Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

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?

Bloody Nipples

Donatello wrote: »

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.

And another thing is the fact that it is only the gory details that differentiates this crime. This is not the first time murder has been committed by someone with a history of mental illness and staff at an institution for the criminally insane will have come across murderers before. So realistically this has to be looked at from an objective point of view and be compared with previous cases that give precedence, without letting the fact that he beheaded her cloud people's judgement and leave them think that this was somehow worse than any other killing.

georgieporgy

Has it been established that the killer is insane? Or was he under the influence of drugs? or a member of a satanic cult where such murders are often required to move up the ladder.

My vote? I'd set him free but insist he go immediately to the People's Republic of China for a 4 week vacation.

Donatello

georgieporgy wrote: »

Has it been established that the killer is insane? Or was he under the influence of drugs? or a member of a satanic cult where such murders are often required to move up the ladder.

My vote? I'd set him free but insist he go immediately to the People's Republic of China for a 4 week vacation.

Why inflict him on the Chinese? Surely they have enough maniacs of their own?

Festus

It could be argued that something capable of an act as heinous as this is not a person and therefore its life has no protection in Spanish law.

Kaneda_

Wow.I have just read the link now and this shocking stuff ,this man is a pure nut case.

Festus

Festus wrote: »

It could be argued that something capable of an act as heinous as this is not a person and therefore its life has no protection in Spanish law.

I really would love to see you make that argument. Fire away.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

It could be argued that something capable of an act as heinous as this is not a person and therefore its life has no protection in Spanish law.

Quite aside from the impossibility (one hopes) of successfully arguing this from secular law, I can't help but think you have missed a rather large and rather important part of the Gospel. We are all created in the image of God and, therefore, we all have intrinsic worth.

The absolute horrors that would befall humanity (and have befallen) if people took this view.

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Quite aside from the impossibility (one hopes) of successfully arguing this from secular law, I can't help but think you have missed a rather large and rather important part of the Gospel. We are all created in the image of God and, therefore, we all have intrinsic worth.

The absolute horrors that would befall humanity (and have befallen) if people took this view.

I have a hard time listening to talk of human dignity and images of God when we're talking about a man who followed a woman into a store and hacked off her head with a knife and then marched out into the street with it. If you do that, you've forfeited some rights. I'm with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one.

The same sort of thing happened in Canada a few years ago - an unprovoked attack on a stranger, head chopped off, head presented triumphantly to onlookers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4SQ5Ifobss

St. Augustine was also a supporter of the death penalty:

The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.

The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

(The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)

For all those who would recoil from the death penalty in this case, consider the words of Aquinas:

"How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?"

We've seen it before: maniac released back into the community. He/she kills again. People cry ''How could this happen?'' My answer: false compassion. False compassion shows more concern for the 'rights' of the criminal than the rights of the victim. This man could de detained, and he could be released. If he does it again, then we have only ourselves to blame.

These Swedish nutters tried to kill themselves on the M6 motorway in England. They were examined, then released. One of them then went on to murder a man they met in the street. He took pity on them, brought them to his house, and the woman attacked and killed him. The full story is on Youtube. This is just a short clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUT3gPsthrI

JimiTime

I am not against the idea of capital punishment, but the practicalities cause me concern. I don't believe Justice exists in this world, only laws and governments. There's law for the rich, and law for the poor etc. Loopholes etc don't exist in Justice, only in law.

Funnily enough though, I think those who shout blue murder (pardon the pun) in opposition to capital punishment, actually cheapen life rather than give it worth. Their stand is usually based on a murderers 'entitlement' to life. Its misguided, short-sighted and nothing to do with being just. Call it mercy, and that is different, for mercy acknowledges that a murderers life is forfeit, which should always be the default position. The biggest issue in this debate IMO, is that the anti-capital punishment folk, believe life is a murderers entitlement. As i said, i think there is an irony in their position in that it is actually THEM that give little value to life. Forgiveness and mercy are wonderful things, but I loathe this attitude of entitlement. If you kill my baby, you deserve to die. You should not be 'entitled' to live. Ideally, a justice system (which I don't believe truly exists) takes its cases on merit and decides if a murderer receives mercy, but for the love of God, it should NEVER be his/her entitlement.

I would respect an anti capital punishment approach that acknowledged the above, but due to the social injustices and corruption etc inherent in politics and the legal system etc rejected capital punishment. The issue I have is this moral high-groundism that states that because someone says that a murderer actually deserves death, they are somehow as bad as a murderer. That type of 'reasoning' is the ultimate slur on the value of a persons life.

Fanny Cradock

Donatello wrote: »

I have a hard time listening to talk of human dignity and images of God when we're talking about a man who followed a woman into a store and hacked off her head with a knife and then marched out into the street with it. If you do that, you've forfeited some rights. I'm with St.

Then you have a hard time with one of the tenets of the Bible. No one is saying that we should let people off scot free, but there is a huge jump between imprisonment (and we can argue if this should be corrective or punitive in nature, or maybe both) and the death penalty. I can't say for sure what Jesus would have done (though I believe there is sufficient evidence to say that he was not in favour of retributive violence), so I err on the side of caution and say that this person should be locked up for ever and a day.