Pope Seeks End To Death Penalty

[Dennis Tate]

Do you believe that Mr. Jeffrey Dahmer may well be rejoicing in heaven at this moment?

I am wide open to that possibility because Mr. Dahmer did repent and give his life to God while he was in prison.

If God has been able to save serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer then a powerful case can be presented that it is worthwhile to allow even the most notorious of murderers to live out a full life span behind bars so that they can present no more danger to society...but they have their full life span to come to genuine repentance and understanding of God's plan even for them.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Dennis Tate

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Dennis Tate' timestamp='1327589102' post='2375691']
Do you believe that Mr. Jeffrey Dahmer may well be rejoicing in heaven at this moment?

I am wide open to that possibility because Mr. Dahmer did repent and give his life to God while he was in prison.

If God has been able to save serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer then a powerful case can be presented that it is worthwhile to allow even the most notorious of murderers to live out a full life span behind bars so that they can present no more danger to society...but they have their full life span to come to genuine repentance and understanding of God's plan even for them.
[/quote]The debatable point is truely evaluating the danger/harm to society. Warehousing convicted murderes and violent offenders and assuming they cannot harm or cause a danger to society is not a given. High-max prisons are fundamentally brutal to the inmates and arguably inhumane as well as the isolation and conditions excacerbate and cause mental psychosis. High-max prisons are not limited to just life sentenced inmates, so they are spewing unstable ex-cons back to society that are even less likely to turn their life around, causing further harm to society.

Not everyone can expect the same life-span. Where's the justice in affording a murderer the maximum life span to repent, when the person they murdered had their life cut short? Also, the conditions of a high security prison are so damaging to the mental health, additional years are not likely to be effectively conductive to repentance. Certain people are so evil, they are a blight to society, whether in prison or not. Only a sure final date of execution can attempt to balance the circumstances of their environment and harm to society.

Wouldn't every body choose to live their life differently if they knew they had only 1 year to live and make their peace with God if they believed in God? The adage that their's no atheists in foxholes comes to mind.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1327592994' post='2375707']
The debatable point is truely evaluating the danger/harm to society. Warehousing convicted murderes and violent offenders and assuming they cannot harm or cause a danger to society is not a given. High-max prisons are fundamentally brutal to the inmates and arguably inhumane as well as the isolation and conditions excacerbate and cause mental psychosis. High-max prisons are not limited to just life sentenced inmates, so they are spewing unstable ex-cons back to society that are even less likely to turn their life around, causing further harm to society.

Not everyone can expect the same life-span. Where's the justice in affording a murderer the maximum life span to repent, when the person they murdered had their life cut short? Also, the conditions of a high security prison are so damaging to the mental health, additional years are not likely to be effectively conductive to repentance. Certain people are so evil, they are a blight to society, whether in prison or not. Only a sure final date of execution can attempt to balance the circumstances of their environment and harm to society.

Wouldn't every body choose to live their life differently if they knew they had only 1 year to live and make their peace with God if they believed in God? The adage that their's no atheists in foxholes comes to mind.
[/quote]
I like the theory of that, it sounds reasonable! But I'd like your opinion on some things that that seems to imply. What's your opinion on mental institutions/aged invalid homes/orphanages? These places can bring about the same results as prison. And also the homes of children of drug damaged parents who don't want them. Doesn't those reasons for endorsment of the death penalty also endorse to some extent euthenasia and abortion? Life's not a fun place for most people. As a theist I see a purpose in that, although I don't know what that purpose is. But in your view of CP as a solution to prevent the manufacturing of mentally ill people. Is suicide a solution to prevent the further deterioration of those tending to psychosis?

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1327642252' post='2376068']
I like the theory of that, it sounds reasonable! But I'd like your opinion on some things that that seems to imply. What's your opinion on mental institutions/aged invalid homes/orphanages? These places can bring about the same results as prison. And also the homes of children of drug damaged parents who don't want them. Doesn't those reasons for endorsment of the death penalty also endorse to some extent euthenasia and abortion? Life's not a fun place for most people. As a theist I see a purpose in that, although I don't know what that purpose is. But in your view of CP as a solution to prevent the manufacturing of mentally ill people. Is suicide a solution to prevent the further deterioration of those tending to psychosis?
[/quote]The reason a person is in prison is greatly different than those in a mental institution. Namely being, convicted murderers are there because they chose to murder (or other violent crime) with enough mental capacity to be considered to doing so with free will and deserving 'punishment'. Incarceration in prisons is not just about protecting society or housing people that cannot take care of themselves.
The point I make is that life imprisonment is not greatly more humane, nor is it more beneficial to society. Life imprisonment wrongly elevates the value of the life of the murderer above that of the victim. Actions chosen have consequences. Society must administer the consequences as justly as possible. No matter what, human justice is imperfect. We do the best we can, with the best intentions for victims and perpatrators, with the goal of having an ordered and free society. If there is a god, Christians can let god sort it out afterwards.
It is my understanding, that was the Christian philosophy for centuries. I don't understand why the Catholics have now changed their priorities of their principles making the lives of murderers so valuable that they escape fair consequence, even to the extent of causing further harm to the order and freedom of behaving society.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1327671058' post='2376113']
The reason a person is in prison is greatly different than those in a mental institution. Namely being, convicted murderers are there because they chose to murder (or other violent crime) with enough mental capacity to be considered to doing so with free will and deserving 'punishment'. Incarceration in prisons is not just about protecting society or housing people that cannot take care of themselves.
The point I make is that life imprisonment is not greatly more humane, nor is it more beneficial to society. Life imprisonment wrongly elevates the value of the life of the murderer above that of the victim. Actions chosen have consequences. Society must administer the consequences as justly as possible. No matter what, human justice is imperfect. We do the best we can, with the best intentions for victims and perpatrators, with the goal of having an ordered and free society. If there is a god, Christians can let god sort it out afterwards.
It is my understanding, that was the Christian philosophy for centuries. I don't understand why the Catholics have now changed their priorities of their principles making the lives of murderers so valuable that they escape fair consequence, even to the extent of causing further harm to the order and freedom of behaving society.
[/quote]

Apparently I have a different picture portrait of God than many others. I see God along the lines of the prodigal son allegory, not a punishing or revengeful God. Revenge is seated in hatred and punishing in impatience and lack of objective. This is not God, this is darkness. God is truly all powerful, but that needs to be understood in that there are certain things he cannot do, which I will explain. God created humans for the objective of sharing eternal life with him in his kingdom. It is written that nothing impure may enter into Gods Kingdom. Jesus sacrifice annulled our sins, but God is pure love and for us to enter his kingdom we must have pure love for him. Love to be pure cannot be forced or bargained for. It has to be given freely by choice. Therefore in order for us to have the possibility of pure love for God he had to relinquish his power by giving us free will. We must freely choose to love him or not. To love him we must try to emulate him and obey his will. Our attitude to society, in particular in the case of justice, our objective should not be one of revenge or punishment. But should be rehabilitation and more importantly protection of society. You paint a bleak picture of the US penal system, which undoubtedly is true. Here in Australia we have the reverse problem, our judicial system is far too lenient and is failing in that regard. Theists generally believe that God allows lethal force where there is no alternative to neutralise a threat to society. So the solution you propose is possibly the only practical solution in the case of an overloaded and unfunded system where efficacy of the objective is doubtful. But that does not make it the desirable one! A murderer in cutting short the life of the victim may have deprived the victim of their chances at life, but two wrongs does not equate a right. You can't kill the monster without becoming the monster so to speak. To emulate Gods love we must still forgive the murderer that wrong and rather consider the salvage of that person as secondary to protection of society. The victim we must entrust to Gods mercy and fair compensation. I believe that God would have given the victim every opportunity. So the situation of the victim being lost because of the life being cut short but otherwise having being saved is an improbable situation. IMHO. God would not permit this to happen. Either the victim was already saved or there was no possibility of salvation. I'm not so much being fatalistic here, just that God has more input in events than most people are aware of.

[Anomaly]

Mark, I almost don't know where to start. Addressing your perception of God. You are talking about the God who commanded the Isrealite armies, killed first borns, destroyed cities, killed children teasing one of his prophets? I realize that was the invoked God of the old testament, but still it is Gods nature.

Addressing what God's justice is understood by Catholics. Doesn't mortal sin condemn you to hell? The God you describe now doesn't condemn a masterbater to hell? It would be too harsh for omnipotent goodness?

I Never said CP was for revenge. It is a natural consequence of murder and violence against other persons, just as not studying in school would cause low grades and eventually bleaker employment opportunities.

Revenge would be me wanting to personally pull the trigger or flip the switch. It's frustrating to have discussion devolve into defending against fictitious motives instead of discussing opinion.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1327848161' post='2376934']
Revenge would be me wanting to personally pull the trigger or flip the switch. It's frustrating to have discussion devolve into defending against fictitious motives instead of discussing opinion.
[/quote]
I'm a little bit sad at that, it wasn't my intention at all. So far in this discussion and others people have referred to the OT to support their argument for CP while totally ignoring the NT. It got a little boring, but then you brought in a different perspective. one which I saw merit in and wanted to explore further by making some proposals. You appear to have some wise insights from a non theist perspective. I have found that interesting and wanted to discuss other aspects of your world view. Many people, not you, instead of seeing the NT as the crown of the OT would prefer to use the OT to kick the chair out from under the NT.
IMO justice should be about- firstly, protection of society. Secondly, demonstrate by example to others that if they commit a crime it will not be good for them. Lastly if at all possible the salvation of the perpetrator. Yet one would get the impression that most people confuse justice with revenge. How many times do we see a case, for example. A guy is running late for work, runs a red light and kills someone. Even though it was unintentional, he is no more a threat to society than anyone else and doesn't need rehabilitation. Yet we need to demonstrate to others that the consequences of being late for work are far less than those of killing someone. But the relatives of the victim then opine that justice has not been done, because their beloved has lost their life while the perpetrator has lost only a few years in prison. They neglect what you say that by a few years in prison a person can have their entire life ruined even if they don't feel remorse and suffering for that.
As theists we concede that a law enforcer turning the other cheek to a drug crazed thug with a weapon is ridiculous and that God would not judge him (officer) for pulling the trigger. There is no sin or malice in eliminating a threat to your life or the lives of the innocent public. You have demonstrated something similar in that there are people who will emerge from incarceration more evil than they entered and in such cases Justice has failed those parameters that I proposed. I therefore concede that you have a point, but it is still not the preference. For the law enforcer, he would prefer that the thug drop his weapon or that he could subdue him by means other than death. And likewise for ideal justice it would be preferable to release people from prison healed rather than in a coffin with a soul destined for hell. IMO God wishes to save every last soul.
[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1327848161' post='2376934']
Mark, I almost don't know where to start. Addressing your perception of God. You are talking about the God who commanded the Isrealite armies, killed first borns, destroyed cities, killed children teasing one of his prophets? I realize that was the invoked God of the old testament, but still it is Gods nature.

Addressing what God's justice is understood by Catholics. Doesn't mortal sin condemn you to hell? The God you describe now doesn't condemn a masterbater to hell? It would be too harsh for omnipotent goodness?


[/quote]
To quote the God of the OT, an adulterator should be stoned. The God of the NT said that he did not judge her, 'for by what measure you judge, you shall be judged' Instead he said "go and sin no more!" I don't know the God that the OT [b]depicts! [/b]The God that I know personally is described in the NT. If I were presented only with the OT then maybe I would go to Church and cringe in fear at being cast into a fire to burn for eternity if I didn't bow down to him. Truly in my heart I would not be able to deny thinking, "What an evil and lame God if that were what he is like." Most atheists I imagine would dismiss him for like reasons. Dawkins doesn't understand what faith is. It is not handing over your cash to the guy that says he knows a good investment where you can quad ripple your money. It is knowing a person or in this case God intimately throughout your life and placing your trust that that is the way it will always be. I don't know why the OT and the NT are polar opposites but one cannot place too much trust in the OT. Sure the inerrant word of God is a subset of the OT but the OT and The NT are not inerrant. In the NT for example we have four gospels which are pretty much the same but they also differ. This tells us that one did not plagiarise the other. They were all written independently as best a defective human could. But they also show that error is possible. One of the greatest NT stories is 'the thief on the cross' yet only Luke relates it. The other three erred by omission. Could it be that when Jesus said "I came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfil" Could he really have meant that the law is Good but is missing some vital elements of love and forgiveness. And has been greatly misconstrued. In the story of the prodigal son the father was not responsible for the sons hard life. The son chose it. If the creator of the garden is rejected from his care of the garden and the garden grows weeds which poisons the inhabitant. Then in a sense the creator brought it about, but it was the inhabitants choice not the choice of the creator therefore the creator is not responsible. Am I my brotheres keeper? Yes! But only to a point not being his bad choices. You can take a horse to water but cannot force it to drink.
The Jews of Jesus time thought that the promised land would be the same as the Moses story. An earthly land of relative peace and freedom! Jesus taught that his Kingdom is much more profound than that! All of Jesus teachings were far more profound than the OT. It got him nailed to a cross!

Edited January 29, 2012 by Mark of the Cross