Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

Donatello

I'm not much of a fan of the death penalty, but if ever there was a case for it, this in my mind would be it.

Why? This individual can never be released (but he probably will be, right?) and will remain a danger in prison or an institution to anybody that comes in contact with him. He poses a lethal danger for as long as he lives and will cost money to guard and pose risk to the guards. Nobody who cuts another person's head off can ever be trusted again.

What do you think should happen? What effect does your Christian faith have, if any, on what should happen?

Votes are private so feel free to vote and post a comment if you wish.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of the death penalty, but if ever there was a case for it, this in my mind would be it.

This individual can never be released (but he probably will be , right?) and will remain a danger in prison or an institution to anybody that comes in contact with him.

What do you think should happen?

I think the mentally ill and those with diminished responsibility have it hard enough as it is.

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

I think the mentally ill and those with diminished responsibility have it hard enough as it is.

What about the poor woman who had her head cut off? What about the prison guards in the future? What about the mental nurses?

When you do something this bad, as far as I am concerned, you forfeit your own rights. In this case, your right to life.

The teaching of the Church does not exclude capital punishment. I think this is a textbook case where it could be justified. The man is unfit to be released and poses an enduring severe risk to anybody who comes into contact with him. The risk and the expense would be too great.

The Catechism says this:

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 with 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 non-existent."

Prison guards have rights too, as do psychiatric nurses. It's not simply the public who need to be protected.

Background reading here: Capital Punishment: Drawing the Line Between Doctrine and Opinion

Of particular note:

The Place of Prudential Judgement

In matters governing social stability and public safety, prudential judgement is inevitable. Moreover, the authority for judgement in this sphere is not given to the Church. It is the province of the “secular arm”—the legitimately constituted civil authority—to decide what is and is not sufficient to protect public safety.

Now, since the Church teaches that non-lethal means of punishment must be used whenever they are sufficient, no Catholic politician or ruler worthy of the name will attempt to impose the death penalty in cases where he does not believe it necessary to protect the public safety. But politicians, rulers, States and, indeed, the man in the street, may reasonably differ over whether capital punishment is necessary to protect the public safety in our time and under our circumstances.

In Evangelium Vitae 27, the Pope states that “modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.” And, as we have seen in Point 2 cited above, in EV 56 he argues specifically that the improvement in modern penal systems renders the death penalty unnecessary for the protection of public safety.

It is, I think, unfortunate that this prudential judgement was added to the Catechism. No matter how valuable it may be, the protection of the Holy Spirit does not apply to it, nor can such judgements ever be part of the Church’s Magisterium. The Church has no special gift for discerning the capabilities of the modern age in comparison with past ages, the quality of the world’s penitentiaries, or —to return to the main point—what is necessary for the protection of the public safety. For this reason, her opinions on this subject do not properly belong in catechisms.

I think that is true. Is it reasonable to subject future guards to risk? Is it reasonable to keep alive some Hannibal Lecter character alive, in shackles, for life? Why? What is to be gained? To preserve his 'dignity'? I think he dispensed with that when he cut yer woman's head off. Additionally, a maniac can languish for life without remorse in prison. Death in the morning can have a powerful effect on sinners. Many sinners repent before they are executed. In many ways, it can be kinder to the soul of a sinner.

Quo Vadis

Please remember to say a few prayers for poor lady caught up in this awful event and her family.



Ms Jennifer Mills-Westley RIP

Eternal rest, grant unto her, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon her.
May her soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace.

Amen.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

What about the poor woman who had her head cut off? What about the prison guards in the future? What about the mental nurses?

When you do something this bad, as far as I am concerned, you forfeit your own rights. In this case, your right to life.

I had no idea this was a religious thread. Attitudes like yours remind me why I have no truck with religion.

I hope you are not representative of all Christians.

Maybe you'd be in favour of rounding up all the mentally ill and locking them away from society, just in case?

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

I had no idea this was a religious thread. Attitudes like yours remind me why I have no truck with religion.

I hope you are not representative of all Christians.

Maybe you'd be in favour of rounding up all the mentally ill and locking them away from society, just in case?

False compassion.

False compassion led bishops of the Catholic Church to pity poor rapists so they could be 'treated' then go back to maul the flock. Where was the concern for the lambs?

False compassion would lead to false charity for a maniac whilst subjecting future innocent persons to severe risk. Prison guards and nurses have rights too.

Additionally, most mentally ill persons are not a risk to others, more so to themselves. This case is a horrific exception.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

False compassion.

False compassion led bishops of the Catholic Church to pity poor rapists so they could be 'treated' then go back to maul the flock. Where was the concern for the lambs?

False compassion would lead to false charity for a maniac whilst subjecting future innocent persons to severe risk. Prison guards and nurses have rights too.

Additionally, most mentally ill persons are not a risk to others, more so to themselves. This case is a horrific exception.

And you buy into this eye for an eye? Murder is murder, whether committed by an ididvidual or the state.

And in my book, letting a religion dictate your morals and who lives and dies, is pretty maniacal.

So, let me get this straight.

You're in favour of killing a severely mentally ill man not only because of what he has done, but what he might yet do? This is even beyond the concept of a thought crime. You're saying it wouldn't be unreasonable to kill him because he might commit another crime in the future.

I've seen you speak fervently against abortion, contraception, eugenics and euthanasia. Just yesterday you proclaimed that the latter two were spear-headed by atheistic (read evil) groups and organisations. Yet, you're willing to kill a man because of what he might do, even when he isn't sound of mind?

That must be the very definition of a hypocrite.

wolfsbane

Donatello wrote: »

I'm not much of a fan of the death penalty, but if ever there was a case for it, this in my mind would be it.

Why? This individual can never be released (but he probably will be, right?) and will remain a danger in prison or an institution to anybody that comes in contact with him. He poses a lethal danger for as long as he lives and will cost money to guard and pose risk to the guards. Nobody who cuts another person's head off can ever be trusted again.

What do you think should happen? What effect does your Christian faith have, if any, on what should happen?

Votes are private so feel free to vote and post a comment if you wish.

I'm in favour of CP for murder - but being insane is a defence in mitigation. Life in a secure hospital/prison seems proper, even if a burden on the State.

******************************************************************************
Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

You're in favour of killing a severely mentally ill man not only because of what he has done, but what he might yet do? This is even beyond the concept of a thought crime. You're saying it wouldn't be unreasonable to kill him because he might commit another crime in the future.

I've seen you speak fervently against abortion, contraception, eugenics and euthanasia. Just yesterday you proclaimed that the latter two were spear-headed by atheistic (read evil) groups and organisations. Yet, you're willing to kill a man because of what he might do, even when he isn't sound of mind?

That must be the very definition of a hypocrite.

You know, there's got to be something very wrong with a person's values and thought processes when they would advocate the killing in the womb of little unborn babies as a 'woman's right', yet decry the execution by the state of a murderous psychopath for the protection of others.

So let me get this straight: past actions don't give rise to future concerns about possible future behaviours? And you'd be happy to share a cheap hostel dorm with this fellow? Everybody deserves a second chance, right?

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

You know, there's got to be something very wrong with a person's values and thought processes when they would advocate the killing in the womb of little unborn babies as a 'woman's right', yet decry the execution by the state of a murderous psychopath for the protection of others.

So let me get this straight: past actions don't give rise to future concerns about possible future behaviours? And you'd be happy to share a cheap hostel dorm with this fellow? Everybody deserves a second chance, right?

What would Jesus do?

As for terminating a non human being, that's a lot different from murdering a mentally ill person.

You seem hellbent on having this man murdered. Slightly alarming.

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

What would Jesus do?

As for terminating a non human being, that's a lot different from murdering a mentally ill person.

You seem hellbent on having this man murdered. Slightly alarming.

And your desire to kill 'non-persons' is very alarming.

What would Jesus do? 'Let the little children come to me.'

Meanwhile, His Church Who teaches in His name and authority, allows for the death penalty in limited circumstances - see my above posts.

rainbow kirby

That many in support of execution? Pro-lifers my arse.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

You know, there's got to be something very wrong with a person's values and thought processes when they would advocate the killing in the womb of little unborn babies as a 'woman's right', yet decry the execution by the state of a murderous psychopath for the protection of others.

That's beside the point I was making.

So let me get this straight: past actions don't give rise to future concerns about possible future behaviours? And you'd be happy to share a cheap hostel dorm with this fellow? Everybody deserves a second chance, right?

My point is simple: A person shouldn't be executed simply because they may commit a crime in the future, even if past actions lead one to conclude that may be the case. This case is especially true when the person in question is severely mentally ill. I find this incredibly inconsistent with your views on, say, euthanasia.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

And your desire to kill 'non-persons' is very alarming.

I have no desire to kill anyone. A foetus is not a human being.

Why do you desire the murder of a mentally ill person?

I am intrigued though, what would Jesus do, do you think?

Donatello

rainbow kirby wrote: »

That many in support of execution? Pro-lifers my arse.

As an aside, the poll is open to all, not just pro-lifers, not just Christians, but all. Perhaps try to be more objective in future.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

What would Jesus do? 'Let the little children come to me.'

Meanwhile, His Church Who teaches in His name and authority, allows for the death penalty in limited circumstances - see my above posts.

What does that quote mean, exactly in relation to your support for murder?

And why should a religion dictate law and order?

What authority should a church have over life and death?

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

I have no desire to kill anyone. A foetus is not a human being.

Why do you desire the murder of a mentally ill person?

I am intrigued though, what would Jesus do, do you think?

Actually, a fetus is a human being. But I digress, and you ought not to.

Moving on... What would Jesus do? I think He might perform an exorcism. The possibility of possession ought to be examined. Beyond that, I'd say He would say the same as what the Church teaches. You've read the quotation from the Catechism, bearing in mind what was posted earlier:

CCC2267 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."68

old hippy wrote: »

What does that quote mean, exactly in relation to your support for murder?

And why should a religion dictate law and order?

What authority should a church have over life and death?

Murder is the killing of the innocent, like unborn children or women out shopping.

The Catholic Church proposes, She does not dictate.

The Church proposes sound moral guidance so that the state can make an appropriate decision on what should be done in the running of its affairs. Note that the Church proposes, and the state acts, ideally in a moral fashion.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

Actually, a fetus is a human being. But I digress, and you ought not to.

Moving on... What would Jesus do? I think He might perform an exorcism. The possibility of possession ought to be examined.

He's mentally ill. This talk of possessions and demons would have me question your sanity. If that offends, I'm sorry but I don't know how else to put it.

Isn't that ironic, though?

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

Murder is the killing of the innocent, like unborn children or women out shopping.

Emotive language like unborn children won't win me over, I'm afraid.

Murdering humans is wrong though be it the victim or the killer.

Do you believe the world would be a better place with your old testament revenge and retribution? I certainly don't.

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

Emotive language like unborn children won't win me over, I'm afraid.

Murdering humans is wrong though be it the victim or the killer.

Do you believe the world would be a better place with your old testament revenge and retribution? I certainly don't.

You've ignored the fact that murder is the killing of the innocent. I'm not prepared to engage with you further if you ignore facts.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

You've ignored the fact that murder is the killing of the innocent. I'm not prepared to engage with you further if you ignore facts.

Murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another human being. The innocence of either party has nothing to do with it.

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another human being. The innocence of either party has nothing to do with it.

I'm sure Dignitas and other so called "assisted suicide" organisations would disagree with that definition.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

You've ignored the fact that murder is the killing of the innocent. I'm not prepared to engage with you further if you ignore facts.

Murder is taking the life of another human being; innocent or otherwise. Your accusation bears no weight and talk of possession et al undermines any point you have to make about "facts".

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

Murder is taking the life of another human being; innocent or otherwise. Your accusation bears no weight and talk of possession et al undermines any point you have to make about "facts".

I reject your manipulative redefinition of terms and refuse to engage further with you if you persist.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

If the state attaches the penalty to a crime of execution, it is lawful, & the Church does not absolutely forbid recourse to capital punishment.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sure Dignitas and other so called "assisted suicide" organisations would disagree with that definition.

I'd have thought an integral component to the concept of murder to be the fact that the person being murdered didn't want to be killed. That's not the case with assisted suicide, so I see no comparison between the two. I suppose if I were to define it more rigorously I'd include that caveat.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

I reject your manipulative redefinition of terms and refuse to engage further with you if you persist.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb: Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.

Thank you. Your reference describes my point exactly; murder by the state is premeditated.

Feel free to bail out if this is too difficult and conflicting for you; you have been vocal about "facts" but when challenged on whether there is any fact regarding demonic possession speak of manipulation and lie about this poster ignoring so called said "facts".

Perhaps try to be more objective in future?

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

Thank you. Your reference describes my point exactly; murder by the state is premeditated.

Feel free to bail out if this is too difficult and conflicting for you; you have been vocal about "facts" but when challenged on whether there is any fact regarding demonic possession speak of manipulation and lie about this poster ignoring so called said "facts".

Perhaps try to be more objective in future?

Note the use of the word 'lawful'. If the state attaches that penalty to the most serious crimes, then it is lawful. The Church might even support it in principal if the criteria are met that would justify it from the Church's perspective.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Note the use of the word 'lawful'. If the state attaches that penalty to the most serious crimes, then it is lawful. The Church might even support it in principal if the criteria are met that would justify it from the Church's perspective.

You're arguing about something else now. You've moved from the argument that the definition of murder was dependent on innocence, to arguing that if a State implements the death penalty then the Church can or can not object, as they see fit. Stop moving the goalposts.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You're arguing about something else now. You've moved from the argument that the definition of murder was dependent on innocence, to arguing that if a State implements the death penalty then the Church can or can not object, as they see fit. Stop moving the goalposts.

Those who are executed by the state are by definition not innocent, hence it is not murder. Murder is killing of the innocent. Murder is unlawful. This is what you have to work with. Stop wriggling.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

Those who are executed by the state are by definition not innocent, hence it is not murder. Murder is killing of the innocent. Murder is unlawful. This is what you have to work with. Stop wriggling.

Your definition of murder is selective, at the very least. Murder is the taking of life whether "lawful" or not. Hence my inclusion of state or religion in this debate.

And if this mentally ill man is possessed by demonic forces as you claim; then surely his actions were not under his control and he was, indeed, innocent? Your execution decree would surely then be murder under your "killing of the innocent" line.

Fact or fiction, you decide.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

Those who are executed by the state are by definition not innocent, hence it is not murder. Murder is killing of the innocent. Murder is unlawful. This is what you have to work with. Stop wriggling.

So...

Murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of an innocent individual by another individual.

A state can kill an individual if it's in the state's law that execution is befitting a crime that individual has commited. This person is no longer innocent, so the state's killing of this person isn't murder.

The reasons why a person may be lawfully killed by a state are dependent on the state's own, manmade laws.

Manmade laws are open to being exploited by a state, especially if the state is being ran by a totalitarian dictator.

Can't you see how this is a slippery, slippery slope? Is it not clear that your definition is far from solid?

Fanny Cradock

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd have thought an integral component to the concept of murder to be the fact that the person being murdered didn't want to be killed. That's not the case with assisted suicide, so I see no comparison between the two. I suppose if I were to define it more rigorously I'd include that caveat.

Perhaps. But your definition didn't make any such distinction. I can't read minds.

Herb Powell

Four words, OP;
THOU SHALT NOT KILL

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So...

Murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of an innocent individual by another individual.

A state can kill an individual if it's in the state's law that execution is befitting a crime that individual has commited. This person is no longer innocent, so the state's killing of this person isn't murder.

The reasons why a person may be lawfully killed by a state are dependent on the state's own, manmade laws.

Manmade laws are open to being exploited by a state, especially if the state is being ran by a totalitarian dictator.

Can't you see how this is a slippery, slippery slope? Is it not clear that your definition is far from solid?

In my imaginary state, the death penalty would only be used in the most extreme cases where the individual was guilty. Yer man seen hacking the poor woman's head off and then running into the street with it would establish guilt in my mind.

I only introduced the dictionary definition of murder since you insisted it covered the killing of anyone. My definition of murder was the killing of the innocent - I revised that in light of the dictionary definition in the hope that we could agree on that. Either way, when the state lawfully executes a criminal, by Catholic standards, he must be guilty of a serious crime and all the criteria must be met if it is to be considered a moral option. I honestly don't think you people even read my quotations from the Catechism which is why these threads go round in circles and you misunderstand and misrepresent the Catholic position.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

I honestly don't think you people even read my quotations from the Catechism which is why these threads go round in circles and you misunderstand and misrepresent the Catholic position.

If I used quotations from the Koran or Shinto beliefs to represent my position would it make my argument solid, do you think?

I'm still waiting to hear your own position on the idea of a state murdering an innocent man suffering from possession...

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

In my imaginary state, the death penalty would only be sued in the most extreme cases where the individual was guilty. Yer man seen hacking the poor woman's head off and then running into the street with it would establish guilt in my mind.

That's in your ideal state. But, if you allow a state to kill an individual if they've broken a crime, regardless of what that crime is, you're on a slippery slope. I know how much I trust this state with most aspects of my life (very little); they can barely run a business, let alone determine whether or when it's just to end another individual's life.

What happens when the enevitable happens: when an individual who was thought to be guilty has been killed, only to find out later that he was innocent?

I only introduced the dictionary definition of murder since you insisted it covered the killing of anyone. My definition of murder was the killing of the innocent - I revised that in light of the dictionary definition in the hope that we could agree on that. Either way, when the state lawfully executes a criminal, by Catholic standards, he must be guilty of a serious crime and all the criteria must be met if it is to be considered a moral option. I honestly don't think you people even read my quotations from the Catechism which is why these threads go round in circles and you misunderstand and misrepresent the Catholic position.

I've read your quotations.

I still argue that the only sound definition of murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of one individual by another, when the person being killed is being killed against their choice (which includes execution).

You still haven't said why you consider it just to kill a mentally ill man incase he commits a crime again. I'd like to hear why you think that's ok, not what the RCC has to say about the matter.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You still haven't said why you consider it just to kill a mentally ill man incase he commits a crime again. I'd like to hear why you think that's ok, not what the RCC has to say about the matter.

The penalty of death would be for the crime he has committed - killing the woman. It would also have the benefit that nobody else need be put at risk. There is no way of knowing he wouldn't do it again, and he could attack a prison officer or nurse. The death penalty would mean that he is punished for his crime and cannot offend again.

I think too often mental illness is used as an excuse for people who do bad things, and it makes allowances for them and facilitates their re-offending. It makes me very uncomfortable. It was exactly the same reasoning which caused the abuse crisis in the Church.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

I think too often mental illness is used as an excuse for people who do bad things, and it makes allowances for them and facilitates their re-offending. It makes me very uncomfortable. It was exactly the same reasoning which caused the abuse crisis in the Church.

Excuse me but how dare you? You cannot compare mentally ill people with paedophiles.

How can the mentally ill be responsible for their actions? Do they even know they are doing bad things?

Which reminds me, is the man mentally ill or possessed by demons?

Either way, he has no real control of his actions and is therefore innocent in a sense.

Donatello

Donatello wrote: »

The penalty of death would be for the crime he has committed - killing the woman. It would also have the benefit that nobody else need be put at risk. There is no way of knowing he wouldn't do it again, and he could attack a prison officer or nurse. The death penalty would mean that he is punished for his crime and cannot offend again.

I think too often mental illness is used as an excuse for people who do bad things, and it makes allowances for them and facilitates their re-offending. It makes me very uncomfortable. It was exactly the same reasoning which caused the abuse crisis in the Church.

How to you reconcile this view with the view of euthanasia you expressed yesterday? There's nothing inherently wrong with killing a mentally ill individual for fear that he may hurt again, yet there's something wrong with an individual who's suffering a horrible death wishing to pass away painlessly with the aid of a doctor?

Donatello

old hippy wrote: »

Excuse me but how dare you? You cannot compare mentally ill people with paedophiles.

How can the mentally ill be responsible for their actions? Do they even know they are doing bad things?

Which reminds me, is the man mentally ill or possessed by demons?

Either way, he has no real control of his actions and is therefore innocent in a sense.

Howl on - I did not compare mentally ill persons with pedos - I compared violent sociopaths (those who do 'bad things') with pedos. Both do bad things and both are mentally deranged, although both would probably deny the gravity of their offenses and even deny that they were deranged.

The fella would need to be examined by psychiatrists to diagnose and then if needed he could be examined by exorcists.

Fanny Cradock

I think it's only fair of you to make that distinction if you either reject or accept both capital punishment and euthanasia as lawful options.

Fanny Cradock

old hippy wrote: »

You cannot compare mentally ill people with paedophiles.

Of course, in lieu of an accepted definition of mental illness, one could claim that paedophilia is just that.


Just to add that I am totally against capital punishment.

Stark

We should just shoot everyone tbh. God will sort them all out.

Donatello

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How to you reconcile this view with the view of euthanasia you expressed yesterday? There's nothing inherently wrong with killing a mentally ill individual for fear that he may hurt again, yet there's something wrong with an individual who's suffering a horrible death wishing to pass away painlessly with the aid of a doctor?

We are not the authors of life. We cannot decide when our life ends. This is why the Church rejects euthanasia and suicide.

However, the Church teaches that the death penalty might be justified in very extreme circumstances.

I am personally against euthanasia, suicide, and the death penalty. However, this latest case is so horrific that I think the death penalty might be justified. I don't know that it is justified.

St. Thomas gives very good reasons for us to be in favor of the death penalty. He says:

“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” (3).

[...]

Confirming the doctrine set out by St. Thomas Aquinas regarding the possibility of converting a criminal condemned to death, let me give three examples of how the death penalty is just.

1. In 1959 a 19-year-old killed a police officer, and was sentenced to die at San Quentin. I was a Correctional Officer at San Quentin at the time, and was assigned to his execution. There were two Jesuits at the execution, and afterwards I was able to speak with them. One of them had heard the young man's confession. I asked the priest if the convicted man was ready to die. He smiled warmly and said he was. An article appeared shortly after this in a major newspaper, written by the superior of the slain officer. In the article he marveled at the disposition of the penitent at the time of death (7). St. Thomas was right.

2. In poignant contrast to this story is another one that happened a few years afterwards. In 1966 Richard Speck, in an inhuman orgy of rape and sodomy, murdered eight student nurses in Chicago. He was sentenced to death, but in 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court found the death penalty to be unconstitutional (8). This case became famous and in 1996 a documentary film was made that in part dealt with Speck's life in prison (9). It showed explicit scenes of sex, drug-use, and money being passed around by prisoners who appeared to have no fear of being caught. In the center was Speck, ingesting cocaine, parading around in silk panties, sporting female-like breasts grown from smuggled hormone treatments, and boasting, “If they only knew how much fun I was having, they'd turn me loose"

Speck died of natural causes in 1991, that is, 25 years after his horrendous crimes. I heard nothing about any repentance. Another confirmation of St. Thomas’ doctrine.

3. Let me cite another example taken from the memories of St. Therese of Lisieux. On August 31, 1887, The New York Times ran an article on page five announcing the conversion of the notorious murderer: "Execution of Pranzini; the murderer of Mme. Regnault expiates his crime.” (10). St. Therese, then Marie-Francoise-Therese Martin was 14-years-old at the time. She had prayed and sacrificed with the intention that the unrepentant Pranzini would convert. She had begged God to be shown a sign that the conversion had actually taken place.

In her Autobiography, she reports: "He had mounted the scaffold and was preparing to place his head in the formidable opening, when suddenly, seized by an inspiration, he turned, took hold of the crucifix the priest was holding out to him, and kissed the sacred wounds three times! Then his soul went to receive the merciful sentence of Him who declares that in heaven there will be more joy over one sinner who does penance than over ninety-nine just who have no need of repentance" (11).

Like the Jesuit who heard the condemned man's confession at San Quentin, Therese Martin, soon to be St. Therese of Lisieux, understood that the most important thing was the criminal should repent and die well so as to be received in the Kingdom of God.

Bloody Nipples

OP, the fact that for it to be murder requires it to be premeditated which is nigh on impossible to prove with a man with a history of mental illness.

There is no "suitable punishment". You don't punish the mentally ill, you treat them as you would treat any sick person. And Pope John Paul has set out the viewpoint of the Catholic Church on capital punishment when he suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Also competence must be determined when considering a guilty verdict because if someone is incapable of obeying a law as result of mental illness then they cannot be deemed to have had the intent to break it and can therefore not be considered to have exercised malicious intent which underpins all lawbreaking.

Donatello

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

OP, the fact that for it to be murder requires it to be premeditated which is nigh on impossible to prove with a man with a history of mental illness.

There is no "suitable punishment". You don't punish the mentally ill, you treat them as you would treat any sick person. And Pope John Paul has set out the viewpoint of the Catholic Church on capital punishment when he suggested that capital punishment should be avoided unless it is the only way to defend society from the offender in question, opining that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Also competence must be determined when considering a guilty verdict because if someone is incapable of obeying a law as result of mental illness then they cannot be deemed to have had the intent to break it and can therefore not be considered to have exercised malicious intent which underpins all lawbreaking.

That bit in bold is of the order of opinion, even the opinion of the Pope, not Church doctrine. See here.

The commentary that I provided earlier from CatholicCulture.org highlighted the limitations of Pope John Paul II's thoughts on this matter, as well as reminding us that in the same document he tended to rejecting the death penalty, he also reaffirmed the Church's Traditional doctrine on the matter:

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

So there you have it - the Church does not absolutely condemn the death penalty, not even of murderous psychopaths who are, by definition, out of their minds, to protect innocent human life. If you want to read more about this topic, read these articles:

Capital Punishment: Drawing the Line Between Doctrine and Opinion

The Church's Evolving View on the Death Penalty

I'm not interested in a discussion with non-Christians on this matter since I had hoped to have a discussion among Christians. This thread has turned into an anti-Catholic polemical debacle, thus demonstrating that there is need for a Christian-only forum, where Christians can discuss matters without interference or thread hijacking, but that is by the by.

Frankly, I am not interested in conversing with those who, on the one hand, get warm fuzzies about murderous psychopaths, and on the other, condemn unborn babies to death in the name of 'choice.' This is false compassion of the very worst kind.

For those who are interested, I provide these following excerpts with highlighted bits which I think are important and relevant to this sad case in Tenerife, and which may be of interest to readers who want to follow up on this topic on their own.

This is a very good excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for St. Thomas Aquinas.

Death penalty

The following is a summary of Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146, which was written by Aquinas prior to writing the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. This was based on the theory (found in natural moral law), that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without.
For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God's laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice, within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. "The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men." This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person. He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: "You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?" and I Corinthians 5, 13: "Put away the evil one from among yourselves"; Romans 13,4: "[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil"; I Peter 2, 13-14: "Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good." He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: "Thou shall not kill." This is mentioned again in Matthew 5,21. Also, it is argued that Matthew 13, 30: "Suffer both the weeds and the wheat to grow until the harvest." The harvest was interpreted as meaning the end of the world. This is explained by Matthew 13,38-40.

Aquinas acknowledged these passages could also be interpreted as meaning there should be no use of the death penalty if there was a chance of injuring the innocent. The prohibition "Thou shall not kill", was superseded by Exodus 22,18: "Wrongdoers you shall not suffer to live." The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed was rejected by Aquinas as frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent. "How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?", he asked, rhetorically. Using the death penalty for revenge, or retribution is a violation of natural moral law.

Many believe the correct interpretation of the commandment to be "Thou shalt not murder." This interpretation allows for Aquinas' belief that the death penalty is an acceptable practice as delivered by those in authority over such things, such as government, which is divinely appointed as to God's will.
Under Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church came, according to one of two interpretations of Evangelium Vitae[1], to advocate incarceration in lieu of the death penalty.

This is also interesting:

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.”

(St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, Book III, chapter 146)

The psychologist, whose website link is in my signature, says that deep down, even the most deranged madman knows that his actions are evil. Mental illness is not a get out of jail card. If I find the webpage, I'll put the link in here.

Benny_Cake

Donatello wrote: »

I'm not interested in a discussion with non-Christians on this matter since I had hoped to have a discussion among Christians. This thread has turned into an anti-Catholic polemical debacle, thus demonstrating that there is need for a Christian-only forum, where Christians can discuss matters without interference or thread hijacking, but that is by the by.

Frankly, I am not interested in conversing with those who, on the one hand, get warm fuzzies about murderous psychopaths, and on the other, condemn unborn babies to death in the name of 'choice.' This is false compassion of the very worst kind.

Finding it hard to see how this thread is being hijacked. I think that the death penalty can never be justified,especially if someone is insane.

Bloody Nipples

Moreover, “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.

Possibly as a result of reading this out of it's original context, I'd read this as condoning killing a man who has gone out of his mind and attacked someone on the street rather than condoning killing a man in custody who has already been rendered "incapable of causing harm".

Aquinas acknowledged these passages could also be interpreted as meaning there should be no use of the death penalty if there was a chance of injuring the innocent. The prohibition "Thou shall not kill", was superseded by Exodus 22,18: "Wrongdoers you shall not suffer to live." The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed was rejected by Aquinas as frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent. "How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?", he asked, rhetorically. Using the death penalty for revenge, or retribution is a violation of natural moral law.

Many believe the correct interpretation of the commandment to be "Thou shalt not murder." This interpretation allows for Aquinas' belief that the death penalty is an acceptable practice as delivered by those in authority over such things, such as government, which is divinely appointed as to God's will.

This states the point that "if they would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent."

Conversely it suggests that if the wrongdoer repents then he should not be killed. This has no application in a modern court of law because of the absolute impossibility of proving true repentance.

The psychologist, whose website link is in my signature, says that deep down, even the most deranged madman knows that his actions are evil

Any psychologist who posits such an absolute isn't worthy of the name.

I'm not interested in a discussion with non-Christians on this matter since I had hoped to have a discussion among Christians. This thread has turned into an anti-Catholic polemical debacle, thus demonstrating that there is need for a Christian-only forum, where Christians can discuss matters without interference or thread hijacking, but that is by the by.

You're shít outta luck on that one.

Donatello

Bloody Nipples wrote: »

Possibly as a result of reading this out of it's original context, I'd read this as condoning killing a man who has gone out of his mind and attacked someone on the street rather than condoning killing a man in custody who has already been rendered "incapable of causing harm".

I'll just make comment on that point. If I'd been there when the attack was happening, and I'd had a gun, I'd have had no qualms about taking out the maniac, if that was possible. That's the first point about rendering 'incapable of causing harm'.

The question for me is, is the maniac capable of causing further harm whilst in custody? Is he likely to turn on guards or nurses? Why should innocent staff be placed at daily risk because of a monster? As I said before, I think this is one of the cases where I would be tending towards the death penalty, due to the gravity and the heinous nature of the crime.

Bloody Nipples

Donatello wrote: »

I'll just make comment on that point. If I'd been there when the attack was happening, and I'd had a gun, I'd have had no qualms about taking out the maniac, if that was possible. That's the first point about rendering 'incapable of causing harm'.

The question for me is, is the maniac capable of causing further harm whilst in custody? Is he likely to turn on guards or nurses? Why should innocent staff be placed at daily risk because of a monster? As I said before, I think this is one of the cases where I would be tending towards the death penalty, due to the gravity and the heinous nature of the crime.

It's their jobs to isolate the mentally disabled from society and to protect them from themselves. Padded walls aren't for the doctors and nurses benefit. There is protocol in place to protect staff from potential violence from patients and I think you'd find very few people working in mental institutions who'd agree with your assessment of the situation.

While I would agree with you that killing the man to save that poor lady's life would have been totally acceptable, I disagree that he deserves to die for his actions now on the grounds of diminished personal responsibility.
Would you support killing someone suffering from Down's Syndrome or another mental impairment if they killed someone?