Death Penalty

[White Knight]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Page 605 for reference.

[b]2267 [color="#FF0000"]"[u]Assuming that the guility party's idenity and responsiblity have been fully determinated, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penality, if that is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressors. If however, non lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safetly from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.[/u][/color] [u] [color="#0000FF"][u]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 definitively 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 non-existent."[/u][/color] [/u]"[/b]


Hopefully this presents a answer that is sufficent to you.


I used to be very strongly pro captial punishment, however, out of patient and long agurements, and explainations, I fully understand the agurements now on both sides of the table, while they both offer their legitimate valid points, I evenually have changed my mind, I'm now Anti-captial Punishment.

3 reasons
1) A persons possible Salvation is greater than any other small with in the moment proposes, to grant a person the chance for redemption is something I think God always does, even to the worst of sinners, and We sould give people the chance to turn from the path of eternal condemnation, God doesn't Send people to Hell, We send ourselves.

2) You cannot be a hippocrit on Life issues, you are ethier against it or not, period.

3) Issues like the Death Penality and Abortion are closely related, the difference is, your killing a much older child of somebody, but ethier way its the taking of a human life.


God Bless, Pax Christi.
White Knight

Edited June 5, 2008 by White Knight

[Norseman82]

[quote name='rckllnknny' post='1557439' date='Jun 4 2008, 12:48 PM']but we would literally be doing the same thing that was illegal for them.[/quote]

No, because the murderer's victim is innocent but the murderer is guilty. There is a difference between innocent and guilty people that cannot be forgotten.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1558855' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:08 PM']Hopefully this presents a answer that is sufficent to you.[/quote]

was that in response to me? If so, I don't accept the CCC. (just for clarification).

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1558855' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:08 PM']1) A persons possible Salvation is greater than any other small with in the moment proposes, to grant a person the chance for redemption is something I think God always does, even to the worst of sinners, and We sould give people the chance to turn from the path of eternal condemnation, God doesn't Send people to Hell, We send ourselves.[/quote]

Salvation is of the utmost importance always, but pre-Vat theology says that the person should be offered a chance to repent, and then if he refuses he can still be put to death anyways. Similar to the spiritual death. All souls are given a chance to repent but if they don't, then they are going to hell.

[quote]2) You cannot be a hippocrit on Life issues, you are ethier against it or not, period.[/quote]

Then I guess I should amend my pro-life statement. I am pro-those who have a right to life, meaning I believe that some people (murderers in particular) have lost their right to life by killing another person. This is also pre-vat theology. Aborted babies have not given up any of their rights. Murderers are born with these rights but give them up when they kill another life.

[quote]3) Issues like the Death Penality and Abortion are closely related, the difference is, your killing a much older child of somebody, but ethier way its the taking of a human life.[/quote]


I have to respectfully disagree. The issue is whether or not one has the right to life. I believe one loses the right to life when he kills another person. An aborted baby has never done anything wrong, a murderer concedes his right to life when he murders. I suppose this is just a difference between pre and post vatican II theologies, but that's how I see it.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1558919' date='Jun 4 2008, 10:28 PM']No, because the murderer's victim is innocent but the murderer is guilty. There is a difference between innocent and guilty people that cannot be forgotten.[/quote]

[Alycin]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1558561' date='Jun 4 2008, 09:51 PM']Apparently, God has no problem with lawfully executing murderers:

"Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God." (Genesis 9:6)

"He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:12)

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2"]Summa Theologica: Article 2. Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?[/url][/quote]


So you don't like what the catechism has to say about the need for the death penalty being practically non-existant, or what PJ2 said about it being cruel and unusual?

[Alycin]

[quote name='White Knight' post='1558855' date='Jun 4 2008, 11:08 PM']2) You cannot be a hippocrit on Life issues, you are ethier against it or not, period.[/quote]

[Alycin]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1558919' date='Jun 4 2008, 11:28 PM']No, because the murderer's victim is innocent but the murderer is guilty. There is a difference between innocent and guilty people that cannot be forgotten.[/quote]


Only by society's standards.

If someone were to come in my room and kill me right now, I can assure you that I would not be some sinless innocent victim. Does that mean that it would be justified? No. But only because [u][b]man does not have the right to take another man's life.[/b][/u] Not because I deserve to live more than the next guy on the street.

IMO, only God has the right to take life away from His children.


((This is where some people would get into the, 'well what if someone murders an innocent child/baby?)) And then I would agree that someone who is not innocent killed someone who was--but two wrongs do not make a right.

We have the capacity to keep murderers away from society without killing them. We should do so, plain and simple.

The whole, "Wah wah wah, I don't wanna spend my money on taxes to keep murderers alive" complaint is the furthest thing from pro-life I've ever heard, so if you're gonna go there, know that I won't accept it as a valid argument.

[N/A Gone]

Not researching (this is gonna get me in trouble) I think a pro-life POV would not allow the taking of a life. I would think that because we are not given the ability to create/give life that we would not have the authority to take a life.

In that regard the death-penalty is cruel and unusual because of the amount of time a person spends on death row. If you are gonna kill him, do it tommorow. The waiting is torture.

I always thought that exile is a better option. If you do not want to obey the rules of the society than do not live in or off of the society.

There is an exception, and that is the just-war situation. (Spoken as a former soldier who has had to take lives) Where the life is taken in order to protect the innocent lives. This is allowed in sorrow and I think the same could be taken in the death penalty. If there was some reason that the person was still causing so much harm and we were unable to contain him, then perhaps death is the only option. But I cannot think of a situation where that would be valid. I would think putting them in a cell bythemselves with a couple choice books is always a better option. Perhaps he could have a change of heart. As catholics our goal is the soul. Not getting him back into civil society. So if you off a guy there is no chance for his soul to change. As long as he is alive there is hope.

Also, I often think the death penalty is used as a form of revenge and that is wrong.

[CatherineM]

My dad was a soldier that also had to take lives, and I asked him once if he regretted it. He said he regretted it was necessary. When my life was in danger, I did defend myself. If someone today threatened myself or my family, I'd like to think I could take a life if it was necessary, but I wouldn't want to do it. I guess one of my biggest problems with the death penalty is that it doesn't seem necessary in a society with adequate prisons. The people advocating for it, enforcing it, vehemently pursuing it, and conducting it, seem to really want to carry the executions out. We shouldn't want to kill with such passion. When we find ourselves in a position of really needing to take a human life, it should be done with pain and sorrow, not cheering and rejoicing.

[rckllnknny]

the death penalty is why jesus died.

[N/A Gone]

What does that have to do with the debate sir?

[kujo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1559697' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:22 PM']What does that have to do with the debate sir?[/quote]

Absolutely nothing. That's the point, Rev. He is obviously not interested in hearing truth, or even debating it. Instead, he is just posting sound bites: "The death penalty killed Jesus," "an eye for an eye makes the whole earth blind," etc. Don't even worry about him. He's only interested in hearing himself speak...erm.....I mean [i]type[/i].

[Autumn Dusk]

There are some murders that are so sketchy that motive and mental state may never be known.

But for people who are serial killers, involved in organized crime in such a fashion that they command and execute murders, or people who kill children or elderly in a malicious way...probably should head for death.

In our society it is reasonable to be able to isolate the very sick sadistic people, however, prisons have become battle grounds where one sick individual can corrupt a 100 and someone who gets out for a less crime turns around and creates and more disgusting crime. The "viral" ability, the psycopathy, and the blood lust and hat[i][/i]e of a criminal all need to be taken into account.

Death should be the last resort, but we shouldn't fool ourselvs into thinking jail is sufficent for everyone.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Autumn Dusk

[kujo]

I think prisons should stop coddling lifers....they should be in solitary confinement, given the bare minimum interaction and activity needed to keep them alive. Instead of death penalty, lock these people away in some serious prisons and we'll see the deterrent.