Juvenile Murderers

[Winchester]

Simple solution:

If someone who killed or raped a member of your family escapes punishment or is later paroled, kill that person. It's not worth the risk to your family.

Judgement is between them and God; it's up to us to arrange the meeting.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 8 2005, 12:40 PM']
No. We can make sure they work in prison, and thereby pay their debt to society. Even murderers aren't disposable waste. They are creatures of God, who can never lose their personal dignity.

And as Paladin pointed out above, it costs more money to execute someone than to imprison them for life. [/quote]
You aren't disposing them, you are carrying out justice.

[hyperdulia again]

Dear Lord, have mercy on us, praise and glory to you Father for not giving us what we deserve. Amen.

Am I the only person who is nauseated by the idea of killing children for any reason?

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]You aren't disposing them, you are carrying out justice.[/quote]

Justice demands we all be put to death. You haven't dealt with the example I gave of blasphemers being put to death. Unlike murder, blasphemy attacks God himself directly, not just man. It is a more grievous sin. Shall we commence stoning blasphemers once more, in the name of Justice?

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 8 2005, 10:40 AM'] They are creatures of God, who can never lose their personal dignity.

[/quote]
But what of the concept of "forfeiting their lives"? Cmom is merely referring back to Leviticus 20.

Please address this point. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 8 2005, 10:30 AM'] No, we're capable of sending them to a maximum security prison where they'll spend the rest of their days. [/quote]
At least until some radical activist judge decides that life without parole or phone privileges is unconstitutional.....

[Brother Adam]

CCC2267 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 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 nonexistent.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]But what of the concept of "forfeiting their lives"? Cmom is merely referring back to Leviticus 20.

Please address this point. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. [/quote]

I understand. I'm not arguing against capital punishment in itself, because, as you point out, the Old Testament indicates not only its existence, but its divine backing. However, there is a marked difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, namely, the coming of Christ. Obviously, this is going to affect the standards by which we conduct ourselves as children of the New Covenant.

Now, it may seem legitimate to justify the sentence of death by citing the Lex Talionis of the Old Testament (life for life). However, this begs the subsequent question: if you are going to use the Old Testament as your standard for civil judgement, why do you limit yourself to executing murderers? Those who blasphemed the name of God were stoned to death in the Old Testament. Those who disregarded the sabbath were also put to death. If you are serious about wanting to hold up the Old Testament as our standard, then we have to begin stoning blasphemers and sabbath breakers once more. Otherwise, selective inconsistency raises its ugly head.

The most marked difference in the divine emphasis between the Old Testament and the New Testament is between Justice and Mercy. Whereas, in the Old Covenant, God acted so as to highlight how low man had brought himself in the fall of Adam, so in the New Covenant, he acts to highlight how high Christ has brought us in the passion of his cross. Though every sinner DESERVES to be cast into the fires of hell, God has spared us, and punished us in other ways (death, suffering), while at the same time giving us the opportunity to repent and reform ourselves. In the same manner, the civil authority should exercise itself as God has exercised himself, by punishing the sinner, but not necessarily with the supreme judgement. God spared us the ultimate punishment in the supernatural realm (hell), and so too should the civil authorities spare us the ultimate punishment in the natural realm (death). And just as God inflicts upon us the ultimate punishment if we continue to offend him without repentance, so too the civil authorities should inflict upon criminals the ultimate punishment if they continue to endanger society, and the civil authorities have no other means to stop this danger.

[quote]At least until some radical activist judge decides that life without parole or phone privileges is unconstitutional..... [/quote]

Yes, unfortunately, the law can be our friend or our foe. All we can do is work to establish the law in whatever manner we see fitting.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[Brother Adam]

Are Eremite and myself the only Catholics left here?

[cmotherofpirl]

Hardly.

Brother Adam try your anti-death penalty argument on someone whose has had a family member murdered in prison.

Children hyper? Someone who throws somebody off a bridge for fun and gets off because he is year away from legal adulthood?

Justice can tempered by mercy, not replaced by it.

Having the death penalty means there is a line that cannot be crossed without forfeiting your most valuable possession - your own life. Otherwise its do whatever you want and we will feed you and house you and care for you for the rest of your life.

[MichaelFilo]

Jesus didn't come to do away with the old law, just to fulfill it.

The punishment, by death, is still very much applicable today. It is in the hands of the people to decide what is worth handing out capital punishment for (since the people vote upon the laws, or in most cases, their representitives). Unlike other things, murder is a direct end to another's life, giving the murder no way to redeem themselves in the eyes of the victim. Unlike a goverenment where Christian religious principles are to be used (and I would argue that even if they are used, then blashphemy and not keeping the Sabbath would be punishable; as was the case in many medival countries), we have a government that isn't based around any single religiou. Blasphemy and not keeping the Sabbath are a contradiction of Divine Law, while murder is a contradiction of natural law and Divine Law. While all should be punished by the governemnt, the government in it's current state would not likely pass any sort of bills to support the former two, but the latter is fully supportable even if no single religious beliefs is used by the government.
Thats the law sid eof the issue.

Why would a person just punish a murder with death and not a blashphemer or a Sabbath-breaker? Because those actions can be made up for through confession and penance (to God) and since no one else is affected by them, it may rest there. Stealing isn't even punishable by death (even if it is breakin ga commandment) since it can be forgiven by God and the stolen goods maybe returned, to make up for what was lost. However, when murder occurs, God will always be ready to forgive because he died on the Cross for us. However, the person who has died cannot be redeemed with anything. They cannot have anything near the value of their life back. If someone can so readily take the life of another, then his life is forfeit, since he has nothing on him that could cover the pric eof a lost life, he forfeits his. Whether he is detained or put to death is irrelevant, he has forfieted his life.

Death isn't an end state; Death is the beggining of Life everlasting. By taking someone's life you forfeit you rown life on Earth. However, you will be judged by God fairly and in accord to your actions. The Civil authorities job is to contain and even destroy those who would readily take a life, especially those who would do it because they can't get in trouble with civil authorities.

God bless,
Mikey

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 10 2005, 08:19 PM']
I understand. I'm not arguing against capital punishment in itself, because, as you point out, the Old Testament indicates not only its existence, but its divine backing. However, there is a marked difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament, namely, the coming of Christ. Obviously, this is going to affect the standards by which we conduct ourselves as children of the New Covenant.

Now, it may seem legitimate to justify the sentence of death by citing the Lex Talionis of the Old Testament (life for life). However, this begs the subsequent question: if you are going to use the Old Testament as your standard for civil judgement, why do you limit yourself to executing murderers? Those who blasphemed the name of God were stoned to death in the Old Testament. Those who disregarded the sabbath were also put to death. If you are serious about wanting to hold up the Old Testament as our standard, then we have to begin stoning blasphemers and sabbath breakers once more. Otherwise, selective inconsistency raises its ugly head.

The most marked difference in the divine emphasis between the Old Testament and the New Testament is between Justice and Mercy. Whereas, in the Old Covenant, God acted so as to highlight how low man had brought himself in the fall of Adam, so in the New Covenant, he acts to highlight how high Christ has brought us in the passion of his cross. Though every sinner DESERVES to be cast into the fires of hell, God has spared us, and punished us in other ways (death, suffering), while at the same time giving us the opportunity to repent and reform ourselves. In the same manner, the civil authority should exercise itself as God has exercised himself, by punishing the sinner, but not necessarily with the supreme judgement. God spared us the ultimate punishment in the supernatural realm (hell), and so too should the civil authorities spare us the ultimate punishment in the natural realm (death). And just as God inflicts upon us the ultimate punishment if we continue to offend him without repentance, so too the civil authorities should inflict upon criminals the ultimate punishment if they continue to endanger society, and the civil authorities have no other means to stop this danger.



Yes, unfortunately, the law can be our friend or our foe. All we can do is work to establish the law in whatever manner we see fitting. [/quote]
My point in bringing up Leviticus was not a "rallying cry" to "fry everyone", but instead to inject some serious perspective into the discussion. And judging from the fact your latest response is possibly the most thought-out analysis so far, it appears my strategy worked.

Now, as for a point you brought up:

[quote] so too the civil authorities should inflict upon criminals the ultimate punishment if they continue to endanger society, and the civil authorities have no other means to stop this danger.
[/quote]

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make, that it should still be an option if there are no other means. I'm not convinced that "life imprisonment without parole" is a 100% blanket solution. It has to be done on a case-by-case basis, and the Supreme Court took away the right to look at it on a case-by-case basis for those who are almost but not yet 18.

And for the record, because of shoddiness in the criminal justice system and DNA testing leading to people being released from death row here in Illinois, I am skeptical of the death penalty.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

I'm with Bro. Adam and Eremite on this issue.

And besides, in addition to the cost of execution... execution is the easy way out. Especially nowadays... lethal injection is practically nothing! No pain, just a lousy shot in the arm.

Perhaps the prison system in America merely needs reforming... we don't have to spend money feeding prisoners wonderful meals... they would survive if we gave them water, meat, fruits/veggies, and bread--just the basics, and prisoners certainly don't need "recreation" time... they can work during the day, and sleep through the night and do the same boring thing day after day, etc. It's probably not going to happen in the States any time soon, but I don't think it means we should let them off easy and kill them. You don't often hear of prisoners begging for their lives as they're about to be executed... a few of them apologize to victims, a few remain hardened until the end, but not many beg to live in prison for the rest of their lives.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Justice can tempered by mercy, not replaced by it.[/quote]

Justice isn't replaced. Death is not the only way to deal out justice. Furthermore, there are more elements that must factor into justice than retribution.

[quote]Having the death penalty means there is a line that cannot be crossed without forfeiting your most valuable possession - your own life. Otherwise its do whatever you want and we will feed you and house you and care for you for the rest of your life.[/quote]

Kind of how God continues to feed us, house us on earth, continue us in being, even though we cross "the line" every day. And again, from a purely economic argument, it costs more to execute a person than to house and feed them for life.

[quote]Blasphemy and not keeping the Sabbath are a contradiction of Divine Law, while murder is a contradiction of natural law and Divine Law.[/quote]

To the contrary. The natural law constitutes the decalogue, and both of those sins are written into the heart of man. "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.", and "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." And no, blasphemy and failing to keep the sabbath should not be punished by the state, so long as they are not public scandals.

[quote]It is in the hands of the people to decide what is worth handing out capital punishment for (since the people vote upon the laws, or in most cases, their representitives).[/quote]

No, it is not in their hands. The authority to execute belongs to the civil rulers alone.

[quote]Why would a person just punish a murder with death and not a blashphemer or a Sabbath-breaker? Because those actions can be made up for through confession and penance (to God) and since no one else is affected by them, it may rest there.[/quote]

First, murder is also atoned for through confession and penance. Second, the justification for executing murderers was the practice of the Old Testament. As I layed out in my previous post, unless you are willing to take up the practice of executing blasphemers, you have no foundation on which to cite Old Testament practice in your favor. Furthemore, if you want to conceive justice as an exercise in tit for tat retribution, rapers should be raped, terrorists should be terrorized, torturers should be tortured, those who kill families should have their families killed, and so on.

[quote]If someone can so readily take the life of another, then his life is forfeit, since he has nothing on him that could cover the pric eof a lost life, he forfeits his. Whether he is detained or put to death is irrelevant, he has forfieted his life. [/quote]

Whether he is put to death is quite relevant, because human life, even that of a murderer, is something of inestimable dignity and value. You seem very quick to deal out the supreme punishment man can give to those who have sinned against you. But the Lord, who would have been fully justified to cast you into hell for offending his majesty through your sins, did not. You might want to consider what I said in my previous post, regarding the fact that God spared you of the ultimate punishment he can give, and how you need to consider that when dealing with others. "To whom much is given, much is expected."

[quote]The Civil authorities job is to contain and even destroy those who would readily take a life, especially those who would do it because they can't get in trouble with civil authorities.[/quote]

The civil authorities job is to protect the common good, and deal out justice. Justice has three other elements besides retribution: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, and deterrence.

Not much more can be said here. I'll just close out by once more citing the Holy Father's beautiful Encyclical "Evangelium Vitae", and St. Ambrose.

"And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, 'put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him' (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: 'Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God's mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. ... God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide.'"

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I'm not convinced that "life imprisonment without parole" is a 100% blanket solution.[/quote]

I think the most obvious problem we have today is inmates killing other inmates. The prison society must be protected as well, so I would support the execution of those who cannot be stopped from committing grave crimes against other inmates, because there is no other alternative to the prison system.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Eremite