Death Penalty (poll)

[rkwright]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1511853' date='Apr 27 2008, 04:45 PM']All of the quotes do exist though I may have gotten my sources mixed up and i have even provided a post which corrects the citations.
I am sorry what exactly does this have to do with what? I am lost by your statement. My point was that they had a version of life imprisonment which st. Thomas was not obviously advocating.
Summa Theologica, 11; 65-2; 66-6 healing does appear in St. Thomas's words. I went back and looked and this is the right source if your going to use the new advent translation of this(and I will remind you that it is a translation) then i would suggest that you really look and see how different the text really is. as I have not yet looked at the latin i will provide my own translation later.[/quote]
Nope, wrong again. I am amazed by this. The cited passages have nothing to do with capital punishment. And just FYI, there is no Summa Theologica 11... its II as in 2. Healing does not appear in any of the cited passages.

Every Summa Theologica quote you have provided does not exist. Its really that simple. The one Summa Contra Gentiles quote you provided does not exist.

Until you can prove the claims you're making, well I guess theres no real debate then; just a very interesting opinion you hold.
[quote]close but not quite there, we cannot kill a man who is sinful in himself as not all sin is judge worthy of immediate death. What is being said is that all sin corrupts society however there is sin which so corrupts society that it threatens stability. The worse a sin is the more it threatens the stability of a society, when someone is sentenced for a crime it is done in an attempt to restore the "Common Good". the definition you are using for "common good" is not the proper definition which is why the statement seems so absurd. You must strike a balance between a legalistic interpretation of the words on the page
and reading into the words on the page the "Spirit" of what is being said. We must first look at the words on the page and then ask ourselves "What do they mean".[/quote]
You are the premier authority on the 'spirit' of the words St. Thomas used? When you don't quote accurate passages? I'm sorry but until you can substantiate your evidence, I'm not going to give very much weight to your idea of the 'spirit' they were written in.

Its easier to read the plain meaning of the text. When the word 'common good' arises, its easy to read that simply as 'common good'. Not some idea of retribution. Words like 'restoring' or 'retributive' don't appear in the text anywhere. Instead St. Thomas speaks in medical terms, he says quote "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,". This doesn't say anything about restoring, or retributive, or upholding justice; it simply says if a man is dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, he should be killed.
[quote]You are very close to the truth. Ask yourself this question why did St. Thomas cite his earlier section? He was attempting to make clear that if i act with the intent to take another mans life it is always wrong, that is 'except for the public authority acting for the common good'. I will remind you that the question involves the individual and not the state and thus he is making a distinction between the two. This i contend is is reason for making reference to the state. When the state executes someone it is obviously not acting in self defense as the crime has already been committed and in fact may have been committed long ago. And the person if allowed to go uncaptured for an extended period of time may turn out to be a productive member of society. Thus for the state to execute any person after the offense has already been committed cannot be self-defense.
The problem comes in that you want the text to say one thing and not another so you do not step back to ask the question what is being said and why is it being said. I agree the text is explicit it is unlawful for an individual to take a mans life, except in the case of public authority.
This post of yours was extremely emotional as evident come of your comments tones. I have made the comment that you who oppose the death penalty are on the "left" of the issue because the "right" of the issue is always the "conservative" or traditional position. and the argument here is between the traditionalists who hold that what the church has held constant cannot be changed overnight, and then the position of the "Progressives" who seek to rewrite history. Let me ask you this how many historical works on the death penalty have you read? books and articles of age more than 100 or 150 years? You are on the left of the issue which means you are on the modern side of the issue I am on the right of the issue which means that I am on the historic side of the issue it has nothing to do with politics. You are reading things in a vacuum I am not. The reason I can bring such a charge against you is because it is clear from your statements that instead of going back and reading things attempting to find out what was historically believed about what an author said you are reading texts out of the context of history(a vacuum).[/quote]

I don't see it as being anything other than Orthodox. Here are our options.
Your view = reading words into St. Thomas's writings in light of the 'spirit' they were written in, disregarding the current CCC as opinion, disregarding the USCCB statements on Capital Punishment, adhering to the 'spirit' 'Tradition' (I say spirit because I have yet to see one document that explicitly says your view).
My view= reading words of St. Thomas literally, which match up 100% perfectly with statements of CCC, USCCB.

I see the Church as being consistent throughout all of time on its teaching. I don't have to look into the spirit of things written 100's of years ago. I don't have to disregard the Church's teaching on the matter.

Your view requires people to attempt to find the spirit of St. Thomas; to disregard JPII and the current CCC; to disregard the USCCB; to play linguistic gymnastics around words like 'common good' turning them into 'restoring justice' or 'retribution'.

Ockhams Razor anyone?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1509922' date='Apr 25 2008, 06:06 PM']+J.M.J.+
and what of gang members and mob bosses who can control every aspect of their criminal organization behind bars, and also recruit new members?[/quote]

[goldenchild17]

seriously. I still don't see how my quotes don't refer to punishment either when they are directly stated as being so... but oh well

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1509283' date='Apr 24 2008, 11:21 PM']It's not so much ridiculous as it is antiquated. We don't NEED to do it because we can keep most people incarcerated without much effort (this isn't the Wild West anymore, with wooden jail cells). As I've said before, it should be reserved for the rarest of cases where keeping the convicted alive presents a significant risk to the public.[/quote]

Spoke my mind brother!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='JesusIsMySuperHero' post='1511855' date='Apr 27 2008, 04:48 PM']I would be pro capital punishment abuse against children. If you rape, kill, or have any serious crimes such as selling drugs to children, pretty much anything about abusing children in an already illegal fashion, those people should have to face the death penalty.

Great news, nobody would ever oppose that, and children's right organizations would probably applaud the government.

Of course, this will not happen until things change.[/quote]

I think people with a rational and sound view of the sanctity of human life might clearly oppose your proposition. While crimes against children are by their very nature more scandalous and disordered, I would not say that they are inherently more deserving of a death penalty by any true logic. It's just we feel more angry and vengeful in the face of a more scandalous crime.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1509922' date='Apr 25 2008, 07:06 PM']+J.M.J.+
and what of gang members and mob bosses who can control every aspect of their criminal organization behind bars, and also recruit new members?[/quote]

Darn good counterpoint; this conundrum must elicit a more thought-out response...

[XIX]

I agree with Verdicus.