Winchester Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305465704' post='2241814'] i understand you want someone killed as justice but that's not what the catholic church teaches. they teach that if a prisoner can be confined by the state properly such as in the united states, then the death penalty should not be used. only in cases where the person poses a risk to society and more deaths will probobly happen due to his imprisonment. for example, if bin laden had been captured and imprisoned in chicago and the taliban ontinued to attack the prison to try to free him. then the death penalty would be ok. although to use it on some murder who poses no such threat and can be confined by the state, the death penalty is not to be used. [/quote] But it is okay when violent men continue to be a threat to other prisoners and prison guards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305447107' post='2241780'] Why doesn't that make sense, it doesn't take a genius to know you can't be tried twice for the same crime, write a letter to your girlfriend saying you did it and tell her to take it to the police to cast doubt on whether or not your friend, who you through under the bus, actually did it. That isn't a conspiracy thats just one guy whoisn't a moron trying to help his friend who he screwed over. It is completely plausable.[/quote] Because when he wrote the letter was at their initial arrest and he hadn't been tried so the double jepordy law that you cite didn't applie at the time. Sorry but FAIL [quote]It was an expert, he was apparantly wrong, that does not immediatly mean Cartright was innocent. I am sorry that he was a crappy expert. [/quote] Sorry but the hair evidence wasnt the cartwright case but the jones case so again - FAIL [quote]Of course it says that, because Texas brought the charges, that does not mean Texas, passed the sentence. If I sue someone it would have our names there.[/quote] Sorry but civil cases and criminal cases are different so FAIL [quote]I willnot lose, I HAVE DONE THIS! Just a year ago I sat as the foreman of a jury deciding if a man was guilty of capital murder, I sat in that room and examined the dead mans bloody clothes, I measured the beaver dam bullet holes and calculated if the gun the procescution implied did it could have even made a hole that size, I read the virdect to the defendent,and when we senteced him I read that to him too, I did. I stood less than 20 feet from him, looked him in the eye and said ... " we the jury sentence you.... I know exactly who said what, it is not an event I will ever forget. [/quote] Your experiences do not outweight the legal linguistics so again FAIL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote]So it was JPII"s fault that allthose priest were molesting children? Bush was not given all the facts by people who should have given him those facts, that does not make him morally culpable for making a mistake, if he made one.[/quote] If Pope John Paul had said, "I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that no catholic priests ever molested children" and that turned out to be false this example might fit but he didnt' make such a statement so again -FAIL [quote]JPII is either a saint or he isn't one, he is either with God in heaven or he is not, canonization is an confirmation of that status, not a making of it. And as I said, allhe would have had to do was say that there was no room for disagreement, but he didn't. The current Pope, has said hteir is room for ligetiment disagreement. [/quote] I understand the sainthood process. Pope John Paul II completely agreed with the current Pope, he just didn't agree with your interpretation of the current Popes Statement so again FAIL [quote]You said that poor people kill people becuase they are poor, what exactly makes you a savage if not wonton murder? [/quote] I never referred to them as savages, you used that term, I said that it was because of a lack of education, lack of government resources, poverty etc. That is completely different then saying that they are savages, as you have said. [quote]What is many? 10, 20, give a number and stop hiding behind vagueness. I gave a very specific number of executions give a specific nuber of htose proved innocent days before thier execution. [/quote] Shouldn't putting one innocent man to death be one too many? I guess not in your world. [quote]Expert testimony is virtually always opinion, thats why you find an authoritative opinion. Please tell me a state which does not allow expert testimony? [/quote] So you think that should be enough to put somebody to death? That's a severe devaluing of human life, good job - your G-d would be proud of you. [quote]I asked a very simple question, why couldn't you give a simple answer? Do innocent men have the right to resist arrest? [/quote] No you asked a complicated question that you tried to pass off as simple and you got an answer that fit the question. [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305447730' post='2241781'] Well the governer of Texas cannot stop executions, nor can he pardon people so that really has little to say about him at all.[/quote] Yes he can, he can pardon and give a stay of execution in cases that need review. [quote]How have I devalued innocent human life, you apparntly don'tthink that innocents have a right to justice, being butchered in a yogut shop, or after complying to all the demands of your robber, having everyone in the video store taken to the back room and shot in the head, these people lives were not valuable at all. Their lives were not as valuable as the those who killed them. [/quote] Factually inaccurate, I believe that innocent human life deserves justice. However it defeats the purpose and is no justice at all if you are putting innocent men to death. Where is their justice? Also, not putting murderers to death does not mean that victims are not getting justice. As a matter of fact, the death penalty is not meant to be about justice, rather it's supposed to be about protecting society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) [mod]personal attack -- franciscanheart[/mod] Edited May 17, 2011 by franciscanheart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305465704' post='2241814'] i understand you want someone killed as justice but that's not what the catholic church teaches. they teach that if a prisoner can be confined by the state properly such as in the united states, then the death penalty should not be used. only in cases where the person poses a risk to society and more deaths will probobly happen due to his imprisonment. for example, if bin laden had been captured and imprisoned in chicago and the taliban ontinued to attack the prison to try to free him. then the death penalty would be ok. although to use it on some murder who poses no such threat and can be confined by the state, the death penalty is not to be used. [/quote] Exactly [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305467015' post='2241817'] But it is okay when violent men continue to be a threat to other prisoners and prison guards. [/quote] You seriously think that is a response to the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty? [quote] [mod]personal attack -- franciscanheart[/mod] [/quote] When you give those strawman responses, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305470840' post='2241824'] [mod]personal attack -- franciscanheart[/mod] [/quote] You got me there winchester... ooo...ahhhh... please don't post pictures of your boyfriend. Keep what "happens" between you and him in your bedroom - k pumpkin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305471156' post='2241827'] You got me there winchester... ooo...ahhhh... please don't post pictures of your boyfriend. Keep what "happens" between you and him in your bedroom - k pumpkin? [/quote] Why put "happens" in quotes? That's just weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1305471308' post='2241829'] Why put "happens" in quotes? That's just weird. [/quote] [mod]mature content [/mod] Edited May 19, 2011 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 So now there are three death penalty threads [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]. Ok then I feel obligated to post this (CCC): [quote][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67[/size][/font][/color][color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"] 2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,[b] if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.[/b] [b]If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. [/b] [/size][/font][/color] [color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][b]Today, in fact, [/b]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 -[b] the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent[/b]."68[/size][/font][/color][/quote] Seems clear to me, but what do I know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305471995' post='2241834'] So now there are three death penalty threads [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif[/img]. Ok then I feel obligated to post this (CCC): Seems clear to me, but what do I know [/quote] If Catholics don't even seem to be able to read and compehend what you just posted, why would non-Catholics even try? Let alone try and understand other Church Teaching that are less complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305471809' post='2241833'] [mod]mature content[/mod] [/quote] Still, the quote marks don't make sense. It's like "happens" isn't really happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1305465704' post='2241814'] i understand you want someone killed as justice but that's not what the catholic church teaches. they teach that if a prisoner can be confined by the state properly such as in the united states, then the death penalty should not be used. only in cases where the person poses a risk to society and more deaths will probobly happen due to his imprisonment. for example, if bin laden had been captured and imprisoned in chicago and the taliban ontinued to attack the prison to try to free him. then the death penalty would be ok. although to use it on some murder who poses no such threat and can be confined by the state, the death penalty is not to be used. [/quote] Havok--- please donot persume to know what I want, you have no idea what I want. Lets lookat the exact words of the CCC which being neither infallable, dogmatic, doctrinal (in and of itself, certianly both dogma and doctrine are expresed there, but being part of the CCC does not make them so) can at least be argued to be the current teaching of the Magestirium, though often these teachings are pastorial/disciplinary and not doctrinal/dogmatic and subject tochange . [quote]2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, 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. 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] The first sentece is the actual statment on the Churches teaching. The second is a statement of what just authority will do (though this is not directly a command), to protext human dignity given certian circumstances. It however, does not give an actual directive,,as it does not give any defintion or instruction of what "sufficient to defend and protect means". The Third is an opinion on how often these circumstances occur, it is niether a teaching nor a qualification of a teaching. It is a pastorial opinion, as such it should be taken seriously, but it is not obligatory that one agree ith it. One is not obliged to agree with all the pastorial opinions of Bishops. No where does it say the death penalty is morally illicit, no where does it give an objective limitation on its use, no where does it condemn its use in any particular place. These are the ways the Church has always addressed things She condemned, She did not do them. THe POPE has stated that Catholics may have disagreement on this issue why can you not accept the statement of the Pope,who reigns as the Vicar of Christ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 (edited) [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305471809' post='2241833'] [mod]mature content[/mod] [/quote] Well, you just did. So now i feel obligated to link this: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules"]http://www.phatmass....tion=boardrules[/url] Personal attacks are against the rules. that seems pretty personal to me. Then again, so i calling someone you've never met a [mod]please refrain from using this word --franciscanheart[/mod]. Edited May 19, 2011 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote] Sorry but civil cases and criminal cases are different so FAIL[/quote] Not in how they are written,Texas brings the Charge, therefore it says Texas vs ______________. That does not mean that Texas is passing the sentence, anymore than it means I would be passing judgement in a civil suit. [quote]Your experiences do not outweight the legal linguistics so again FAIL[/quote] You are either an idiot, or being intentionally obtuse. No such statement is ever made, period. The Jury sentences in Texas, it is reality, and I am not sure what more could linguisticly supportive of that that " We the Jury sentence you..." statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305473201' post='2241842'] Well, you just did. So now i feel obligated to link this: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules"]http://www.phatmass....tion=boardrules[/url] Personal attacks are against the rules. that seems pretty personal to me. Then again, so i calling someone you've never met a [mod]please refrain from using this word --franciscanheart[/mod]. [/quote] As I said, if you want to moderate people talkin trash to people and hurling personal insults, I got no problem but apply it equally. However I should applaud this forum , it keeps reminding me why I'm NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC. thankx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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