How Young Is Too Young For The Death Penalty?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772204' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']It has nothing to do with professors and knee-jerk reactions, it has to do with justice.

These are the kind of criminals I am referring to:
........


It also depends on what you consider rare.
There were 2,293,157 prisoners in the US on Dec 1, 2007.
There are 3,300 people on death row.


We are not capable of defending human lives against unjust agressors even in prison.

" During the two-year period from 2001 through 2002, three states reported 43 percent of all prison murders -- California, 21; Texas, 10 and six in Maryland. " [Justice Dept]

The non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[19] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration, and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[20][Wiki][/quote]


We ARE capable of defending human lives against unjust aggressors in prison. Your statistics are more easily explained away by inadequate funding than by the unredeemable recidivism of criminals. I chose not to beleive that anyone is irredeemable and thus do not see the necessity of capital punishment in a country where individual people spend thousands and thousands of dollars each year on dog food and cable tv and fast food. Human life is more valuable than the croutons we waste our money on. Even the life of a sick and twisted serial rapist chainsaw murderer.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1772196' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:35 PM']Then what do you feel would be the appropriate way to handle murderers?[/quote]

Murderers is too vague of a term. Different types of murderers would necessitate different modalities of incarceration and rehabilitation I would think. My point is that I feel it is contrary to God's law to take the positive act of ending another person's life when you haven't exhausted EVERY alternative. And as I have stated, in this land of wealth there are innumerable alternative possiblities to try.

Edited February 4, 2009 by Veridicus

[KnightofChrist]

One may be personally opposed to capital punishment, but they can not say it is objectively wrong. Or teach that the Church is actually against it's just use. Two thousand years of Catholic Tradition supports capital punishment as an act of justice. And this teaching is universal in time and location.

Capital punishment is a punishment which is proportionate for certain heinous acts, justice must be proportionate to the crime. Therefor Traditional and Universal Catholic teaching supports the use capital punishment, in all nations of all times.

Capital Punishment is a right given to the state by God Himself, no one not even the Church can over ride or take away that right. A person can be personally against it but that is it, [u]personally[/u] against it. The Church has for 2,000 years supports it's just use.

--------

St. Thomas Aquinas: "The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers." Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.


Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards, both Saints find that executing murderers is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord's Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)


Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live." 9/14/52.

[url="http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx"]Source[/url]

---------------

Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, "At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate's power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). "

"Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty."

"Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that [u]the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment[/u], even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners."

"The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, [u]is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment[/u]. "

"Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death."

"The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies[u] the right[/u] of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.

[url="http://www.homicidesurvivors.com/2006/10/12/catholic-and-other-christian-references-support-for-the-death-penalty.aspx"]Source[/url]

Edited February 4, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1772203' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']But the danger to self is a known, accepted aspect of the job.[/quote]

This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. We can actually use this argument against your other argument by saying this: As citizens of the United States of America, we are fully aware that committing certain crimes put us "in the running" for the death penalty. The individual who commits such a crime - just as the man or woman applying for a position in a prison - must have accepted this potential consequence - just as the new corrections officer knows that injury or death is a potential consequence for taking the position. So according to you, we should then say to the murderer "you knew the risk of being sentenced to the death penalty and you accepted this aspect of the crime."

[quote]These guards deserve adequate training and expertise to enable them to fully handle a beligerant (but unarmed of course) prisoner. This is where our money comes in. We have to care enough about life, of the innocent and the criminal, to be willing to let money leave our pockets and go into security, training, and protocol for the guards to keep them safe and then to the prisoner to attempt rehabilitation.[/quote]

Do you have any idea how creative some inmates are? Like the inmate who fashioned his plastic toothbrush into a sharp tool and stabbed it into the neck of the officer doing a roll call/announcements? And the guard who never saw it coming because it was routine for inmates to approach the podium and ask questions? (Story of the day from that awesome professor of mine.) Despite the training they get, there are always unfortunate "surprises."

[quote]And again, I must note that not a single one of those responding to my posts has demonstrated adequately how the US penal system qualifies as "an existing case where capital punishment is necessary."[/quote]

By [b]case[/b] the Catechism is talking about [b]the individual[/b], not the overall system.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772204' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']" During the two-year period from 2001 through 2002, three states reported 43 percent of all prison murders -- California, 21; Texas, 10 and six in Maryland. " [Justice Dept][/quote]

Your quote of the Justice Dept. does not necessary demonstrate that people in prison for MURDER commited the murders in question. For all we know those murders reported could be more highly correlated with rapists or arsonists or people who cheat on their taxes. And it is worth mentioning that the death penalty ironically attempts to use "murder in a prison' as an attempt to end "murders in prison."


[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772204' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']The non-governmental organization Human Rights Watch raised concerns with prisoner rape and medical care for inmates.[19] In a survey of 1,788 male inmates in Midwestern prisons by Prison Journal, about 21% claimed they had been coerced or pressured into sexual activity during their incarceration, and 7% claimed that they had been raped in their current facility.[20][Wiki][/quote]

As I mentioned in my previous post, these seem like funding issues more than "convicted murder" issues. Unless you can prove that MURDERERS are more likely to have worse health or commit rape. Regardless, having less americans watching comedy central and paying a cable bill each month and spending more money on rehabilitation and the prison system would undoubtedly decrease these statistics.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1772217' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:57 PM']Murderers is too vague of a term. Different types of murderers would necessitate different modalities of incarceration and rehabilitation I would think. My point is that I feel it is contrary to God's law to take the positive act of ending another person's life when you haven't exhausted EVERY alternative. And as I have stated, in this land of wealth there are innumerable alternative possiblities to try.[/quote]

You cannot debate your case without providing supporting arguments. Would you care to provide what specific "alternative possibilities" you are talking about?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1772213' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:52 PM']We ARE capable of defending human lives against unjust aggressors in prison. Your statistics are more easily explained away by inadequate funding than by the unredeemable recidivism of criminals. I chose not to beleive that anyone is irredeemable and thus do not see the necessity of capital punishment in a country where individual people spend thousands and thousands of dollars each year on dog food and cable tv and fast food. Human life is more valuable than the croutons we waste our money on. Even the life of a sick and twisted serial rapist chainsaw murderer.[/quote]

You can choose to take the stats any way you want. We disagree.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772232' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:10 PM']You can choose to take the stats any way you want. We disagree.[/quote]

That is acceptable.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1772203' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:43 PM']In a word? No.

Guards, like our armed servicemen abroad, get money and benefits knowing they place their lives on the line. It is an honorable job, more honorable than most. But the danger to self is a known, accepted aspect of the job.[/quote]
The exact argument every time a means of protection is denied on [i]my [/i] job. The problem is, too many people who haven't experienced quick and dirty combat love to opine on how to keep those who protect them safe. No matter how much training is given, mistakes will be made. Guards don't deserve to be killed or injured because they slip up on a search and miss a weapon. You cannot keep prisoners from obtaining weapons or hurting guards. It's impossible unless you employ extraordinary means. No gifts from the outside, no contact with family, no personal effects, constant searches. Even then, things will happen. To totally remove the option of execution is to deny reality.

There is no lovely little world where we can remove that option. Rehabilitation is possible only when people do not live in fear. So long as the violent are not sequestered (really sequestered) or executed, there will be fear. Rehab will fail for the majority because we will not deal with the incarcerated and the free who spread fear.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1772213' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:52 PM']We ARE capable of defending human lives against unjust aggressors in prison. Your statistics are more easily explained away by inadequate funding than by the unredeemable recidivism of criminals. I chose not to beleive that anyone is irredeemable and thus do not see the necessity of capital punishment[/quote]
Free will. You play roulette with your own life, not me or mine.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1772238' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:18 PM']The exact argument every time a means of protection is denied on [i]my [/i] job. The problem is, too many people who haven't experienced quick and dirty combat love to opine on how to keep those who protect them safe. No matter how much training is given, mistakes will be made. Guards don't deserve to be killed or injured because they slip up on a search and miss a weapon. You cannot keep prisoners from obtaining weapons or hurting guards. It's impossible unless you employ extraordinary means. No gifts from the outside, no contact with family, no personal effects, constant searches. Even then, things will happen. To totally remove the option of execution is to deny reality.

There is no lovely little world where we can remove that option. Rehabilitation is possible only when people do not live in fear. So long as the violent are not sequestered (really sequestered) or executed, there will be fear. Rehab will fail for the majority because we will not deal with the incarcerated and the free who spread fear.[/quote]

Granted...but it doesn't require someone CONVICTED of murder to try and shiv a guard. Killing every convicted murderer in prison will not keep guards "perfectly safe in a lovely little world." The risk of violence from an inmate [i]is [/i]part of the job; there are different degrees of risk depending on the psychological profile of the inmates involved of course. Should we start executing people based on how their psychological profiles suggest their propensity toward violence is? Because it is precisely this propensity upon which your previous post was situated.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1772239' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:20 PM']Free will. You play roulette with your own life, not me or mine.[/quote]

You consider a belief in the redeemability of each individual a game of roulette rather than a promise of the redeemer? Seriously, was Christ's blood on the cross so wholly wasted on some that we might as well kill them now?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772204' date='Feb 4 2009, 04:43 PM']These are the kind of criminals I am referring to:
Melvin and Linda Lorenz, and their son Richard were killed by Roger Stafford. Melvin stopped on a highway near Purcell, Okla., to help what he thought was a woman whose car had broken down, but instead was ambushed by Stafford and his brother, using Stafford's wife as bait. Less than a month after these horrific murders, the trio killed six employees of a steak house in Oklahoma City.[/quote]

One of those killed was on my softball team. I remember at the time wanting to pull the switch myself.

[KnightofChrist]

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=90243&view=findpost&p=1772220"]Again[/url], Capital punishment is a punishment which is proportionate for certain heinous acts, justice must be proportionate to the crime. Capital Punishment is a right given to the state by God Himself, no one not even the Church can over ride or take away that right. A person can be personally against it but that is it, personally against it. The Church has for 2,000 years supports it's just use.

[HisChildForever]

Please make sure you respond to my posts.