2005, 11:20 PM']Hey!  I know who you're talking about!  LOL  :  Good thing there aren't family reprocussions.
[right][snapback]829269[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, she's awesome, isn't she? :

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 10:20 PM']Yes, she's awesome, isn't she?  :
[right][snapback]829273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely! Loved that class

I think we need to discuss guidelines for determining just punishement. To say, as in the case of traitors, the penalty must fit the crime, is all fine and good. But how does one determine whether it fits?

I believe someone must make the judgement call about what penalty a person gets ... but who/what is to guide that person's decision?

[qfnol31]

I would think that the state should decide that more than persons...though the Bible gives good insight.

[quote]To say, as in the case of traitors, the penalty must fit the crime, is all fine and good. But how does one determine whether it fits?[/quote]

I use the phrase so as not to have to define. :