OnlySunshine Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I never support the death penalty, even in cases like this. I think that maximum security prison is the right place and some major mental health help. This guy has schizophrenia, something that is hard to control if you aren't taking medication. I think mercy is what's called for here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 So both St Augustine & St Thomas are wrong? http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html Historical context is important. They lived in a time where a full-time prison system wouldn't work. They had to execute murderers out of necessity. It's the same for all the previous Popes that were mentioned earlier. Pope John Paul II changed the rules according to the current society we live in. There is no longer a need to execute people unless they are so psychologically messed up that they are a menace to anything and everything they touch. Putting these people in solitary confinement would be cruel, because nobody deserves that. But at the same time, if they are killing everyone they come into contact with, it's either put them in solitary confinement, or kill them. This is an extreme case that almost never happens, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Historical context is important. They lived in a time where a full-time prison system wouldn't work. They had to execute murderers out of necessity. It's the same for all the previous Popes that were mentioned earlier. Pope John Paul II changed the rules according to the current society we live in. There is no longer a need to execute people unless they are so psychologically messed up that they are a menace to anything and everything they touch. Putting these people in solitary confinement would be cruel, because nobody deserves that. But at the same time, if they are killing everyone they come into contact with, it's either put them in solitary confinement, or kill them. This is an extreme case that almost never happens, though. The Church has not ever supported the death penalty for murderers due to the lack of room, but due to the crimes they committed. John Paul could not change Church teaching, no Pope can, and he did not. His teaching is not universal, it is limited to a certain time, and places, not all of time and all places. As Catholics we must accept the teachings of John Paul II as compatible with Catholic teaching, but we must also accept the traditional teaching on the Church that all prior Popes taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Supporting the death penalty due to lack of prisons, or lack of safe prisons would be a grave injustice. The primary purpose of punishment, all forms of punishment should be an exercise of retributive justice in expiation of the crime committed. And not ever because there is no room or space to hold the criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 On the one hand, the death penalty sucks. On the other hand, we already know what indefinite detention looks like in our country: Guantanamo. And that's also an abomination. If the choice is between death and that kind of living hell, I'd say it would be more humane to execute him. I think JPII was thinking of something different when he thought about imprisoning such offenders for life, because what we do to people serving life sentences is abominable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Lord have mercy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Violence only breeds violence. Killing anyone will not "send a message", it will only enrage people and cause killing to continue. You can't stop killing by killing, no more than you can spend yourself out of a spending crisis. So both St Augustine & St Thomas are wrong? http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0182.html Historical context is important. They lived in a time where a full-time prison system wouldn't work. I was taking your statement literally regarding "all violence" and "killing", but I guess you were speaking specifically about the death penalty. ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blazeingstar Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 Historical context is important. They lived in a time where a full-time prison system wouldn't work. They had to execute murderers out of necessity. It's the same for all the previous Popes that were mentioned earlier. Pope John Paul II changed the rules according to the current society we live in. There is no longer a need to execute people unless they are so psychologically messed up that they are a menace to anything and everything they touch. Putting these people in solitary confinement would be cruel, because nobody deserves that. But at the same time, if they are killing everyone they come into contact with, it's either put them in solitary confinement, or kill them. This is an extreme case that almost never happens, though. But we live in a time where we know that depriving a person of all human contact will literally drive them out of their mind. We also live in a time where we understand how radicalization happens and are finding that prisons are like petri dishes and that even minimal contact with an extremist can not only infect the population at that prison, but can also go out and spread far because of discipleship. Now this "younger brother" seems to be mentally ill and extremely manipulated by his older (now deceased) brother. From all intensive purposes it doesn't seem as if he's capable of communicating what happened with clarity, never-mind radicalizing anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) As a conservative person, I don't trust the government to spend my tax money wisely. So I certainly don't trust them to execute "the right" citizens. While I agree with you on both counts. I also don't trust the government to lock away "the right" citizens and throw away the key. I don't really see the level of trust in the justice system as relevant when comparing life in prison to the death sentence unless we're talking about a case where the trial could actually be overturned in the future based on bad evidence (then again those on death row typically have plenty of time to fight the sentencing). I actually have a really hard time with the justice system in general. Not just in the United States... but how do we determine how many numbers of years, how many years of probation, how much money, or how many community service hours is just punishment for the offense? I mean how is that even measured honestly... It's like the justice system has made up conversion tables "oh manslaughter lets see that falls on this section of the chart over here which happens to land you into this category". I'm not saying I'm against justice, I just have an extremely hard time with the idea of measuring what is just. Edited January 31, 2014 by Slappo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 There is a 3rd option. We can deport him and his family back to Russia like we should have done years ago and we could crack down on Chechen immigration. I can't think of a solution that would be a bigger deterrent than this. It would have been a good strategy to follow after 9/11 as well. Unfortunately, stopping terrorism isn't always the goal and where it is the goal, it isn't always the priority. After 9/11, rather than actually cracking down on muslim immigration here ("it would be racist"), we'd rather just bomb them there, send kids off to die, and eviscerate our bill of rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnlySunshine Posted January 31, 2014 Share Posted January 31, 2014 I never support the death penalty, even in cases like this. I think that maximum security prison is the right place and some major mental health help. This guy has schizophrenia, something that is hard to control if you aren't taking medication. I think mercy is what's called for here. For some reason, my mind was not working. I was thinking about the Colorado shooting at the movie theater. I really don't know why it didn't click... :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 While I agree with you on both counts. I also don't trust the government to lock away "the right" citizens and throw away the key. I don't really see the level of trust in the justice system as relevant when comparing life in prison to the death sentence unless we're talking about a case where the trial could actually be overturned in the future based on bad evidence (then again those on death row typically have plenty of time to fight the sentencing). Remedies have ameliorative power when applied to a prisoner; much less so, his corpse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I used to be really against the death penalty for moral reasons. Then I entered a stage where, in theory I'm pretty much for it. In practice I think the way our government handles justice is abysmal so my theoretical leaning towards the death penalty is countered. However, as mentioned, being in some prisons are a living nightmare possibly worse than death. I've vacillated quite a bit I will agree with another poster who said that this individual was likely brainwashed to some extent, and that's truly sad. I will join others who pray that he repents and owns up to what he did, whatever the verdict is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 There is no longer a need to execute people unless they are so psychologically messed up that they are a menace to anything and everything they touch. You actually have to be deemed competent and sane to be executed. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semper Catholic Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 There is a 3rd option. We can deport him and his family back to Russia like we should have done years ago and we could crack down on Chechen immigration. I can't think of a solution that would be a bigger deterrent than this. It would have been a good strategy to follow after 9/11 as well. Unfortunately, stopping terrorism isn't always the goal and where it is the goal, it isn't always the priority. After 9/11, rather than actually cracking down on muslim immigration here ("it would be racist"), we'd rather just bomb them there, send kids off to die, and eviscerate our bill of rights. Angry high schooler is angry 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