Death Row Inmates

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507510' date='Apr 23 2008, 02:16 PM']No innocent person has been executed since it was reinstituted.[/quote]

How do you know this?

[picchick]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1507519' date='Apr 23 2008, 01:31 PM']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.[/quote]

im not saying to free anyone, but it's kinda too late to remedy the situation after you've already executed an innocent convict.

we ought to always err on the side of life. the logic I used isn't reversably applicable when innocent life is potentially at stake...

[Didymus]

yeah idk what picchick was doing on my puter earlier, but that last post was actually me..

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='picchick' post='1507721' date='Apr 23 2008, 04:55 PM']im not saying to free anyone, but it's kinda too late to remedy the situation after you've already executed an innocent convict.[/quote]
You also cant give a person back the years they lost in prison either. your argument fails. Have you seen someone who spent 30 years in prison and then was set free? they become institutionalized you cant undo that damage either.

[quote]we ought to always err on the side of life. the logic I used isn't reversably applicable when innocent life is potentially at stake...[/quote] that means you are approaching the subject from the wrong angle to begin with. what you are saying is this and I am going to give you an exact translation of what you are really saying by "err on the side of life" so that we are all clear on your definition of the term. What you mean by that (and it is the ONLY thing you can mean) is that we ought to err on the side of innocence. following this logic through to the end we ought not to punish anyone.

The proper way to approach the subject is what is just punishment for a crime. then you go through and you tighten up the system to try to make sure that no innocent person is punished for a crime they did not commit. NO SYSTEM is perfect however as humans we do the best we can this does not mean we abolish proper and fitting punishments for crimes because an innocent person might be put to death. When the person is convicted and sentenced at the sentencing the question of guilt is closed and you must objectively give them a sentence as if you are 100% sure they are guilty. after the sentencing is done the question is able to be revisited.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paphnutius' post='1506585' date='Apr 22 2008, 11:58 AM']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.[/quote]
Natural law has always said that the deliberate taking the life of an innocent meant you forfeit your own. Up until recently this was the stance of the Church, which is where I learned it back in the day when catholic schools were taught by nuns and priests.
The state has a legitimate duty to execute people guilty of capital crimes, and the church didn't disagree. Its called justice. Up until recently, very few people disagreed with this. Life is precious, so precious that there is an ultimate consequence for taking someone elses.
If an eminent death doesn't force someone to repent, nothing will. Its not the state's job to keep someone alive til they change their mind.

[rkwright]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1508602' date='Apr 24 2008, 04:05 PM']Natural law has always said that the deliberate taking the life of an innocent meant you forfeit your own. Up until recently this was the stance of the Church, which is where I learned it back in the day when catholic schools were taught by nuns and priests.
The state has a legitimate duty to execute people guilty of capital crimes, and the church didn't disagree. Its called justice. Up until recently, very few people disagreed with this. Life is precious, so precious that there is an ultimate consequence for taking someone elses.
If an eminent death doesn't force someone to repent, nothing will. Its not the state's job to keep someone alive til they change their mind.[/quote]

How do you get around the CCC on this?

How do you get around Aquinas on this? Tell me where in these 4 passages, the first three on capital punishment and the third on self defense, that Aquinas says taking a life (or attempting to take it in the case of self defense) means the person has lost his right to life?
[quote]As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. [b]Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good,[/b] since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).[/quote]
[quote][b]As stated above (Article 2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community's welfare.[/b] Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.[/quote]
[quote]An individual man may be considered in two ways: first, in himself; secondly, in relation to something else. If we consider a man in himself, it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him. [b]Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good, which is corrupted by sin.[/b] On the other hand the life of righteous men preserves and forwards the common good, since they are the chief part of the community. Therefore it is in no way lawful to slay the innocent.[/quote]
[quote]I answer that, Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense." Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's. [b]But as it is unlawful to take a man's life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.[/b][/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1509072' date='Apr 24 2008, 10:21 PM']How do you get around the CCC on this?

How do you get around Aquinas on this? Tell me where in these 4 passages, the first three on capital punishment and the third on self defense, that Aquinas says taking a life (or attempting to take it in the case of self defense) means the person has lost his right to life?[/quote]
I am not interested in getting around anyone, I am simply pointing out what is basic catholic teaching for those of us old enough to remember it being taught in catholic schools. The consequence of wanton murder is execution by the legal authority, ya know, back in the day when actions actually had consequences.

[rkwright]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1510831' date='Apr 26 2008, 05:01 PM']I am not interested in getting around anyone, I am simply pointing out what is basic catholic teaching for those of us old enough to remember it being taught in catholic schools. The consequence of wanton murder is execution by the legal authority, ya know, back in the day when actions actually had consequences.[/quote]

You're older than Aquinas?

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1511791' date='Apr 27 2008, 03:58 PM']You're older than Aquinas?[/quote]
You are a venomous little bit arn't you? You know that is not at all what she meant and if you took what she said in context then you might actually understand. The position of the Catholic Church before Vatican II (Which I contend is still the position) was the Aquinas position which is that murder has its fitting punishment in the death penalty.

[CatherineM]

My dad was in WWII. When I was a kid, I asked him if he regretted having to kill people. He said he regretted it was necessary. In the same situation, I can't say whether I would be capable of taking a human life or not. I guess when it comes to a person who is incarcerated, I just can't see that taking that life is necessary. We may want to out of vengeance, or a feeling of justice, but it isn't really necessary. I've dealt with the family members of people who were murdered. My nephew was murdered Halloween 1994. Some fought for years to see their kid's killer executed, and when it happened, they didn't find peace, just emptiness. Others who campaigned to spare the life of their child's killer, did find that peace. The father of a young woman killed in the Oklahoma City bombing fought vigorously to spare McVey's life. He attended one of my old parishes. After seeing his example of faith, grace and charity, I told myself that if my nephew's killer was ever brought to justice, I would do the same thing, but he was never arrested. Even if we are allowed to do something by a certain interpretation of various provisions of the CCC or Aquinas, that doesn't mean we have to.