Death Penalty And Pro Life

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345939450' post='2474252']
I just don't believe there are any cases within our current legal system in the United States that justify use of the death penalty, as it is outlined in the Catechism. How is the governor who signs the act of execution or the medical specialist who pushes the plunger on the syringe truly any different from the mother who decides her life would be better without her child, and the doctor who performs the abortion?

I believe the Church's position on the death penalty is nuanced because there are plenty of places in the world that don't have the facilities to prevent a murderer (or whomever) from continuing to being a danger to society. Places like the US, which are blessed enough to have the resources to contain our criminals, should not have the luxury of the death penalty.
[/quote]If you really put some thought into that post and actually believe that...... Please don't play the radio or talk to any passengers if you operate a vehicle.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345955339' post='2474368']
If you really put some thought into that post and actually believe that...... Please don't play the radio or talk to any passengers if you operate a vehicle.
[/quote]

So...what I'm getting from this is that you can't argue against my line of reasoning, so you're going to attack my mental capabilities instead. So I still win.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345984574' post='2474403']


So...what I'm getting from this is that you can't argue against my line of reasoning, so you're going to attack my mental capabilities instead. So I still win.
[/quote]Yes, if you really believe a Govenor signing a death warrant is the same as a mother obtaining an abortion, you are invincible. If a fetus is as innocent as a convicted murderer in your eyes, I must bend the knee and concede. You win.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1345985387' post='2474405']
Yes, if you really believe a Govenor signing a death warrant is the same as a mother obtaining an abortion, you are invincible. If a fetus is as innocent as a convicted murderer in your eyes, I must bend the knee and concede. You win.
[/quote]

No, I never said that. This is what I said:

[quote][color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I'm under the impression that a person's life is worth the same whether or not he or she is an innocent child or a sociopathic serial killer. [/font][/color][/quote]
and
[quote][color=#282828][font='Segoe UI', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Many people argue that in the case of abortion, it's immoral because a person's right to life trumps anyone else's right to living the preferred kind of life, or comfort, or anything else. I argue that a murderer's right to life trumps our right to live a lifestyle that includes the comforting knowledge that the state killed the murderer. [/font][/color][/quote]

But I'll accept your concession. Any other challengers?

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345945664' post='2474293']
No, the not-innocent one is no longer trying to murder someone, because the not-innocent person has already killed someone and is in jail. The not-innocent person is no longer capable of killing people.
[/quote]

Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Furthemore, the foundation of biblical/theological support for the death penalty is justice, not the utilitarian concerns that have so recently replaced justice as the primary foundation.

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345745752' post='2472770']
If people complain about pro-choice Catholics being allowed to receive communion, they have to make the same argument for pro-death penalty politicians in the United States.
[/quote]

By Catholic teaching abortion is an intrinsic evil. Execution is not and is permissible.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='dudleysharp' timestamp='1345986364' post='2474407']
Living murderers are infinitely more likely to harm and murder, again, than are executed murderers.

Furthemore, the foundation of biblical/theological support for the death penalty is justice, not the utilitarian concerns that have so recently replaced justice as the primary foundation.
[/quote]

Explain to me how someone living out his or her days in solitary confinement is infinitely likely to harm society and murder again.

Really? Because killing someone for the good of the whole sounds very utilitarian to me. The theological foundation for the death penalty is that killing a human is only moral when it is a defensive action, and we have no other choice. The state killing a murderer is not an appropriate defensive action when there are plenty of other resources available.

If a person's argument for being pro-life is that a person's right to life trumps all other rights, then any argument for the death penalty is logically inconsistent with that premise.

(Welcome to Phatmass, by the way! I hope you stick around! )

Edited August 26, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[dudleysharp]

[font=Arial][size=2][color=#000000][background=transparent][font=Book Antiqua][b]..[/b][/font][/background][/color][/size][/font]

Edited August 26, 2012 by dudleysharp

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1345740169' post='2472710']
[size=5]"...[font=Century Gothic][b] except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."[/b][/font][/size]
[/quote]

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality?

The only known method of rendering a criminal "unable to inflict harm" is execution. "Unable to inflict harm" (2265) has the same meaning as "impossible to do harm".

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) "Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require "rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to "innocent" murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.

Edited August 26, 2012 by dudleysharp

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1345943709' post='2474286'] snip

well just because a person is of greater innocence doesn't mean they are any more worth saving of their life when all control is within society on the matter

snip

a life is a life, and if we don't assume they forfeit their life, or find we have no real basis to conclude that... abortion might not really be any different.

[/quote]

Very differnt in Church teachings, as well as in moral considserations of guilt and innocncence.

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

Pope (and Saint) Pius V, "The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder." "The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent" (1566).

[add]

What should be done with the gunman who burst into the Colorado movie theater screening of the latest Batman movie, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.
Obviously this person is mentally ill, is a trial really necessary?  Can he be rehabilitated ?  Or ever released back into society ?  

I don't think so. 

[dudleysharp]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' timestamp='1345950056' post='2474335']

And sometimes even a cheer goes up among them when the state raises its hand against a citizen!
[/quote]

There is a difference between citizens and citizen criminals.

There is a reason we have a criminal justice system.

The cheer is based upon justice and our gratitude to the state to assist in protecting it citizens from unjust aggressors.

CCC 2265: "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for aonother's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm."

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345986771' post='2474410']
Explain to me how someone living out his or her days in solitary confinement is infinitely likely to harm society and murder again.
[/quote]

From 2001 -2007 at least 365 people were murdered INSIDE U.S. Prisons.
I wonder what their families think about the death penalty now?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345941381' post='2474264']
I'm under the impression that a person's life is worth the same whether or not he or she is an innocent child or a sociopathic serial killer.
[/quote]

According to the Bible, God said that certain people [b]forfeit[/b] their right to life.

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345945664' post='2474293']
No, the not-innocent one is no longer trying to murder someone, because the not-innocent person has already killed someone and is in jail. The not-innocent person is no longer capable of killing people.
[/quote]
[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345986771' post='2474410']
Explain to me how someone living out his or her days in solitary confinement is infinitely likely to harm society and murder again.
[/quote]

Charles Manson is up for parole every two or so years. And what about prison escapees or those who are able to communicate with the outside world to direct their criminal activities (such as street gangs)? What about those cases in which prisoners escape?

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345945664' post='2474293']
I argue that a murderer's right to life trumps our right to live a lifestyle that includes the comforting knowledge that the state killed the murderer.
[/quote]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1345986771' post='2474410']
If a person's argument for being pro-life is that a person's right to life trumps all other rights, then any argument for the death penalty is logically inconsistent with that premise.
[/quote]

Does the murderer's right to life trump an innocent person's right to life?

Edited August 26, 2012 by Norseman82

[havok579257]

[quote name='dudleysharp' timestamp='1345987970' post='2474415']
The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality?

The only known method of rendering a criminal "unable to inflict harm" is execution. "Unable to inflict harm" (2265) has the same meaning as "impossible to do harm".

In addition, there exists the clear conflict between (1) this unprecedented and unjustified restriction on the death penalty and (2) "Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" found earlier in this same Catechism.

Which is it? Is the Church going to require "rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm" or is the Church going to require that we do everything but render the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm?

Has a prudential judgement ever been placed in a Catechism, before? If not, the current one would seem to make the reasons clear and would denounce any possible repeat of that error.

Inexcusably absent from consideration, within the Catechism, is any specific discussion of harm to "innocent" murder victims and potential murder victims and the effects on their earthly and eternal lives when we give known murderers the opportunity, too often realized, to harm and murder, again.
[/quote]
[quote name='add' timestamp='1345989974' post='2474427']
What should be done with the gunman who burst into the Colorado movie theater screening of the latest Batman movie, killing 12 people and wounding 58 others.
Obviously this person is mentally ill, is a trial really necessary? Can he be rehabilitated ? Or ever released back into society ?

I don't think so.
[/quote]

the thing is your not qualified to make that decision. your not a qualified medical doctor who has first hand experience with this man. so you can not say if he can be rehabbed or if he is mentally incapable of making a sound decision or if he can ever be released back into society.

your going on gut feeling which we all know does not mean something is right or wrong. arm chair judges are frequent in this country. people think just because they watch the news and get some info about a criminal means they can rightly judge him and his possibilities for rehab. that's just wrong.