death penelty?

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

http://portal.tds.net/news.php?story=36237

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject:

The death penalty is one of the oldest laws God ever gave. It preceded even Moses, as Noah was the first to be commanded that a murderer should lose his life.

The Catholic Church has an internal conflict over this issue. Most Catholics, including the last several popes, oppose capital punishment, but the Church doesn't teach against it because such a teaching would be a break from tradition. I support capital punishment, and as such find myself on this issue a closer adherent to Church tradition that most Catholics.

Fellow Catholics try to preach at me that abolitionism is the pro-life position. I tell them frankly that I support the death penalty because I am pro-life. No stronger statement can be made to affirm the sanctity of human life than to levy the most severe penalty for taking it.

If I'm wrong, so is God. And if God is wrong, I want to be wrong too.

Today we are executing fewer murderers than ever. The federal government has not executed anyone in over 3 decades. And we are immersed in a culture that assigns very little value to human life. We see it in our music, video games, movies, and our laws. We have made it legal to kill over 40 million unborn babies while those who murder can be out of prison in as little as 2 years. Kids bring guns to school not to go hunting after school, as in decades past, but to mow down fellow students because they didn't like being picked on.

Conveyer belt executions will not better society any more than it did in the French Revolution. The solution is multi faceted and summed up by everyone's need for the Lordship of Jesus Christ, but to fail to visit the most severe of penalties on those who remorselessly kill is also making a strong statement. One that evil people like to hear.

Dominus Flevit

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

you know mike, i can really and truly respect that view...

to me this is a very hard issue...there are sooo many variables...like...

quite a few men on death row...have been cleared by the advancement in dna research...innocent men condemned...spared death...

to me...it is worth keeping up and alive all the murderers...in order not to kill one innocent man wrongly accused, and if he has a case where dna is not an issue one way or another...he has no chance....

but then again, when justice lingers for those who are guilty, and when the judgement is too weak for the crime...wickedness abounds...

and GOD said a murderer is to die...but then again...

GOD HIMself spared the murderer cain...

and it goes on and on....this is one topic...to me, it is just a hard one....

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

i mean...if i were sitting on a jury...and my baby was on trial...

there is no way...no way i could raise my and to vote for his death...i know to some that might sound bad...but no matter what i could not do it...i would die of grief beofre i could...

and what type of person would i be...

if i while being unable to do so to me own son...yet...

willing voted to put another man's son to death for the same charge?...

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:23 am Post subject:

Seldom,

I'm glad we can have a civil conversation on this issue; we are at loggerheads on so many others. I love everyone here, even those I disagree with.

To the possibility that an innocent man may be executed I would argue that our justice system is not perfect and never will be, but that shouldn't keep us from exacting penalties on criminals, even the harshest ones. It's a terrible thing for an innocent man to be executed, but our modern legal system is the best that ever existed, and so such occurrences are rare indeed. That wasn't the case in the past, world over, where many people were wrongfully convicted of crimes which can often be attributed to a biased and unfair legal system that lacks objectivity and a vigorous defense for the accused.

Concerning those who have benefitted from DNA testing, I would invite you to look further into that. They weren't exactly exhonorated as the new evidence only served to create a reasonable doubt compelling enough have their case overturned. It's the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty." These people were most likely guilty, and in many cases other compelling evidence was brought to bear against them during the trial; prosecutors rarely rely only on 1 piece of evidence. Had these people been executed, they would likely have gotten exactly what they deserved.

Concerning your child, rest assured you will never sit on a jury to pass judgement on your child.

And concerning Cain, there is a huge point missed in this story. Yes, God spared the life of Cain, but did that mean that Cain was still not deserving of death? Mercy does not negate the consequences warranted by criminal action, it just means in that case the most fitting penalty was not levied. Showing mercy in one case does not cause a forfeiture of the right and duty to mete out a full dose of justice in other cases.

Another point that gets missed is that the death penalty is also for the protection of society. When we lock up a murderer, we think that society is safe, but we disregard the one segment of society that still isn't safe, that is, other inmates. Many murderers continue to murder in prison. If it was your child that was only serving 2 years for robbing a convenience store, but he was murdered in prison by a convicted murderer that rightfully should have been on death row, would you feel that society had adequately protected your child? And what if there is a prison break? The only way to ensure that a murderer will not kill again is to put him to death.

Dominus Flevit

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:51 am Post subject:

I would also like to make a point on the spiritual consequences of murder.

Mormons believe that a murderer cannot be saved and is forever condemned based on 1Jn 3:15 that says, "and you know that no murderer has eternal life."
While I don't believe this is entirely true, there is a point to be made here.

People, whether they believe or not, are recipients of God's goodness and grace. I believe murder can shut off a soul from the beauty of and goodness of life that is vouchsafed by God. We are tempted to think that anyone can repent at anytime and be saved, but forget that the initial act of grace comes from God. If he doesn't initiate, man cannot repent; and God reserves the right to have mercy on whom he will, and withhold it as he sees fit. (Exodus 33:19)

David is an example of how difficult it is to obtain pardon for murder. He not only murdered the rightful husband of Bathsheba, but he premeditated it. His act was one of pure greed. He sought the mercy of the Lord through fasting, prayer, and wasting away with grief. He allowed his soul to experience the full torment of what he had done, and it also cost him his most dear possession, the life of his son. This whole ordeal had most likely aged David quite a bit.

That is the true value of human life, and the true horror of the act of taking it. David deserved death and damnation, but God spared him by allowing him to feel the remorse of what he had done so that he could offer a heart wrenching repentence. God doesn't do this for everyone.

Paul is another example. Though he didn't actively murder anyone, he facilitated persecution and murder. Because of this, he felt indebted to spend the rest of his life serving the Church; not that he didn't know he was forgiven, but that forgiveness did not absolve the obligation of life long pennance.

There are murderers in prison that have received salvation through Jesus Christ. They, perhaps more than most of us, have a deep and abiding appreciation of the mercy of God. They have, like David, faced the egregious nature of their action and did not spare themselves from the deepest of remorse. I don't think salvation for a murderer is possible without the initial act of mercy from God, and the extreme response of the penitant.

Which bring us back to Cain, as you mentioned earlier. Yes God spared his life, but Cain expressed not the least bit of remorse. He was more concerned about his own physical safety than he was the condition of his soul. From the text one can see that God invited Cain to visit the horror of having murdered his only brother, but Cain refused to reciprocate. Care to guess the eternal fate of Cain?

In the Sacred Heart of Christ

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

also...

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

we were cross posting...i have a post on top of yours.. Wink

also..

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:59 am Post subject:

"at loggerheads" is such an antiquated term. This is what it means:

45degreeN · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 10:00 am Post subject:

I have delayed posting on this issue for the obvious and agreed upon point that it is a rather difficult issue to decide. I'm not convinced that society gains anything much from executing certain criminals. We have super max prisons where we can send our most heinous inmates.

The US has more people incarcerated than just about any civilized nation. We incarcerate people for possessing entertaining drugs like grass and have three strikes laws that send people to jail for very long times. All for an enormous amount of money that might be better spent elsewhere.

But we have little that breaks the cycle of crime for people. I know that some people just need to be locked up but isn't there some other way to deal with our criminals?

saintmichaeldefendthem · Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject:

There are 2 different kinds of people in the world, those who admit that at least once they thought about killing someone.....and liars.

So let's take this in a new direction. When contemplating the death of another human being, what made you think twice? (I mean other than moral scruples).

For me, forensic science shows stop me cold. I know that there is no way I could get away with it. Some speck of blood revealed by blue light, or some fibre, or the breeding cycle of a rare species of algae would spell my doom.

What's scary is how little the penal system scares me. I think, "I will only serve about 20 years, maybe less". How many criminals who truly are disposed to murder have the same thought process? There is no way abolitionists can argue away deterrence. When society lessens the penalty for crimes, it ensures the crime will occur more often.

Does anyone ever watch Law and Order? (my favorite is SVU). Police detectives and prosecutors use just the threat of a "needle in the arm" to solicit the cooperation of participants in a crime. The death penalty is used as a powerful negotiating tool in our justice system. When it comes right down to it, nobody wants to die. But for the threat to keep its teeth, the guillotine blade must fall once in a while.

Blessed be God forever

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

theseldomscene · Banned Joined: 17 Mar 2005 Posts: 7817

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6840 Location: USA

I wonder what is more cruel and unusual and what is more expedient?

If we as a society determine that an individual is not fit to be part of our society due to the nature of his/her crimes and behaviors, why then would we want to subject them to a life removed from that society? Wouldn't it be more expedient and charitable to that individual and to the society to simply remove them from existence completely?

If we have rubbish that we do not want, need, or have any desire to be around, do we leave it in the middle of the floor? Do we sweep it under the rug or put it in a corner to occupy our space? Or, do we throw it out, incinerate it, dispose of it completely?

If we, as a society determine that an individual is nothing more than rubbish doesn't it make sense to dispose of that rubbish completely?