But I don’t like Government sponsored killing. I don’t think it’s fair to force government workers to kill criminals, and I’m afraid a mistake may happen.
The criminals should be forced into hard labor. They should repay society with this labor, but not be sacrificed in the electric chair.
Republicans should be pro-life.
Holtz JeffersonRepublic.com
yes, if we capture osama bin laden, we shouldn't put him to death. That would be just too mean.
Call Amnesty! They're looking for like-minded folks such as yourself!
ummm no...
the Death Penalty should be applied by those who try the alledged murderers....
State or Federal, that is who should throw the switch...
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
A criminal (murderer, pedophile, rapist) has committed atrocities against people, uses violence against others, and is the most dangerous of souls. And if the DP is applied to them, so much the better.
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. 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 definitely 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 nonexistent.""
Can I be considered pro-life? I despise abortion (but will give exceptions for rape and incest). But I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support the death penalty.
I agree wholeheartedly with your views on the death penaly. Life in prison is a greater punishment and cheaper for the taxpayers as well.
Tell you what. We send all of our killers to pope and he can have them as his special guests in the Vatican. While I am Catholic it is too easy for El Papa to have to deal with the consequences of this dictate.
There is a difference between killing and punishment that is justified and meted when and as merited. The death penalty serves the latter purpose for those beasts who choose the former.
No one is forced to kill criminals; it is an occupation assumed by free will.
I agree - I'm not a big fan of the death penalty for a few reasons. One is that our justice system isn't perfect, and there have been times, although few, when innocent people have been but to death. But my main reason is that it simply is not a harsh enough punishment. If you take the life of another person or commit some other heinous crime, your life should become a living hell. Death is the easy option. I would much prefer the punishment to be life in prison without parole. And I'm not talking about a prison term in one of those 'country club' penitentaries with cable tv and three hot meals a day. I'm talking about hours and hours of hard manual labor every day of the week.
From the Cathecism of the Council of Trent:
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord."
Bernadin's "pro-life" philosophy is new in Catholicism. Abortion is the murder of innocent life, whereas the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for the state to enforce.
"Pope John Paul II taught that opposing capital punishment should be part of a pro-life witness for a culture of life"
No, as a matter of fact he did not.
He raised some questions (fair enough) and went as far as saying that the current model of implementation is too flawed to be justified (I disagree; but again, I don't begrudge the line of reasoning).
He did not and the RCC does not in principle oppose capital punishment.
The "vice versa" part of this statement is utter bullsh!t -- which is why "causality is difficult to prove." In fact, the historical record shows the exact opposite: For most of this country's history abortion was a crime in most states while the execution of criminals was considered an accepted form of punishment. Capital punishment began to lose its appeal at almost the exact same time in our history (the 1960s) that many states began to legalize abortion.
In our modern secular culture, there is no longer any rational reason for the U.S. not to execute criminals -- even if an innocent person is occasionally executed in the process. A nation that executes more than 4,000 unborn children every day should have no qualms about killing grown-ups with boring regularity.
There is no inconsistency in being against abortion for for capital punishment. Capital punishment, kiddies, is taking the life of convicted murders while abortion is the taking the lives of babies.
It is the liberals that are inconsistent. Amazingly, they allow the mass killing (in the millions) of innocent unborn babies while kicking up a storm to procted the lives of a handful of murdering low-lives. Explain that to me.
If you think that capital punishment is not biblical or that the Catholic Church doesn't approve of it, disabuse yourself of both notions. "Government-sponsored killing", as you call it, not only assures society that this particular criminal will not kill again, but it expresses the retribution of society at the heinousness of certain crimes. Nobody forces anybody to work in the death house; in Texas, the person who pushes the buttons releasing the lethal chemicals volunteers for the job, and there is a rotation.
As to a mistake, I've asked numerous times on this forum for proof that a mistake has EVER been made, and nobody's been able to document a single one. I'd challenge you to do the same.
The criminals should be forced into hard labor. They should repay society with this labor, but not be sacrificed in the electric chair.
Dangerous criminals are not allowed to work in most prisons, as they cannot be controlled adequately.
No state in the union uses the electric chair any longer to my recollection. Lethal injection is an extremely humane way to carry out society's wishes.
There is a huge difference between innocent life taken in abortion and the life of a criminal taken by capital punishment.
I'm also a death penalty opponent. There are certainly some crimes that are fully deserving of death, but there are too many ways for us mere humans to make a mistake in determining guilt.
Heck, we are talking about the same justice system that let OJ walk free, right?
Of course, I support the idea of putting them in a cage where they'll never have direct human contact again so that they'll never hurt another living soul.
The only difference in opinion worth talking about is the difference within the Republican Party. The Democrat position isn't worth discussing.
FWIW, I say kill murderers and sex offenders. But I listen to discussions on the merits of life imprisonment.
The Federal government has the right to kill enemies that are trying to destroy it. The number of Americans who believe that an individual like Zarqawi should not be executed is statistically zero, and that is as it should be. As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out, society has a right to defend itself.
Whether you like it or not, America has a right to self-defense. The people of the sovereign states have such a right as well.
I don’t think it’s fair to force government workers to kill criminals
No government employee is forced to do so. Executioners volunteer for the duty.
I’m afraid a mistake may happen.
As detection methods improve, the chances of this occurring have declined from extremely unlikely to almost impossible.
If there is any ambiguity, a life sentence is always an option.
The criminals should be forced into hard labor.
There is no such thing as hard labor anymore - only a few locales still have chain-gangs, let alone labor camps.
They should repay society with this labor, but not be sacrificed in the electric chair.
They cannot repay society unless they bring the citizen they murdered back to life.
Republicans should be pro-life.
Doctrinaire opposition to the death penalty is not truly a pro-life position. The Church and basic morality have already refuted the fallacy that murdering an innocent unborn child and executing a guilty murderer are not moral equivalents.
An executioner is not a de facto excommunicant. An abortionist is. Why is that?