Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

prinz

PDN wrote: »

I find it funny that people who call themselves 'pro-life' are often so keen to see people executed..

There seems to be a lot of that going around on this thread, similarly with people who are 'pro-choice' being resolutely against the death penalty. I guess we'll just have to agree that positions are sometimes fluid at both ends of the life cycle.

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

I don't think you've been paying attention.

hes old....and a hippy :pac:

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

Let him free (or if letting him free seems like an extreme option, simply find a place to put him. Priorities)

free :eek: bahahahahaha!!

prioritise?.... who decides that?

Lock him up till he dies.

oh, so kill him, only in small measurable doses:rolleyes:

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

If there is no room for him, anywhere, in any prison, small jail, secure storage room, anything, then no. He still shouldn't be put to death. Cuff him to a chair and table that he can't get free from. Chain him to a tree with guards watching him. Tie him to a bed. Death penalty is never an option as far as I'm concerned. It's not even pretty far down on my list. It's not on my list.

so tie him to a tree, is your answer.... ie kill him slowly...

Penn

thebullkf wrote: »

so tie him to a tree, is your answer.... ie kill him slowly...

Tie him to a tree, until a place in prison or somewhere he could be locked up is found. Which, if longer than one day, is such an extreme 'What if' that is just not possible. That situation would never, ever happen. So there's no point discussing it.

old hippy

thebullkf wrote: »

hes old....and a hippy :pac:

Yep, I'll be applying for the euthanasia one of these days

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

Tie him to a tree, until a place in prison or somewhere he could be locked up is found. Which, if longer than one day, is such an extreme 'What if' that is just not possible. That situation would never, ever happen. So there's no point discussing it.

says who, oh thats right, says you .

so you never discuss situations that would never ever happen, in your opinion

Fair enough. you've made your point.

but: what if he killed the guards guarding him?... tie him to a different tree? with different guards?

@ what point will the sacrifice of innocents end?

dvpower

JimiTime wrote: »

So the basis of this is that a murderer should never be released right?

No. Depends on the threat.

JimiTime wrote: »

Just to be clear though, what you are saying is that rather than taking a persons life in terms of execution, you take it in terms of freedom? or do you believe in sentences less than actual life imprisonment for the murder of an innocent person?

There should be an element of punishment in sentencing, but mainly I think it should be about protecting the public.
So I don't have a problem with someone being released after serving a reasonable amount of time if they are no longer a threat.
I'd be inclined to keep someone in prison for life if a substantial threat remained.

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

free :eek: bahahahahaha!!

prioritise?.... who decides that?

The judicial system. The state.

thebullkf wrote: »

oh, so kill him, only in small measurable doses:rolleyes:

Locking someone up doesn't kill them.

Fanny Cradock

I actually think that thou shall not murder is a better translation. The Hebrew word used in Deut 5:17 and Exodus 20:13 is ratsach. The primary entry for this from Strong's Lexicon is

1) to murder, slay, kill

a) (Qal) to murder, slay

1) premeditated

2) accidental

3) as avenger

4) slayer (intentional) (participle)

I guess the question for the Christian and the Jew would be "Is there is any meaningful distinction between murder and killing?". It is a difficult question in light of Just War theory and our innate desire to defend ourselves and our loved ones. But from what I think the NT says about retributive violence, I see no reason to suppose that Jesus would have approved of capital punishment, especially when we consider that he was a victim of it.

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

The judicial system. The state.

so if the state sanctioned Public beheadings/execution you'd rally against it?

Locking someone up doesn't kill them.

it does, only slowly. caging someone in a 12x6 cell for the rest of their lives is murder in a different form imo.

old hippy

thebullkf wrote: »

it does, only slowly. caging someone in a 12x6 cell for the rest of their lives is murder in a different form imo.

No, it's not taking their lives. It is imprisonment.

Penn

thebullkf wrote: »

says who, oh thats right, says you i.

so you never discuss situations that would never ever happen, in your opinion

Fair enough. you've made your point.

I never said it was for me to decide. In fact, I said before that it was the courts and the Justice System.

I do discuss things which could never ever happen. I just felt you were twisting what I was saying. I never said he should be chains to a tree until he dies. I was just demonstrating that he should be restrained in such a way as to eliminate the chances of him hurting someone else until a place in a proper facility can be found. But if you then say what if a place is never found, that changes the point I was making and is such an extreme ' What if' scenario that doesn't fit this conversation.

thebullkf

old hippy wrote: »

No, it's not taking their lives. It is imprisonment.

ever been locked up?

know anyone that was? ...or even read an account of anyones expereiences by being locked up for life?

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

so if the state sanctioned Public beheadings/execution you'd rally against it?

Yes. I'm against the death penalty.

thebullkf wrote: »

it does, only slowly. caging someone in a 12x6 cell for the rest of their lives is murder in a different form imo.

OK. I disagree that its murder (or anything like murder).

I think I'd prefer to be executed than spend my life locked in a 12x6 cell (but I might reevaluate this if it came to it).
Perhaps we should give people in this situation a choice to kill themselves.

dvpower

thebullkf wrote: »

know anyone that was? ...or even read an account of anyones expereiences by being locked up for life?

If they can give an account of it, I'd say they are most definitely alive;)

Penn

thebullkf wrote: »

but: what if he killed the guards guarding him?... tie him to a different tree? with different guards?

@ what point will the sacrifice of innocents end?

But how can he kill someone if he's tied to a tree?

As for the 'sacrifice of innocents', why do the guards or doctors who have to administer the death penalty sacrifice their innocence to kill someone for you? Thou shalt not kill. Do you want these people to condemn themselves to Hell? If you feel so strongly about it, tell me this: Would you kill him? If he was tied to a tree, the guards were far away in case he managed to kill them while he's tied to a tree, would you walk up to him and kill him?

If you would, then congratulations! It's your turn to be tied to the tree!

thebullkf

dvpower wrote: »

If they can give an account of it, I'd say they are most definitely alive;)

But what about the cost?...more is spent on jails than education, maybe an additional deterrent is whats needed?
With all the advents in science/DNA testing, surely a persons guilt is more assured thus reducing the number of false imprisonment?

Why should we all have to pay (financially) for peoples crimes though?

It costs approx 48 billion a year to keep people in prison in the US.

Surely some of that is better spent on prevention,education and living improvements for potential criminals

Just as much as i agree that death penalty is a last resort, i do agree that it should be a viable option.

* though incidentally it apparently costs more to execute a prisoner than keep him in prisaon for a year... go figure*

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

But how can he kill someone if he's tied to a tree?

thats not the question. the question is what happens if he does, shoulkd he die then? How many people need to be killed before its considered the only option?

As for the 'sacrifice of innocents', why do the guards or doctors who have to administer the death penalty sacrifice their innocence to kill someone for you?

they're sacrifice is so's others may live. simple really.

Thou shalt not kill. Do you want these people to condemn themselves to Hell?

are you talking literal bible translation, or just subjectively using commandmentd to lend creedence to your arguement?

If you feel so strongly about it, tell me this: Would you kill him? If he was tied to a tree, the guards were far away in case he managed to kill them while he's tied to a tree, would you walk up to him and kill him?

of course not, what a ridiculous question- kill a man tied to a tree

BUT: if the last resort of puniushment you use , fails to work, in this case the tree tieing, what then?

If you would, then congratulations! It's your turn to be tied to the tree!

so people who give lethal injections, deserve one themselves?

I think it was ghandhi who said the problewm with an eye for an eye is pretty soon the whole world goes blind ~(or somesuch)

I tend to agree, but some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator imo forfeits his right to life.

Penn

thebullkf wrote: »

thats not the question. the question is what happens if he does, shoulkd he die then? How many people need to be killed before its considered the only option?


they're sacrifice is so's others may live. simple really.



are you talking literal bible translation, or just subjectively using commandmentd to lend creedence to your arguement?




of course not, what a ridiculous question- kill a man tied to a tree

BUT: if the last resort of puniushment you use , fails to work, in this case the tree tieing, what then?





so people who give lethal injections, deserve one themselves?

I think it was ghandhi who said the problewm with an eye for an eye is pretty soon the whole world goes blind ~(or somesuch)

I tend to agree, but some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator imo forfeits his right to life.

What's the difference between killing a man who is tied to a tree and throwing a switch to kill him when he's strapped into an electric chair?

As for the doctors who administer lethal injections, no, they should not be put to death. I'm saying they shouldn't give lethal injections. The death penalty should not be an option. If you are killing someone to prevent them from killing again, then you are killing them for something they have not done.

As for Thou Shalt Not Kill: was there an asterisk beside this one? Did it say "Thou Shalt Not Kill*........



*except to prevent someone from hypothetically, possibly, maybe, someday killing someone"

Also, how do we decide which crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty?

And what about people on death row who are innocent? Because believe it or not, it happens.

I'll be completely honest with you. I never really used to care about the death penalty. I thought that in some cases, maybe itit is warranted. Then I watched an episode of Penn & Teller: Bull**** which changed my opinion completely. It might be on Youtube if you can find it.

thebullkf

Some stats:

"Of the roughly 52,000 state prison inmates serving time for murder in 1984, an estimated 810 had previously been convicted of murder and had killed 821 persons following their previous murder convictions. Executing each of these inmates would have saved 821 lives." source: (41, 1 Stanford Law Review, 11/88, pg. 153)

there are more than 30 years of respected academic studies which reveal a general, or systemic, deterrent effect, meaning that there is statistical proof that executions produce fewer murders (B. 7-9 & 11-18). However, such studies are inconclusive because there are also studies that find no such effect - not surprising, as the U.S. has executed only 0.08% of their murderers since 1973.

Because such studies are inconclusive, we must choose the option that may save innocent lives. For, if there is a general deterrent effect, and we do execute, then we are saving innocent lives. But, if there is a general deterrent effect and we don’t execute murderers, we are sacrificing innocent lives.

If our judgement is in error regarding general deterrence, then such error must be made on the side of saving innocent lives and not on the side of sacrificing innocent lives.

This is a moral imperative

"The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that convicted criminals free on parole and probation . . . commit ‘at least’ 84,800 violent crimes every year, including 13,200 murders, 12,900 rapes, and 49,500 robberies." source: American Guardian, May 1997, pg. 26.

Incredibly, this slaughter does not include violent crimes committed by repeat offenders who are released and who are not on "supervision". Where is the compassion in honoring the previous victim’s suffering and in protecting the human rights of future victims?

9-15% of those on death row committed, at least, one additional murder, prior to that murder (or those murders) which has currently put them on death row; 67% had a prior felony conviction; 42% had an active criminal justice status when they committed their capital offense; 14% of those sentenced to death from 1988-94, had received two or more death sentences Source: ("Capital Punishment 1994", BJS 1995 & JFA).

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

What's the difference between killing a man who is tied to a tree and throwing a switch to kill him when he's strapped into an electric chair?

As for the doctors who administer lethal injections, no, they should not be put to death. I'm saying they shouldn't give lethal injections. The death penalty should not be an option. If you are killing someone to prevent them from killing again, then you are killing them for something they have not done.

As for Thou Shalt Not Kill: was there an asterisk beside this one? Did it say "Thou Shalt Not Kill*........



*except to prevent someone from hypothetically, possibly, maybe, someday killing someone"

what about prisoners who are in prison, without parole forever. and they kill another inmate???

what punishment do they deserve in your eyes?

Penn

thebullkf wrote: »

what about prisoners who are in prison, without parole forever. and they kill another inmate???

what punishment do they deserve in your eyes?

Segregation from other prisoners. Solitary confinement.

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

. If you are killing someone to prevent them from killing again, then you are killing them for something they have not done.

we're not talking about randomly selecting them, we're talking about comnvicted Murderers ffs.

they've done it once, chances are they'll do it again.

[As for Thou Shalt Not Kill: was there an asterisk beside this one? Did it say "Thou Shalt Not Kill*........



*except to prevent someone from hypothetically, possibly, maybe, someday killing someone"

no ,. it said thou shalt not kill. full stop. indicating to me that you were quoting the bible, and that, full stop-thou shalt not kill. for any reason.

Also, how do we decide which crimes are heinous enough to warrant the death penalty?

i asked that question already, ie who decides?

And what about people on death row who are innocent? Because believe it or not, it happens.

oh, i know it happens.

"The death penalty is a warning, just like a lighthouse throwing beams out to sea. We hear about shipwrecks, but we do not hear about the ships the lighthouse guides safely on their way. We do not have proof of the number of ships it saves, but we do not tear the lighthouse down."


Source: Prof. Ernest van den Haag, "On Deterrence and The Death Penalty", Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, vol. 60, no.2 (1969).

I'll be completely honest with you. I never really used to care about the death penalty. I thought that in some cases, maybe itit is warranted. Then I watched an episode of Penn & Teller: Bull**** which changed my opinion completely. It might be on Youtube if you can find it.

so Penn and Teller, two masters of misdirection, changed your mind on the death penalty....

Fanny Cradock

thebullkf wrote: »

But what about the cost?...more is spent on jails than education, maybe an additional deterrent is whats needed?
With all the advents in science/DNA testing, surely a persons guilt is more assured thus reducing the number of false imprisonment?

Why should we all have to pay (financially) for peoples crimes though?

It costs approx 48 billion a year to keep people in prison in the US.

Surely some of that is better spent on prevention,education and living improvements for potential criminals

Just as much as i agree that death penalty is a last resort, i do agree that it should be a viable option.

* though incidentally it apparently costs more to execute a prisoner than keep him in prisaon for a year... go figure*

I wonder how the atheist answers this? On a purely utilitarian view of society - something I would have thought that the majority of atheists are bound to - I would have thought that the money saved by not keeping a prisoner in jail for decades (surely amounting to many millions) could be reinvested into directly saving lives (be it by improving health care, investing in medical research, better policing or whatever) and long projects that seek to prevent crime by targeting the causes of it.

In short, what if the net advantages to society are promoted by executing prisoners?

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

Segregation from other prisoners. Solitary confinement.

forever:rolleyes:

so 60 years of solitude is not worse than exzecuting him, i'd hedfge a bet that the majority of prisoners would prefer the death penalty..

Penn

Answer me this, if you were driving and got caught speeding, so they gave you 2 penalty points, do you think you should be banned from driving for life in case you ever drove over the limit again? You could kill someone by driving just 2km/h over the limit by not being able to stop on time. Would it be best if you're banned for life?

thebullkf

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wonder how the atheist answers this? On a purely utilitarian view of society - something I would have thought that the majority of atheists are bound to - I would have thought that the money saved by not keeping a prisoner in jail for decades (surely amounting to many millions) could be reinvested into directly saving lives (be it by improving health care, investing in medical research, better policing or whatever) and long projects that seek to prevent crime by targeting the causes of it.

In short, what if the net advantages to society are promoted by executing prisoners?

it seems they are....

The highest murder rate in Houston (Harris County), Texas occurred in 1981, with 701 murders.

Texas resumed executions in 1982.

Since that time, Houston (Harris County) has executed more murderers than any other city or state (except Texas) AND has seen the greatest reduction in murder, 701 in 1981 down to 261 in 1996 - a 63% reduction, representing a 270% differential!

Source: (FBI, UCR, 1982 & Houston Chronicle, 2/1/97, pg. 31A).

also as a deterrent to criminals...

The most conclusive evidence that criminals fear the death penalty more than life without parole is provided by convicted capital murderers and their attorneys.

99.9% of all convicted capital murderers and their attorneys argue for life, not death, in the punishment phase of their trial.

When the death penalty becomes real, murderers fear it the most. While it is obvious that the fear of execution did not deter those murderers from committing a capital crime, it is also clear that such fear is reduced because executions are neither swift nor sure in the U.S. However, as the probability of that punishment rises for those murderers, even they show a great fear of the death penalty.

Although you will never deter all murderers, the effect of deterrence will rise as the probability of executions rise. Because, as the probability of executions rises, the fear of that punishment will also rise.

And, that which we fear the most deters the most.

Indeed, prisoners rate the death penalty as the most feared punishment, much more so than life without parole.

Source: Sehba, L. & Nathan, G., "Further Explorations in the Scale of Penalties", British Journal of Criminology, 24:221-249, 1984.

Donatello

Barrington wrote: »

Thou shalt not kill. Do you want these people to condemn themselves to Hell? If you feel so strongly about it, tell me this: Would you kill him? If he was tied to a tree, the guards were far away in case he managed to kill them while he's tied to a tree, would you walk up to him and kill him?

If it is done according to the Catholic moral principals, then it is a just action and there is no sin. Personally, I'd prefer not to be involved in such a thing in any way, whether through approving the decision or conducting the execution. My delicate conscience and all.

PDN wrote: »

So when the English State, under Queen Elizabeth I, executed Jesuit priests, it was not (by your own definitions) murder?

This thread reminds me of the quote by Orrin Hatch, Republican senator for Utah, “Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity of human life.”

That was according to the state law, but it was against the Law of God. The death penalty, if it meets strict criteria, can be in accord with both God's and the state's laws.

Barrington wrote: »

It is never okay to kill another human being. The death penalty should never be an option. He should be held in prison until it can be determined how mentally ill he is, and should probably be put in a mental health facility for the rest of his life.

Putting someone to death because they might try to hurt someone in the future is killing them for something they did not do.

The death penalty is wrong, no matter what the circumstances are.

What about little unborn babies? If I was inclined, I would be physically sick to hear someone defend a murderous psychopath and yet condemn the unborn baby to death for this 'right to choose' baloney of the pro-aborts. I don't know that you are a pro-abort (so this may not apply to you), but some pro-aborts have opposed the execution of this sociopath. It's the moral sickness of false compassion. I've said it before, but this is the 'compassion' which has 'mercy' on perpetrators (headhunting psychopath, woman who commits abortion, priest who abuses) yet sentences the innocent (woman out shopping, unborn baby, boys) to more abuse and killing. It also shows the moral sickness of those who advocate such false compassion.

prinz wrote: »

The role of the head in all this is interesting to note though from a sociological point of view. I've noticed the same when it comes to threads on donating organs that a lot of people seem unusually attached to their eyes as opposed to other organs. Why do we view what he did as worse for example than smashing in someone's skull with a hammer, or simply stabbing or shooting them. The whole beheading part seems to be the bit that really gets to people. No real point to this, just musing in general.

Yeah I was the same. I'm an organ donor. I ticked all the boxes except for the eyes. I thought I'd keep them for some reason! The beheading part definitely touches a nerve (excuse the pun) even though it would be equally horrific to have an axe in the forehead without being decapitated.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

BTW, are you advocating the death penalty for the mentally ill only after a priest has concluded that they are indeed ill, and not possessed by the 'boogie man'? Holy shiverin jesus, and what if the exorcism was successful? What then, a welcome back to the flock party? Rejoice for he is saved! You're not seriously saying that a man who has been freed from the evil persuasion of Satan should then be sent to jail, are you?

You sound confused OP, very confused.

After the exorcism, as any exorcist will tell you, the person cannot be trusted ever again. He must then be detained in prison or a mental unit.

dvpower wrote: »

Let him free (or if letting him free seems like an extreme option, simply find a place to put him. Priorities)

I didn't say he has any entitlement to a place on a treatment program, but it might be a good idea.

Then people come crying when he does it again and it will be your fault. How many people have to die before we get the message?

Barrington wrote: »

If there is no room for him, anywhere, in any prison, small jail, secure storage room, anything, then no. He still shouldn't be put to death. Cuff him to a chair and table that he can't get free from. Chain him to a tree with guards watching him. Tie him to a bed. Death penalty is never an option as far as I'm concerned. It's not even pretty far down on my list. It's not on my list.

Putting him to death may actually be more compassionate. Languishing in sin, unrepentant in jail and dying in mortal sin only to be condemned to hell forever, versus telling a man, 'You will be killed at dawn, you may see a priest.' The man has a chance to get right with God before his death.

PDN wrote: »

I laugh at it more than anything.

I find it funny that people who call themselves 'pro-life' are often so keen to see people executed.

What I find hilarious is that the OP, who continually quotes Popes and the Catholic catechism as the final authority on every possible subject under the sun, is prepared to ignore them on this occasion.

If you'd read the commentary I provided, you will see that the Traditional Catholic teaching remains in tact: recourse to the death penalty is not forbidden by the Church. The recent approach to the issue by the Church is merely pastoral and is not dogmatic. I'm not a 'bad Catholic' for adhering to the traditional Catholic teaching, and no Pope can contradict the Traditional teaching on this, which Pope John Paul II acknowledged in his encyclical. Check the excerpt from the article:

Evangelium Vitae's Impact

All of the ideas in the second half of this paragraph, including the quotation, come from Evangelium Vitae. Some of the phraseology is drawn from EV 27, but the core is taken from two points made by the Pope in EV 56:

Point 1. “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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.”

Point 2: “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.”

In the next paragraph, the Pope reaffirms Point 1 by quoting the original text of the Catechism itself: “In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: ‘If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person’.”

Traditional Doctrine Affirmed . . .

The first step in properly interpreting these developments is to note again that the Church’s traditional teaching on the death penalty has been upheld. It is unnecessary to reiterate the applicable texts of the Old and New Testaments, the Fathers, prior Popes and Councils, because the Catechism still begins its discussion by upholding this teaching. In fact, in EV 55, just before making the two points cited above, the Pope reaffirmed and explained the traditional doctrine:

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".44 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.45
. . . and Developed

The second step is to recognize that the Pope has genuinely developed the Church’s teaching on capital punishment. The Church had always taught that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and that the death penalty must necessarily be reserved for grave matters. But in Evangelium Vitae, the Pope stresses an additional condition. He teaches that the death penalty must be reserved for cases of “absolute necessity”, and he defines absolute necessity as meaning “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”

My argument is that the offender remains a sever risk and could be executed to protect guards. I also stand with St. Thomas on his writings about the subject. Popes in the past have also supported it. For example:

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.

(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)

Barrington wrote: »

Forgiveness, Love One Another.... Thou Shalt Not Kill? Ring any bells? If you (not you specifically, I mean anyone). believe the death penalty is okay, then you believe it is okay to kill another human being. And if you think it's okay to kill another human being, why are you putting someone to death for believing the same thing?

As for the mental health facility, if the person has mental health issues which caused him to commit these crimes but have little or no control over his actions, it's unfair to put him to death for it. A mental health facility would be a place where he can be sufficiently medicated and analysed to prevent this from happening again, while keeping him secure to reduce the possibility of it happening again. People here have said that he should be executed in case he kills someone again. Being locked up, medicated and controlled can also prevent him from killing again.

Regardless of whether or not he has mental problems, killing someone to prevent them possibly killing someone in the future, with no evidence that it ever would happen again, is killing someone for a crime they didn't commit. And how is that different from what any murderer does?

This is the liberal sickness. There is no sin so everything is reduced to mental illness. The poor sick man kills again, so we give him more medicine and then release him. He does it again. Increase the dose then. Give him counselling, let him go on his way. He kills again... Can you not see something? I find it startling that the same approach used against sexual abusers in the Church is now being advocated by many liberals. The attitude was this: abusing priests are victims. They are sick. They need treatment. Let them go back to work. They do it again. More treatment. This is the sickness of false compassion which has mercy on the 'sick person' (read sinner/criminal) yet is callous and cavalier about subjecting future innocent persons to risk. The hypocrisy about this, and the attitude towards the unborn, by people who kick the Catholic Church for the abuse scandal and the way it was handled, and who also support abortion, is staggering. I'm surprised nobody else appears to have picked up on this.

Barrington wrote: »

The death penalty is never justified because killing (bar in self-defence) is never justified.

Except for the unborn.

Remember that those who receive the death penalty have received a trial. The unborn does not receive a trial. They are summarily executed.

Murderers have had a trial, unborn children have NOT. Plus, only a handful of murderers are put to death every year in the United States, but about 1.3 MILLION unborn children are put to death every year, with many suffering excruciating pain, whereas murderers are tranquilized and feel NO pain.

thebullkf wrote: »

ever been locked up?

know anyone that was? ...or even read an account of anyones expereiences by being locked up for life?

Yep:

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.

Somebody who was exectuted:

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.

St. Thomas said that the death penalty gave a sinner the opportunity to repent and die a happy death, whereas languishing in jail for life, without remorse, committing further sin, condemns the soul to hell.

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”

thebullkf

Barrington wrote: »

Answer me this, if you were driving and got caught speeding, so they gave you 2 penalty points, do you think you should be banned from driving for life in case you ever drove over the limit again? You could kill someone by driving just 2km/h over the limit by not being able to stop on time. Would it be best if you're banned for life?

Answer my questions please:rolleyes:

In response to your hypothetical, each case is different. and should be assessed on its own merits.

If i knocked someone down, it would be manslaughter. depends on the circumstances, accidents happen, were someone drunk and walking on a motorway like those two nuts swedish girls a while back then the driver is not to blame, if any and all attempts are made to avoid injury by me then its not murder. it can't be.

satisfied?

if i drove up on a path to kill a specific person, then its murder, and i should be banned for life