Death Row Inmates

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1505602' date='Apr 21 2008, 02:00 PM']Nope.
We are called to judge actions remember?[/quote]

We judge actions, but not the people themselves. A life term is plenty punishment enough for any crime, especially since we have a secure prison system in which to keep such people out of society.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1505604' date='Apr 21 2008, 02:03 PM']Why would it not? When you murder an innocent life, you forfeit your own. Natural law, which the church accepts and teaches. If you recall, Jesus didn't stop the Good Thief from being justly executed, He took him to heaven because he repented.[/quote]

Neither did Jesus stop himself from being executed. The crucifixion scene isn't meant to serve as a lesson on the morality of capital punishment in all times and places. If anything, it serves to show us the wrong society is bound to commit in killing innocent people.

Since you appeal to Church teaching, then you should also know that while the Church isn't absolutely against capital punishment, she does teach that the only time it should be exercised is in places where no other alternative that preserves the criminal's life will keep them out of society. Third world countries with unreliable and inadequate prison systems are where the Church would agree the state may need to use capital punishment as the last resort.

[mommas_boy]

I voted yes. The appeals act as a counter-balance to the ultimate, irrevocable nature of the death penalty.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1505734' date='Apr 21 2008, 03:53 PM']Since you appeal to Church teaching, then you should also know that while the Church isn't absolutely against capital punishment, she does teach that the only time it should be exercised is in places where no other alternative that preserves the criminal's life will keep them out of society. Third world countries with unreliable and inadequate prison systems are where the Church would agree the state may need to use capital punishment as the last resort.[/quote]

This is correct, based on my knowledge. I also believe that society has a responsibility to protect its prisoners, as well as the prison guards. One must realize that the prison is also a part of society, and that even though it may be possible to protect society from a particularly dangerous criminal, it may not be possible to protect the guards and other prisoners from that criminal. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that this is another case of legitimate use of the death penalty.

[CatherineM]

You are certainly right about prison being a society with people in potential danger. In states where there isn't a death penalty, those with life sentences really don't have an incentive to keep themselves in check. If they kill someone in the yard, then they will face nothing more than the sentence they are already serving, although they would probably be moved to a supermax at that point. I know some hardliners would believe that's okay, just let them kill each other off.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1506008' date='Apr 21 2008, 07:27 PM']You are certainly right about prison being a society with people in potential danger. In states where there isn't a death penalty, those with life sentences really don't have an incentive to keep themselves in check. If they kill someone in the yard, then they will face nothing more than the sentence they are already serving, although they would probably be moved to a supermax at that point. I know some hardliners would believe that's okay, just let them kill each other off.[/quote]

Yes. I believe that were the death penalty limited in use to these exceptions which we have here outlined, an additional effect will be the reduction of prison violence.

Note also, however, that "Supermax" prisons may not always be an option, especially in situations of overcrowding. If our modus operandi of prison security becomes a "lock them up tighter if they're a danger", then it becomes easy to imagine a situation where a top-heavy prison population is possible. By "top-heavy", what I mean is that most of the prison population are kept in the high levels of security. This would be the result of "promoting" more dangerous prisoners to these higher levels of security, while "demoting" prisoners who have been deemed to have reformed back to lower levels of security. Back to topic, in a situation where available security measures at a more secure prison are at capacity and therefore unable to physically handle another prisoner, and if the lower levels of security provided at the original prison are incapable of restraining the dangerous prisoner, then prison officials may have no other option but to execute the dangerous prisoner.

[mommas_boy]

Another, albeit related question. The current discussion centers around a prison's ability to keep a dangerous criminal from harming society outside of the prison, as well as other prisoners and guards within the prison. This certainly raises concerns about the resources needed to do so: what if we simply run out of whatever means are used to do this? What other forms of restraint are permissible as a last-ditch effort to save the life of a criminal who is particularly blood-thirsty?

Here's my question: What about purposefully placing a prisoner into a semi-permanent "vegetative state" or quadriplegia as a last-ditch form of containment? This would effectively make the prisoner a prisoner of their own body. Would that be preferable to the death penalty? Logically, it would seem that it would indeed be preferable, but the intentionality of it smacks of a certain kind of inhumanity. Then again, the most grave inhumane treatment a person can endure is to be killed, so perhaps this is better?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1506033' date='Apr 21 2008, 08:06 PM']Here's my question: What about purposefully placing a prisoner into a semi-permanent "vegetative state" or quadriplegia as a last-ditch form of containment? This would effectively make the prisoner a prisoner of their own body. Would that be preferable to the death penalty? Logically, it would seem that it would indeed be preferable, but the intentionality of it smacks of a certain kind of inhumanity. Then again, the most grave inhumane treatment a person can endure is to be killed, so perhaps this is better?[/quote]I would agree that there seems something inhumane about it. It would, at least to me, seem to be affront on human dignity, for it implies that you would remove something fundamental to human nature: the rational capacity. This could also be understood as cruel and unusual punishment if you allow someone to retain full perception but no control of his/her body.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1506033' date='Apr 21 2008, 09:06 PM']Another, albeit related question. The current discussion centers around a prison's ability to keep a dangerous criminal from harming society outside of the prison, as well as other prisoners and guards within the prison. This certainly raises concerns about the resources needed to do so: what if we simply run out of whatever means are used to do this? What other forms of restraint are permissible as a last-ditch effort to save the life of a criminal who is particularly blood-thirsty?[/quote]

I don't know about a "particularly blood-thirsty" criminal, but there are many criminals sitting in our prisons who likely be better served with good counseling and rehabilitation programs. We do some of this, but it could probably be more normalized as a regular course of addressing minor criminals to prevent them from being the blood-thirsty type.

We as a Church should also serve our communities, and especially "at-risk" children, to give them the encouragement needed to choose a productive role in society. Volunteer as Big Brother/Big Sister, be a teacher in the inner city or some other disadvantaged neighborhood, or even move into such a neighborhood in order to participate in and enhance the civic life. Our greater need for prisons only shows that we've failed at proactively preventing crime.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1506025' date='Apr 21 2008, 08:46 PM']Yes. I believe that were the death penalty limited in use to these exceptions which we have here outlined, an additional effect will be the reduction of prison violence.

Back to topic, in a situation where available security measures at a more secure prison are at capacity and therefore unable to physically handle another prisoner, and if the lower levels of security provided at the original prison are incapable of restraining the dangerous prisoner, then prison officials may have no other option but to execute the dangerous prisoner.[/quote]

I agree. Is it really moral to keep condemned murderers alive by allocating an increasing amount of our limited resources to being bigger and better prisons when we could be instead educating children to keep them OUT of prison and a life of crime?

And again what happened to the concept of natural law and justice? I can understand atheists trying to keep criminals alive, since they believe this world is it, but I can't understand christians who feel this way. THis world is the layover on the flight to eternity, and not our final destination, and there are consequences to our actions. If you take the life of an innocent your own life is forfeit. There may be mitigating circumstances that need to be considered in a trial, but you cheapen all life, if there are no consequences for wanton distruction of another.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1506568' date='Apr 22 2008, 10:21 AM']I agree. Is it really moral to keep condemned murderers alive by allocating an increasing amount of our limited resources to being bigger and better prisons when we could be instead educating children to keep them OUT of prison and a life of crime?[/quote]Someone has already mentioned that we should be focusing on creating programs to "solve" crime before it starts. I do not believe anyone is saying that we ought to focus on building bigger prisons, but that in situations where a murderer has already been convicted, it is better to spare his/her life than to condemn him/her to death. The discussion here is limited to dealing with a criminal after the fact, specifically regarding the death penalty. Of course we ought to try to prevent crime if at all possible, but this too will have its defects.

[quote]And again what happened to the concept of natural law and justice? I can understand atheists trying to keep criminals alive, since they believe this world is it, but I can't understand christians who feel this way. THis world is the layover on the flight to eternity, and not our final destination, and there are consequences to our actions. If you take the life of an innocent your own life is forfeit. There may be mitigating circumstances that need to be considered in a trial, but you cheapen all life, if there are no consequences for wanton distruction of another.[/quote]I asked for an argument showing that natural law shows how one forfeits one's own life by murder. I have also brought the definition of justice as a cardinal virtue and asked for an explanation how killing a murderer is just. We are not the authors of life and have no claims or rights to lives of others. My very own life is a gift from God and a grace, not something which specifically belongs to me. As it has been said: The priest is not his own. Neither is the lay person. Life belongs to Christ, not to us. So we cannot make claims on someone else's life under the pretenses of justice (since justice if giving one what one deserves). Please see post #30. Furthermore, if we kill someone who has murdered and is unrepentant, we essentially seal his/her fate in the next life as well.

Edited April 22, 2008 by Paphnutius

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
what spurred this post was this: i was watching the show "Lock-Up" on MSNBC, and this guy is on death row. he's appealing, but basically he said that either grant his appeal or just kill him already. he's tired of waiting 20 years in limbo.

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1502905' date='Apr 18 2008, 06:24 PM']What you can never bring up is that the jury was just wrong. If the jury believes one side over the other, the appeals court will not review that. If there were no procedural or legal errors made, and the jury just didn't believe your defense, you have no appealable issues.[/quote]

Is JNOV reviewable? My procedure is failing me Or the JMOL or renewed JMOL? I seem to remember most of the cases coming on appeal from MSJs or the like.

I would assume nearly every defense would make these motions, and bring the facts into the appeals process.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1502443' date='Apr 18 2008, 12:19 AM']Anyhow, I answered yes. Innocent people have been sentenced to death before, so I don't think any stone should be left unturned when it comes to appeals. IMO, it's better to be on the safe side.[/quote]
No innocent person has been executed since it was reinstituted. there are groups out there who try to prove someone is innocent after they are executed.

[Didymus]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507510' date='Apr 23 2008, 01:16 PM']No innocent person has been executed since it was reinstituted. there are groups out there who try to prove someone is innocent after they are executed.[/quote]

until you can prove without a benefit of a doubt that our justice system is [i]that[/i] flawless, then why should I give it the benefit of a doubt?

The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1507515' date='Apr 23 2008, 12:26 PM']until you can prove without a benefit of a doubt that our justice system is [i]that[/i] flawless, then why should I give it the benefit of a doubt?

The death penalty should be abolished in the U.S.[/quote]
Ummm.... that shows how much you know about the death penalty.

also lets use your logic.
until you can prove without a benefit of a doubt that our justice system is [i]that[/i] flawless, then why should I give it the benefit of a doubt? We need to do away with Jail because innocent people go to jail.

A perfect justice system is not required, and to say it is, is contrary to Church teaching.