How Are Pro Life People For The Death Penalty?

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1303260712' post='2230378']
good point Magi dragon, obviously the best way to protect violent criminals from injury is to just round up the most violent ones and kill them.

stupidest point, ever.
[/quote]

I never said anything of the sort. I said that criminals and guards in prison need to be protected from violence. If that can't be done, we shouldn't pretend that the violence is truly contained. In that event, the death penalty *may be* justified. My point wasn't about *applying* the death penalty, it was about the containment of criminality. If the section of the catechism that claims "criminals can be contained in modern societies" is incorrect, which it very well may be; and it doesn't have anything to do with faith and morals, which it doesn't; then we needn't view that as official church teaching. (Note: I'm specifically talking about the part that says *first world countries can effectively contain prisoners*. I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but I'm sure someone could do that for us.)

Worth noting: not all criminals in prison are violent. (Most aren't violent in the US.) A non-violent druggie in jail and a drunk driver who accidentally killed someone deserve our compassion, as does anyone who truly repents.

The method of judgement we should use is "What would a loving father do" with the caveats: "Whatever this person does to someone else is my responsibility" and "Death is not final judgement." If a father would put a person in a position where they live in constant fear of beatings and physical brutality, then it would be acceptable for us to do that. Somehow, as a father of three, I can't imagine putting my kids in that position, so I think allowing violent offenders in with non-violent offenders is unreasonable.

[quote name='Amppax']
May i refer you to a text known as the Catechism of the Catholic Church? that may help you out there
[/quote]

It has been opined in a number of places that the aside JP2 put in the Catechism about modern societies being able to contain criminals was personal opinion about a non-theological/moral situation, and therefore not necessary to be believed by Catholics. If you look at the facts, this is undoubtedly true; the pope's expertise was not in prison management, nor is prison/prisoner management a deep theological question. Instead, it is a utilitarian 'business' which simply needs to operate with the same moral norms as any other business. (meaning you treat people as individuals and don't demean them any more than necessary.) He didn't necessarily account for all cases, and isn't under the protection of the Chair of Peter in that type of case.


[quote name='havok579257']
actually i read somewhere that after the death penalty is used, crime increases. it is not a deterent.
[/quote]

We're kindof comparing apples and oranges: you say 'after it's used;' I say 'if it's on the books.' I don't want it to be used ever, I just think it should be an option. Basically I want it to be an option that can be plausibly deter, but not necessarily ever applied.

If you read my link, you will find that you were mistaken about its deterring effect, it was a deterrent to at least one person. I can't imagine it making much difference in a crime of passion, but to someone who was coldly calculating like this man, it made a huge difference. The Canadian man in question looked up the status of the death penalty in Illinois. Upon finding out they don't have a death penalty, he decided he was willing to spend life in prison, and proceeded to use a few more bullets than necessary to murder his former girlfriend in Illinois.

Peace,
Joe

[havok579257]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303307879' post='2230496']
I never said anything of the sort. I said that criminals and guards in prison need to be protected from violence. If that can't be done, we shouldn't pretend that the violence is truly contained. In that event, the death penalty *may be* justified. My point wasn't about *applying* the death penalty, it was about the containment of criminality. If the section of the catechism that claims "criminals can be contained in modern societies" is incorrect, which it very well may be; and it doesn't have anything to do with faith and morals, which it doesn't; then we needn't view that as official church teaching. (Note: I'm specifically talking about the part that says *first world countries can effectively contain prisoners*. I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote, but I'm sure someone could do that for us.)

Worth noting: not all criminals in prison are violent. (Most aren't violent in the US.) A non-violent druggie in jail and a drunk driver who accidentally killed someone deserve our compassion, as does anyone who truly repents.

The method of judgement we should use is "What would a loving father do" with the caveats: "Whatever this person does to someone else is my responsibility" and "Death is not final judgement." If a father would put a person in a position where they live in constant fear of beatings and physical brutality, then it would be acceptable for us to do that. Somehow, as a father of three, I can't imagine putting my kids in that position, so I think allowing violent offenders in with non-violent offenders is unreasonable.



It has been opined in a number of places that the aside JP2 put in the Catechism about modern societies being able to contain criminals was personal opinion about a non-theological/moral situation, and therefore not necessary to be believed by Catholics. If you look at the facts, this is undoubtedly true; the pope's expertise was not in prison management, nor is prison/prisoner management a deep theological question. Instead, it is a utilitarian 'business' which simply needs to operate with the same moral norms as any other business. (meaning you treat people as individuals and don't demean them any more than necessary.) He didn't necessarily account for all cases, and isn't under the protection of the Chair of Peter in that type of case.




We're kindof comparing apples and oranges: you say 'after it's used;' I say 'if it's on the books.' I don't want it to be used ever, I just think it should be an option. Basically I want it to be an option that can be plausibly deter, but not necessarily ever applied.

If you read my link, you will find that you were mistaken about its deterring effect, it was a deterrent to at least one person. I can't imagine it making much difference in a crime of passion, but to someone who was coldly calculating like this man, it made a huge difference. The Canadian man in question looked up the status of the death penalty in Illinois. Upon finding out they don't have a death penalty, he decided he was willing to spend life in prison, and proceeded to use a few more bullets than necessary to murder his former girlfriend in Illinois.

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]


as with any study you will find some abberations. i am going to go out on a limb here and say almost all of organized crime does not verify if there is a death penalty before they murder some one.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1303240844' post='2230260']
Changing a person's anatomy isn't a decision that should be taken lightly, I believe the Church has some pretty hard hitting things to say about that practice, so be careful there.
[/quote]

When referring to such barbaric practices, the catechism mentions only "innocent persons," unfortunately.

~Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sternhauser' timestamp='1303338407' post='2230649']
When referring to such barbaric practices, the catechism mentions only "innocent persons," unfortunately.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]
That's an apparent loophole that should be closed. I fail to see how intentional non-therapeutic mutilation could ever be performed morally.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303357300' post='2230777']
That's an apparent loophole that should be closed. I fail to see how intentional non-therapeutic mutilation could ever be performed morally.
[/quote]

Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).

Edited April 21, 2011 by Norseman82

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303364595' post='2230800']
Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).
[/quote]
Well are we talking shotgun weddings where one or both parties are pressured into the marriage? Full consent is lacking, therefore no marriage.
Aside from that, getting a girl pregnant and marrying her out of a (poorly formed) sense of obligation is not considered grounds for annulment, as far as I know (and yes, I've read that section of Canon Law). Dunno where you're getting your info from.

Edited April 21, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1303365215' post='2230801']
Well are we talking shotgun weddings where one or both parties are pressured into the marriage? Full consent is lacking, therefore no marriage.
Aside from that, getting a girl pregnant and marrying her out of a (poorly formed) sense of obligation is not considered grounds for annulment, as far as I know (and yes, I've read that section of Canon Law). Dunno where you're getting your info from.
[/quote]

A continuation from another thread.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303366921' post='2230807']
A continuation from another thread.
[/quote]
Can't say I recall that, though I do recall being square in the middle of it.

[4588686]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1303364595' post='2230800']
Well, if we're going to want the Church to close loopholes, another one that should be closed is allowing annulments for people who "have" to get married because the guy knocked up the girl (you break it, you bought it).
[/quote]

So a girl who get's pregnant before being married is 'broken'?


Classy.

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1303313676' post='2230528']
as with any study you will find some abberations. i am going to go out on a limb here and say almost all of organized crime does not verify if there is a death penalty before they murder some one.
[/quote]

Well, I agree with your sentiment; the DP probably doesn't significantly change mafia behavior, but I bet they *do* look at it . . . simply as a matter of how thoroughly they cover their hit men. *shrugs*

I'm a little disappointed that no one offered a real defense of a death penalty ban. I can't possibly have convinced y'all that banning the death penalty is a silly idea.

As a side note, I am going into this argument with the assumption that prisons and nations are fine, upstanding moral entities. I'm not convinced that this is true.

Peace,
Joe

[dairygirl4u2c]

no one responded to your points, cause they're all weak, or points that don't apply to most people.

if the death penalty were applied more uniformly, or was shown to be a deterrent more readily, etc etc, then more people would support the death penalty.
even if they didn't though, there's still the fundamental question of whether people should be using the death penalty so readily, even then, if they purport to be prolife and all that jazz.

but in general that question remains. your arguments didnt address any deeper christian, philophical reasons, for why we should use the death penalty simply for the sake of 'justice' (read, revenge), and this is where the real debate is by far for most people.

you just continued to say the typical things, 'no in his personal capacity' etc etc.
if a person were deemed a danger to be even in prison, most people would probably be for the death penalty as they would any time anyone's deemed dangerous etc. if you're using this as an argument to support the death penalty in general, on the idea that they might kill in jail, you're hanging by a threads. it's like, really? i dont even know why this point was worth mentioning to you, it was just random.
im sure anyone who cited the discrimination thing was just using it as support for why we shouldn't use the death pentalty, or just be more cautious with it. even if they said no to any 'justice' executions on the idea that the penalty could be unfairly applied, why is that not a valid reason? you might not agree with it, like i dont, but it's no invalid.
also, that it has an inhibiting effect on some people, doesn't detract from the general rule, which is that it doesn't have that effect on most, by far most. are we to make rules that go more for the exceptions or for the norm? all else equal, ie if this was the only issue in whether we should have the death penalty, then this point ya made is very weak. even with the other issues, ie why philosophucally should we as christians use it as a 'pentalty'... why even both mentioning the exceptions? "it inhibits some people albeit not most, so we should utilize the death pentalty" - i guess i should give it more credit. but it'd still argue that it's got to be applied more uniformly for us to go that route

4. The death penalty has an inhibiting effect *on some people* in the commission of violent criminal activity. Just yesterday there was this case from Illinois where a guy looked up the law in Illinois to ensure they *didn't* have the death penalty before viciously murdering his former girlfriend.

Edited April 22, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[Amppax]

here is what the CCC says about the death penalty, unless there is any debate about what this means, then we really shouldn't have anymore issues:

[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][b][quote][/b][/size][/font][font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][b]2267 [/b]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.[/size][/font][font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][b][/quote][/b][/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][b]
[/b][/size][/font]
[color="#5C5C5C"][font="Arial, sans-serif"] [/font][/color]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"]Ok that seems pretty reasonable, the death penalty is fine in certain cases, I don't disagree with that. However, people seem to be ignoring a very important line.[b][i]"[/i][/b][/size][/font][font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][u][b]if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."[/b][/u][i] [/i]Can you truly say that the death penalty is the only possible way we have of defending innocent people from criminals? Also i'm inserting the rest of the CCC's statement on the death penalty for your reading pleasure: [/size][/font]
[font="Arial, sans-serif"][size="2"][quote]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]

Cheers,

Alex

[/size][/font]

Edited April 22, 2011 by Amppax

[dominicansoul]

i'm all for torturing murderers in a public arena...


...maybe have them fight each other to the death in large colliseums...


WOW...this is a splendid idea!! This will really deter murder..... wonder why no one has ever thought of it.....


...and they can wear cool helmuts like this one:


[img]http://www.a2armory.com/images/helmets/gladiator.jpg[/img]

...throw in some lions and you have a party!!!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1303498753' post='2231176']
i'm all for torturing murderers in a public arena...


[/quote]
Torture is a no-go.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1303493650' post='2231156']
here is what the CCC says about the death penalty, unless there is any debate about what this means, then we really shouldn't have anymore issues:

[/quote]
this sounds very familiar....almost like [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=112256&view=findpost&p=2229957"]someone's posted it before[/url].