Posted on 02/07/2011 2:47:34 PM PST by Gamecock
I’m not persuaded in the slightest by someone quoting scripture against (or in defense of) the death penalty. I simply want murderers removed from the gene pool.
The Council of Trent:
>> The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.
In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). <<
Our Bishops have spoken and God bless them. I will begin calling my state reps tomorrow.
St. Thomas Aquinas:
It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6).
(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit 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 obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
(Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)
Pope John Paul II opposed the death penalty in practice in Europe and the United States. But he was very clear to state that his opposition was a matter of prudence, and he was motivated by a desire to counter the “culture of death” that decided when lives were not worth defending; he believed that if we decided killing was justifiable in one circumstance, it would be easier to decide killing was justified in other circumstances.
As is my right to do so, according to John Paul, himself on this very issue, I respectfully disagree. I believe his spirit was too gravely informed by his experiences countering the Soviets and the Nazis, and he did not properly grasp the extent to which the moral equivalence of abortion and the death penalty would be used to undermine opposition to abortion.
Bishops in America have been, I believe, to no small extent motivated not by such a charity, but by evil, a subversiveness which refuses to acknowledge the horrific crime of abortion and socialism, and instead justifies its refusal to stand with opposition to abortion by the most intellectually tortured moral equivalence, and therefore bears a greater accountability for the evils of abortion and socialism than their misguided flock which they fail to correct, and so, I keep my tagline.
Yet I am deeply puzzed why, as the vast, vast majority of Presbyterian and Reformed churches in the United States lapse into outright apostasy, being not only moral cowards on the issue of abortion, but leading protagonists for it, such Christians as yourself neither stand with those who seek to purify Catholicism of such miserable cowards, nor fight the unfathomable iniquity in their own denominational families, but rather train their weaponry on those who would willingly stand with Presbyterian heroes such as Ronald Reagan in opposing our common enemy so as to weary these noble Catholic crusaders for justice by splitting their forces, having to fight on two fronts, against the insidious treachery of the leftists within the Church, and against those Christians who use such traitors to defame and insult the Church.
>> ... so as to weary these noble Catholic crusaders for justice by splitting their forces, having to fight on two fronts, against the insidious treachery of the leftists within the Church, and against those Christians who use such traitors to defame and insult the Church... <<
Actually, that’s not fair. I wouldn’t waste nearly as much time on you guys if I didn’t sincerely believe I was also having the opportunity to defend against error among Catholics by doing so. Every time I argue against your slander, I also figure that lurkers can become better aware of the true Catholic teaching, which is neither what you represent it to be, nor the inverse. Or as they say in symbolic logic, “B is not necessarily A or not A.”
>> Our Church teachings consider the death penalty to be wrong in almost all cases. Every human being is a child of God, no matter what sins the person commits. Every human life has infinite dignity because it is designed by God to be immortal. Today, given the means available to the State for dealing with crime, cases where it is absolutely necessary to use the death penalty are practically nonexistent. In other states and countries, life imprisonment has shown itself to be an effective alternative. Life imprisonment respects the moral view that all life, even that of the worst offender, has value and dignity. <<
>>>> Our Bishops have spoken and God bless them. I will begin calling my state reps tomorrow. <<<<
Don’t. They border on heresy. True mercy does not risk the destruction of a soul to prevent the destruction of the flesh. To cheaply offer mercy is to deny the truly horrific nature of the crime, and thus to rob the souls of the guilty of the surest opportunity to repent, which is why the infallible councils of the Catholic Church, as well as a great many doctors of the church defended the death penalty as a necessity. (Read, for examples, my previous posts in this thread.)
You are incorrect sir. In previous centuries, the death penalty was necessary because the infrastructure of the justice system could not ensure convicts would remain behind bars and that is still the case in some 3rd world countries. But in Ohio, in the year of 2011 there is no justification such a barbaric practice that destroys human life and gives unwarranted power to the government. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear on this issue:
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.”
There it is from both my Bishops and the Catechism. Unless you can produce some sort of proof of your own Apostolic Succession, then I think I will stick with the teachings of the Magisterium on this one. I will start calling the state Reps tomorrow and will encourage my fellow Catholics to do the same.
(Looking down at AB rolling around laughing, says:) You're quite correct. Let's hope all the other citizens of Ohio emphatically say NO!
See, that was easy, peasey.
Now, consider this, from the Cathechism 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.Now, you can interpret the latter catechism as contradicting Trent, but if you do then you deny the eternal nature of the Church's teaching. Or, you can simply interpret the latter catechism as merely placing a very strong emphasis on one purpose of the death penalty, while giving insufficient emphasis on another. But note, there is a second purpose to the death penalty, neglected by John Paul's writings, which is to suppress outrage. When the state takes it apon itself to bestow leniancy without avenging the aggrieved, the aggrieved naturally turn towards outrage and violence. Thus, such "mercy" not only robs the guilty of the opportunity to fully appreciate the horror of their evil, but also threatens the souls of the aggrieved, by depriving them of a just outlet for their satisfaction.
St. Thomas AquinasIt is written: "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" (Ex. 22:18); and: "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land" (Ps. 100:8). …
Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)
The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit 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 obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.”
Bless their hearts.
On several occasions, innocent people have died in jail before they are exonerated, which also sucked. But you cannot just not punish people for fear that they might be innocent. Your arguments are valid for tightening up the justice system and putting safeguards in place to prevent wrongful conviction, not lessening the punishment for those who are convicted.
Yes, there is earthly redemption for murder. Christ teaches that those who come to him will be forgiven, provided they confess with their heart that they have sinned, and they do not wish to sin. And that we are to forgive a brother who repents.
Well, why don't we just spring anyone from prison who 'sincerely repents'? It is self-evidently stupid to just let people off their just punishment merely because they express remorse for their actions. People need to be justly punished for what they have done. Forgiveness is about not hating someone for what they have done, not letting them off the lawful and just consequences of their actions.
Thereafter they will do restitution, which since their victim is no longer alive, they cannot perform.
Well, exactly. The only way they can perform restitution is by accepting that they have to die for their actions. IMHO a sincerely repentent murderer would accept their fate without trying to get out of being executed and causing the victim's family more distress by lobbying for eventual release back into society whilst their loved one is still dead and unable to enjoy life.
Do you believe that is sufficient to arrest the deterioration of a state into anarchy and lawlessness? I do not believe the state should have the authority, jury or no, to execute someone.
This has nothing to do with the deterioration of a state into anarchy and lawlessness. As long as the government is governed by the rule of law and a peer jury system, the justice system has a moral right to inflict the death penalty for murder as well as terms of imprisonment, fines etc for lesser offences. I think the equivication of executing people for murder vs a banana republic executing an enemy of the state is a massive strawman argument that focuses its ire at the wrong target, which should be the issue of the rule of law, not the punishments that are inflicted, whether they be imprisonment or the death penalty...
“Your arguments are valid for tightening up the justice system and putting safeguards in place to prevent wrongful conviction, not lessening the punishment for those who are convicted.”
They are also an argument for tightening up the security in jails to ensure that those convicted do not escape. I do not consider the death penalty to be less punishment then having to live the rest of your life in prison.
“Well, why don’t we just spring anyone from prison who ‘sincerely repents’?”
Because imprisonment is their restitution.
“People need to be justly punished for what they have done.”
Absolutely. I believe that life imprisonment is a more just punishment than execution.
“The only way they can perform restitution is by accepting that they have to die for their actions.”
The only way that restitution could be done is by having the aggrieved punish them. Not possible in this case. The state was not killed by this man, ergo, the state has no right to execute.
“lobbying for eventual release back into society”
I disagree with the current practice of paroling murderers. They killed someone, they shouldn’t get out, ever. They will die, just slowly, with all the time in the world to reflect.
“This has nothing to do with the deterioration of a state into anarchy and lawlessness.”
It has absolutely everything to do with this. You tell me it can’t happen, but it can, and it has. Even in the UK. The state, at different times, has chosen to execute those who rejected the authority of the state. They have conducted star chambers which have a hundred percent conviction rate. Canada, believe it or not, has the same operating at present. Sooner rather than later, they will either shut the chambers down, or they will grant them capital punishment.
The only way that restitution could be done is by having the aggrieved punish them. Not possible in this case. The state was not killed by this man, ergo, the state has no right to execute.
Murder is not just a crime against the victim, it is a crime against society, so on that point, I disagree with you. However, even if that was not the case, your point makes no sense. If the state doesn't have the right to punish them because they are 'not the victim' why do they have the right to bang them up but not execute them?
It has absolutely everything to do with this. You tell me it can’t happen, but it can, and it has. Even in the UK. The state, at different times, has chosen to execute those who rejected the authority of the state. They have conducted star chambers which have a hundred percent conviction rate. Canada, believe it or not, has the same operating at present. Sooner rather than later, they will either shut the chambers down, or they will grant them capital punishment. Canada and Britain have 'star chambers'? Wut? In any case, if you have a state that is capable of declaring people guilty by decree, then it is more than capable of putting people to death regardless of legality. In that sort of scenario, having the death penalty for common murderers is a moot point and should be the very least of your worries...
I already said I disagreed with parole boards for those who have murdered someone else, for the reasons stated by Kelsey.
“inflicting it on the innocent should be more repulsive to you”.
There is the chance for exoneration with imprisonment.
“Why waste taxpayer’s money keeping a murderer alive until he drops dead of old age”
If taxpayer dollars are the primary issue, then why do we have prisons at all?
“If the state doesn’t have the right to punish them because they are ‘not the victim’ why do they have the right to bang them up but not execute them?”
Because the state has an interest in the public safety of everyone, which is why they lock up murderers in the first place.
Canada at present has star Chambers. The Human Rights Commissions.
But the simple fact is, there will always be bleeding-heart liberals on parole boards wanting to release murderers. Executing them prevents parole boards from being able to do this.
If taxpayer dollars are the primary issue, then why do we have prisons at all?
Part of the point in having prisons is to trying to reform a criminal before releasing them back into society, whilst at the same time punishing them and protecting the public. If a murderer is never going to be released (or so you think), what is the point in keeping them in prison? All it does is cause unnecessary distress to all concerned, including the murderer themselves.
Canada at present has star Chambers. The Human Rights Commissions.
I see, and these 'Human Rights' commissions have the power to inflict extrajudicial punishments on people do they? Is there any evidence of this? This is the first I've ever heard of these so-called 'star chambers'...
http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080117_24131_24131&page=1
There’s plenty of evidence.
I don’t know if you are a mark steyn fan, but read up.
I’m still failing to see the relevence. What you are describing is a flaw in the judicial process, not the punishment. You could make the same argument against imprisonment and fining, on the basis that they have the potential to be abused. If a government can act arbitarily, then the government will act as it will, regardless of whether the death penalty is on the books or not. This is a strawman argument...
In all of these examples, there is a mechanism by which the damage can be partially mitigate. Fines can be cancelled and returned. Prisoners can be released. The executed cannot become unexecuted. The state does not have the power over life, thus they ought not have power over death.
Like I said, lobby to tighten up the safeguards against wrongful conviction, not to soften the punishment for the guilty. The one thing you can say about the death penalty in this regard is that it tends to focus the mind very strongly in the public eye on the strength of the evidence used to convict someone, and they are probably a lot less likely to be wrongfully convicted as a result...
I know people who have been through hell and back and come out through the other end.
They had that opportunity. Execution ends it here and now. You are right, that sometimes people cannot bear it. Others can and come out stronger for it. Are we to deny those who do come out the other end justice? No.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.