High Treason

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 10:27 PM']I would think that the state should decide that more than persons...though the Bible gives good insight. 
I use the phrase so as not to have to define.  :
[right][snapback]829283[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yes, the state is the one who should judge the lives of its citizens in matters of crime against the good of other citizens.

That's the easy way out and totally not acceptable, Zach! If you use a phrase, you must be able to define so the people you're talking to can understand you! Maybe that's where all the problems come from ...

[jasJis]

Carolou,
It may be hard to accept that God gives the State the power to take human life, but God has. Since Adam and Eve, it's been a disordered and imperfect world. With God's grace we do the best we can but the State is not the Church and is not infallible. The application of the DP would be imperfect.

Cam,
It is you who places too much emphasis on excerpts of the CCCC. Take the Catechism as a whole. The Church can suggest and recommend, but it isn't the sole arbiter of who recieves the DP. It is the State (a secular organism) that determines the threat to society and evaluates it. The Church is not the embodiment of ALL knowledge, but the embodiment of moral teaching.
You may be displeased with the evaluation of the threat, but the Church is not the only judge of that aspect.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 18 2005, 09:00 AM']Carolou,
It may be hard to accept that God gives the State the power to take human life, but God has.  Since Adam and Eve, it's been a disordered and imperfect world.  With God's grace we do the best we can but the State is not the Church and is not infallible.  The application of the DP would be imperfect.

Cam,
It is you who places too much emphasis on excerpts of the CCCC.  Take the Catechism as a whole.  The Church can suggest and recommend, but it isn't the sole arbiter of who recieves the DP.  It is the State (a secular organism) that determines the threat to society and evaluates it.  The Church is not the embodiment of ALL knowledge, but the embodiment of moral teaching. 
You may be displeased with the evaluation of the threat, but the Church is not the only judge of that aspect.
[right][snapback]829693[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While the Church is not the only judge, the Church will always give a morally just evaluation of whatever judgment is being discussed. For all you've said, you still have not shown how the judgment to execute is justified in today's society, in light of Catholic moral teaching.

And that is what the conversation is about. Based upon Roman Catholic moral teaching, which I can apply, because I am a Catholic American (not an American Catholic) the state is unjust in applying capital punishment in today's society, because non-lethal means exist to protect society. The instances in which there is an absolute necessity for capital punishment is rare if not practically non-existent.

[jasJis]

Get off it Cam. Stop saying 'rare if non existent'. You don't mean it, you just say that when you really mean 'never', especially with you standard of being a danger to 'more than 200, less then 1,000,000,000,000. I have shown the judgement to execute is justified, you just don't accept it with you unreasonable standard, which is the crux of you entire argument.

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 18 2005, 09:35 AM']Get off it Cam.  Stop saying 'rare if non existent'.  You don't mean it, you just say that when you really mean 'never', especially with you standard of being a danger to 'more than 200, less then 1,000,000,000,000.  I have shown the judgement to execute is justified, you just don't accept it with you unreasonable standard, which is the crux of you entire argument.
[right][snapback]829700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, actually, I mean rare, if practically non-existent. Sorry to disappoint you jasJis.

I have clarified this way too many times. Try a new tactic.

For the record. I accept the catechetical position. End of story.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Dec 18 2005, 05:32 PM']No, actually, I mean rare, if practically non-existent.  Sorry to disappoint you jasJis.

I have clarified this way too many times.  Try a new tactic.

For the record.  I accept the catechetical position.  End of story.
[right][snapback]830001[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]And I have not gone against the catechetical position. We disagree on what 'rare' means. These are your words: "Now, if Tookie were a threat to billions, I would be more inclined to take a harder look, however this is certainly not the case."

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Dec 18 2005, 11:17 PM']And I have not gone against the catechetical position.  We disagree on what 'rare' means.  These are your words: "Now, if Tookie were a threat to billions, I would be more inclined to take a harder look, however this is certainly not the case."
[right][snapback]830287[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

c'est la vie....

Wrong thread, btw.....

[PadreSantiago]

[img]http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/kerry/images/rove_wanted.jpg[/img]

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 17 2005, 08:35 PM']Cam, I do put it in there.

You don't give me enough credit, I think.
[right][snapback]829167[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not sure that is the type of person you should be worried about getting 'credit' from.

[lifescanticle]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 16 2005, 09:56 AM']I know this has to do with another thread, but in a way it is separate.

So in theory:

What do you believe is a just punishment for committing high treason? For instance, if I am guilty of leaking information regarding the war in Iraq to insurgents that leads directly to the death of thousands of US soldiers, should I be punished? What is an appropriate punishment?
[right][snapback]828018[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Life in prison would appropriate, no parole and only the necessities to live.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' date='Dec 20 2005, 06:06 PM'][img]http://www.infoimagination.org/ps/kerry/images/rove_wanted.jpg[/img]
[right][snapback]832119[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ahaha. The ignorance....ooohhh the ignorance....

[Cam42]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Dec 21 2005, 08:59 AM']I'm not sure that is the type of person you should be worried about getting 'credit' from.
[right][snapback]832593[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks for the compliment. And you have the moral authority to make such a statement, how?

[argent_paladin]

I guess I am the one who inspired this thread. So let me clarify.
I place terrorism and treason in a special category of capital crimes, because they are not simply aimed at the destruction of an individual or individuals, but the very existence of a society, at the common good. If the existence of a society is threatened, whether by anarchy or revolution, that society has the duty to defend itself and the common goods of justice, order and peace.
Revolutionaries, terrorists and traitors, thus are in a special category as they fundamentally and intrinsically threaten the foundations of society. Any group that seeks the violent overthrow of a state should be treated seriously and it stands to reason that any group that has a serious intention to overthrow a government, would think nothing of breaking a comrade out of prison or kidnapping or hijacking innocents in order to exchange their comrade for the hostages.

A thought experiment: Imagine if the KKK killed as many African-Americans as the Crips have in the past 20 years (numbering in the thousands). Now imagine that the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK was convicted of killing four people. Further imagine that he then wrote two children's books. Do you think Hollywood and Europe would be crying for clemency or even release? Or, like Timothy McVeigh, do you think he would have been dead within a few years of his crimes, rather than two decades later?

But that is a side issue, my main issue is that it is consistent with the CCC to say that high-ranking members of international terrorist organizations or revolutionary organizations may be executed because they are an inherent danger to the stability and order of society.

[Cam42]

I think that you are oversimplifying things by simply saying that all Tookie Williams did was "wrote two children's books." What about the [u]Tookie Protocol For Peace[/u]? What about the fact that for 12 years, he had not been a problem inmate? What about the 5 years (minimum) that he has not had any affiliation with the Crips?

I think that it is a disservice to limit what he has done to only one aspect. Couple that with everything else he has acheived and the argument for clemency becomes stronger.

Tookie was no longer a danger to society.....hence the appeal for clemency......a chance to re-evaluate his case.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Dec 21 2005, 02:11 PM']I think that you are oversimplifying things by simply saying that all Tookie Williams did was "wrote two children's books."  What about the [u]Tookie Protocol For Peace[/u]?  What about the fact that for 12 years, he had not been a problem inmate?  What about the 5 years (minimum) that he has not had any affiliation with the Crips?

I think that it is a disservice to limit what he has done to only one aspect.  Couple that with everything else he has acheived and the argument for clemency becomes stronger.

Tookie was no longer a danger to society.....hence the appeal for clemency......a chance to re-evaluate his case.
[right][snapback]832991[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]A thought experiment: Imagine if the KKK killed as many African-Americans as the Crips have in the past 20 years (numbering in the thousands). Now imagine that the Grand Imperial Dragon of the KKK was convicted of killing four people. Further imagine that he then wrote two children's books. Do you think Hollywood and Europe would be crying for clemency or even release? Or, like Timothy McVeigh, do you think he would have been dead within a few years of his crimes, rather than two decades later?
[/quote]

But that was another thread.


Let's limit the "Tookie" references in this thread folks. There is another dead horse thread for that.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Tookie is a cool name.

gosh

[Laudate_Dominum]

What was the topic of this thread anyway? Oh yeah, High Treason!!

I still say we should experiment with marooning convicts on desert islands, and maybe mess around with remote labour camps. If I had a choice of being executed or being marooned on a desert island with nothing but a pistol with one shot, I'd take the latter. And to what degree could this be considered execution? It is possible that with enough survival skills the person could live out his life like Tom Hanks in Cast Away. No real ethical dilemma anymore! Sweet, two birds with one stone.

[argent_paladin]

I apologize for the gratuitious Tookie reference (but we know that that is the dead elephant in the middle of the room (pardon the unintended poor taste pun)). But so far, no one has responded to the substantive part of my position (in any thread) that the risk of escape/communication/inspiration is too high for certain classes of criminals (mob bosses, terrorists, revolutionary leaders, gang founders, etc) to rule out the judicious use of capital punishment. And this is perfectly consistent with the CCC. Does anyone (cam?) disagree with this position? If not, then one *could* defend the initial conviction and sentencing of Tookie. Right?

But back to the matter at hand. High Treason. I am leery of saying that societies have a right to this, because it would be the first one abused. The worse a regime, the more likely that they would execute traitors (just look at Stalinist Russia). However, this is potentially the most dangerous to a free, peaceful society and could potentially endanger the common good. Therefore, I think that execution of Traitors cannot be ruled out.

And one more Tookie question. If his books were written to tell potential gang members that gangs are bad, based on his experience, why are their cute white kids on the covers of both his books? (ok, the girl might be hispanic)

[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0823923452.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]
[img]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0823923460.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg[/img]

I mean, are these really his target audience? I can just imaging a Berkely peace activist reading it to her lily-white five year old (dressed in organic cotton), warning him to stay away from gangs. Wouldn't it be better to have put an 8-yr-old black boy?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Enough with the Tookie.


I mean it.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 21 2005, 05:15 PM']Enough with the Tookie.
I mean it.
[right][snapback]833098[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The ninja has spoken.