Replies

To people who are pro-life and pro-death penalty....I am just curious, I voted for Bush, yet I find myself more libertarian in views....What is the difference between killing a baby and killing somone on death row? I KNOW that a person on death row murdered and is a horrible person, but isn't killing that person a bit hypocritical? I'm just curious to get some viewpoints, not trying to debate, or offend people. Thanks.

If you can't figure that one out on your own, then maybe don't ask the question in public...?

...What is the difference between killing a baby and killing somone on death row? I KNOW that a person on death row murdered and is a horrible person, but isn't killing that person a bit hypocritical?

Moral Theology 101:

The commandment is "thou shalt not murder" not thou shalt not kill. The killing of an innocent is always and everywhere an inherently evil act, it can never be justified.

In the case of the death penalty you are not dealing with innoncence.The moral reasoning for the Death penalty is a) punatative and b)preventative. It would be a violation of justice and charity for societies to fail to protect their weakest members. Therefore the death penalty is allowed. John Paul II has argued that in modern society there are better ways of dealing with violent predators - incarceration. That is a debatable opinion, not an infallible teaching of the Magesterium.

What is the difference between killing a baby and killing somone on death row? I KNOW that a person on death row murdered and is a horrible person, but isn't killing that person a bit hypocritical?

First of all, it usually takes 20 years for a person on Death Row to be executed [from date of sentence]

We know that the unborn are totally innocent.

In the Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, there is the Just War doctrine by St Thomas Aquinas.

This theology states that if you are a husband and father, and someone is going to kill your wife and children, and your only recourse is to kill that person, that is self defense, and part of this theology.

The Roman Catholic Church for a long time has not come out against the Death Penalty -- as administered by the Civil Government.

Pope John Paul II is against the Death Penalty, but in countries such as Columbia, where a Drug Lord might be to bribe his way out of prison, and then kill innocent people, it is justified to execute the Drug Lord.

This should not happen in the United States. But what if Guards are killed in prison or other inmates? This can happen with any prisoner in a prison.

But the United States should be able to control violent and dangerous felons by life in prison terms.

In one case -- it is clear cut wrong -- abortion has been wrong in the Roman Catholic Church since the Didache was written. The Didache was written about the time of first Gospel or before.

On the other hand, the current Pope is against the Death Penalty, but not for third world countries where truly dangerous, powerful, and rich criminals can bribe or extort their way out of prison.

For example, what if Saddam Hussein is put in prison for life, there is an uprising, he is freed, and then he takes out vengence on the Iraqi people -- killing hundreds of thousands of people.

Executing Saddam Hussein would be justified in that scenario because it would save innocent lives down the line.

The point about the Death Penalty -- it is not cut and dried what to do. But I would march to stop someone from being executed on Death Row. At the same time I might march against the same person being paroled if I felt he might still be a danger to society.

It is possible, through legal loopholes, for criminals to get out of jail.

The movie Onion Field -- which is a 1970s flick as I recall -- is a true story of a cop killer who gets out jail.

On the other hand, Susan Hayworth played the lead in a movie called I want to Live where she is innocent and proven innocent -- but only after she is executed.

In the United States, Death Penalty cases normally will go to the Governor, and then appealed automatically to the state Supreme Court, and then to the United States Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the person has an additional 20 years of life (or maybe it is less).

Stays of execution can be hard on the criminals as well.

But the unborn are not even given a chance to be born.

There is a fellow at Princeton [University Professor] who is advocating that if children are born defective, the parents would be given a period of time before they could decide to have their child killed. This Professor is Peter Singer, and I believe he was the Bio-Ethics advisor to Clinton.

Hey, I'm pro-life and pro-death(penalty). Why? For the same reason that I'm pro-life and pro-miltary, or why I work for the government in a weapons lab (not currently, time off for school right now).

In my pre-grad school days (when I had free time!, and by the way, I really shouldn't be posting now, I should be doing research...) I often liked to think about the origin of government, that is, why and by what right does it exist?

Of course I always like reading the classics, like John Locke's 2nd treatise, because they were pretty easily understandable. He basically argued that we voluntarily give up some rights to the government so that the governmental body could prevent one individual from imposing himself on the rights of another. Gross oversimplification, but as a libertarian I suppose you would partially agree? Government stays out of your life except to the extent needed to make sure other individuals stay out of your life?

Anyway, so that brings us to crime and punishment. Which seems to be the basic reason that governmental bodies exist. Now I believe the reason that punishments for crime exist is not to seek vengeance, but rather as a disincentive for future crimes. (well, and for crimes such as theft, if possible to seek restitution for the victim. but obviously this is not the case with murder). To enforce punishments the governmental body will have to obviously step on freedoms of the culprit, but this should be done only to a reasonable extent depending on the crime. However in the case of a life being taken we want to provide the maximum disincentive to prevent future murders. Ideally we want to give up the minimal personal freedoms to the government while still gaining the necessary amount of protection from others.

The death penalty works far better than other punishments in my humble opinion. It (in an ideal world without all the litigious appeals we have added in this culture) is the minimization of the oppression of personal rights by the government for the protection of life (a personal right) from other individuals. That's my opinion anyway. Which incidentally should make it ideal from a libertarian viewpoint. (note: I am not strictly a libertarian myself)

So here as a libertarian you should question whether or not my statement is valid. (that is, is the death penalty really the minimization of personal rights given to government for the protection of my personal rights from others). If not, then I am giving up personal rights to the government for nothing.

To be perfectly clear these are the reasons I believe it is:
1. It is a much much stronger deterrent
2. The state would (ideally) not have to pay for living expenses for the lifetime of the criminal.

Ok, so the 2nd point doesn't hold valid in today's society, but I believe the 1st is still enough to make it valid. I think a book which has some interesting insight into this is The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. Don't agree with all of the book, but it is an interesting read. It is not solely about this issue, but it covers it as well as many others.

-paridel

The commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," if you read Hebrew. Killing was done all the time in the OT--in fact the penalty for breaking some laws was death. Killing those guilty of a capital crime is not murder. Aborting babies is.