HisChildForever Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772217' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:57 PM']Murderers is too vague of a term. Different types of murderers would necessitate different modalities of incarceration and rehabilitation I would think. My point is that I feel it is contrary to God's law to take the positive act of ending another person's life when you haven't exhausted EVERY alternative. And as I have stated, in this land of wealth there are innumerable alternative possiblities to try.[/quote] You cannot debate your case without providing supporting arguments. Would you care to provide what specific "alternative possibilities" you are talking about?
cmotherofpirl Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772213' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:52 PM']We ARE capable of defending human lives against unjust aggressors in prison. Your statistics are more easily explained away by inadequate funding than by the unredeemable recidivism of criminals. I chose not to beleive that anyone is irredeemable and thus do not see the necessity of capital punishment in a country where individual people spend thousands and thousands of dollars each year on dog food and cable tv and fast food. Human life is more valuable than the croutons we waste our money on. Even the life of a sick and twisted serial rapist chainsaw murderer.[/quote] You can choose to take the stats any way you want. We disagree.
Veridicus Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772232' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:10 PM']You can choose to take the stats any way you want. We disagree.[/quote] That is acceptable.
Winchester Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772203' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']In a word? No. Guards, like our armed servicemen abroad, get money and benefits knowing they place their lives on the line. It is an honorable job, more honorable than most. But the danger to self is a known, accepted aspect of the job.[/quote] The exact argument every time a means of protection is denied on [i]my [/i] job. The problem is, too many people who haven't experienced quick and dirty combat love to opine on how to keep those who protect them safe. No matter how much training is given, mistakes will be made. Guards don't deserve to be killed or injured because they slip up on a search and miss a weapon. You cannot keep prisoners from obtaining weapons or hurting guards. It's impossible unless you employ extraordinary means. No gifts from the outside, no contact with family, no personal effects, constant searches. Even then, things will happen. To totally remove the option of execution is to deny reality. There is no lovely little world where we can remove that option. Rehabilitation is possible only when people do not live in fear. So long as the violent are not sequestered (really sequestered) or executed, there will be fear. Rehab will fail for the majority because we will not deal with the incarcerated and the free who spread fear.
Winchester Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772213' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:52 PM']We ARE capable of defending human lives against unjust aggressors in prison. Your statistics are more easily explained away by inadequate funding than by the unredeemable recidivism of criminals. I chose not to beleive that anyone is irredeemable and thus do not see the necessity of capital punishment[/quote] Free will. You play roulette with your own life, not me or mine.
Veridicus Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1772238' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:18 PM']The exact argument every time a means of protection is denied on [i]my [/i] job. The problem is, too many people who haven't experienced quick and dirty combat love to opine on how to keep those who protect them safe. No matter how much training is given, mistakes will be made. Guards don't deserve to be killed or injured because they slip up on a search and miss a weapon. You cannot keep prisoners from obtaining weapons or hurting guards. It's impossible unless you employ extraordinary means. No gifts from the outside, no contact with family, no personal effects, constant searches. Even then, things will happen. To totally remove the option of execution is to deny reality. There is no lovely little world where we can remove that option. Rehabilitation is possible only when people do not live in fear. So long as the violent are not sequestered (really sequestered) or executed, there will be fear. Rehab will fail for the majority because we will not deal with the incarcerated and the free who spread fear.[/quote] Granted...but it doesn't require someone CONVICTED of murder to try and shiv a guard. Killing every convicted murderer in prison will not keep guards "perfectly safe in a lovely little world." The risk of violence from an inmate [i]is [/i]part of the job; there are different degrees of risk depending on the psychological profile of the inmates involved of course. Should we start executing people based on how their psychological profiles suggest their propensity toward violence is? Because it is precisely this propensity upon which your previous post was situated.
Veridicus Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1772239' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:20 PM']Free will. You play roulette with your own life, not me or mine.[/quote] You consider a belief in the redeemability of each individual a game of roulette rather than a promise of the redeemer? Seriously, was Christ's blood on the cross so wholly wasted on some that we might as well kill them now?
CatherineM Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772204' date='Feb 4 2009, 04:43 PM']These are the kind of criminals I am referring to: Melvin and Linda Lorenz, and their son Richard were killed by Roger Stafford. Melvin stopped on a highway near Purcell, Okla., to help what he thought was a woman whose car had broken down, but instead was ambushed by Stafford and his brother, using Stafford's wife as bait. Less than a month after these horrific murders, the trio killed six employees of a steak house in Oklahoma City.[/quote] One of those killed was on my softball team. I remember at the time wanting to pull the switch myself.
KnightofChrist Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90243&view=findpost&p=1772220"]Again[/url], Capital punishment is a punishment which is proportionate for certain heinous acts, justice must be proportionate to the crime. Capital Punishment is a right given to the state by God Himself, no one not even the Church can over ride or take away that right. A person can be personally against it but that is it, personally against it. The Church has for 2,000 years supports it's just use.
HisChildForever Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 Please make sure you respond to my posts.
KnightofChrist Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1772246' date='Feb 4 2009, 07:27 PM']Please make sure you respond to my posts.[/quote] Me?
Veridicus Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1772245' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:26 PM'][url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90243&view=findpost&p=1772220"]Again[/url], Capital punishment is a punishment which is proportionate for certain heinous acts, justice must be proportionate to the crime. Capital Punishment is a right given to the state by God Himself, no one not even the Church can over ride or take away that right. A person can be personally against it but that is it, personally against it. The Church has for 2,000 years supports it's just use.[/quote] Granted. And your response was impressive I must add. But in a liberal democracy is it not the majority "personal" opinion that sets state policy. By this I mean that given that it is a 'right' of the state to execute prisoners with proportionately heinious crimes, is it not within the state's power (or in a liberal democracy the opinion of the people) to restrain the capacity for capital punishment and instead attempt rehabilitation?
HisChildForever Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1772247' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM']Me?[/quote] No silly. Veridicus. I am awaiting responses to post numbers 79 and 81.
cmotherofpirl Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772254' date='Feb 4 2009, 07:36 PM']Granted. And your response was impressive I must add. But in a liberal democracy is it not the majority "personal" opinion that sets state policy. By this I mean that given that it is a 'right' of the state to execute prisoners with proportionately heinious crimes, is it not within the state's power (or in a liberal democracy the opinion of the people) to restrain the capacity for capital punishment and instead attempt rehabilitation?[/quote] Rehabilitation doesn't negate administering justice, and neither does majority rule.
KnightofChrist Posted February 4, 2009 Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Veridicus' post='1772254' date='Feb 4 2009, 07:36 PM']Granted. And your response was impressive I must add. But in a liberal democracy is it not the majority "personal" opinion that sets state policy. By this I mean that given that it is a 'right' of the state to execute prisoners with proportionately heinious crimes, is it not within the state's power (or in a liberal democracy the opinion of the people) to restrain the capacity for capital punishment and instead attempt rehabilitation?[/quote] Not to be sidetrack but by every means it is indeed a Right of the state to the just use of capital punishment. A right is a freedom given and entrusted to someone by God Himself. While a state can show mercy and attempt rehabilitation the state is by no means bound or required to show this mercy, because Justice should be proportion to the crime. A person that murders another forfeits their right to life, and deserves death.
Veridicus Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1772224' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:04 PM']Do you have any idea how creative some inmates are? Like the inmate who fashioned his plastic toothbrush into a sharp tool and stabbed it into the neck of the officer doing a roll call/announcements? And the guard who never saw it coming because it was routine for inmates to approach the podium and ask questions? (Story of the day from that awesome professor of mine.) Despite the training they get, there are always unfortunate "surprises."[/quote] I responded to this indirectly when responding to Winchester. Yes I know how creative some inmates are. Yes I know of toothbrush shivs. Yes there will always be surprises regardless of training. My point is that these crimes and this creativity is not necessarily limited to the CONVICTED MURDERERS located in jails. And I am assuming CONVICTED MURDERERS are the criminals in question with regard capital punishment being a proportionate punishment. I do not accept proposition that if we end the life of every CONVICTED MURDERER that guards will then be utterly free from 'unforunate surprises.' In fact, how 'surprising' would it actually be for a CONVICTED MURDERER to attack a guard?....a lot less surprising than for a embezzeler to do so. Your argument does not naturally follow that capital punishment would solve the unfortunate 'suprises' inflicted upon guards by inmates.
Veridicus Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1772264' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:51 PM']Not to be sidetrack but by every means it is indeed a Right of the state to the just use of capital punishment. A right is a freedom given and entrusted to someone by God Himself. While a state can show mercy and attempt rehabilitation the state is by no means bound or required to show this mercy, because Justice should be proportion to the crime. A person that murders another forfeits their right to life, and deserves death.[/quote] I respect your argument and I think it is rationally conducted. I just don't know that I am convinced that divine revelation insists that "murderers forfeit their right to life, and deserve death." It is impressive that some popes and that Thomas Aquinas have come to that conclusion, but I do not know that it is dogmatic and therefore it is their opinion, however well thought out.
KnightofChrist Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 But the fundamental point of HisChildForever, and Winchester I believe is that throwing a murder in prison for the rest of their life does not protect society. Non-violate prisoners as well as guards have the right to be protected from violate murders just as much as those outside of prison, because they too are part of society.
Veridicus Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 [quote name='HisChildForever' post='1772229' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:07 PM']You cannot debate your case without providing supporting arguments. Would you care to provide what specific "alternative possibilities" you are talking about?[/quote] I cannot provide specific "alternative possiblities." I am not going to pretend that I have studied the alternatives to killing of convicted murderers in depth; but I have little doubt in the human capacity for creativity nor for the fiscal capacity of our country to fund such investigation should we care enough to proceed down a path different than capital punishment.
VoTeckam Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1772189' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:28 PM']So you can't support your argument that God does not prioritize according to the innocent and the guilty. He has a long history of actually killing the guilty. There's also the issue of Hell. Refute. Don't put the work of supporting your claim on me--your assertion, your job to support it. Not mine.[/quote] I am sorry WInchester for assuming that everyone here would have some familiarity the OT. It will not happen again. Since I can not appeal to your OT knowledge how about I try reason? If you were right then God still eliminates evil from the world himself. Why then do you refuse to allow himt o deal with criminals in HIS time? Pride seems to be at the root of this issue. (No not just for you Winchester)
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