Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

Stark

Donatello wrote: »

If it is done according to the Catholic moral principals, then it is a just action and there is no sin.

The guy who beheaded that woman also felt that God gave him the justification to do so. How is you or anyone else killing according to "Catholic moral principles" any different?

thebullkf

Stark wrote: »

The guy who beheaded that woman also felt that God gave him the justification to do so. How is you or anyone else killing according to "Catholic moral principles" any different?

does that mean that an executioner flipping a switch should receive the same treatment as the person in the chair whos switch he just flipped

what do you think yourself ?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I laugh at it more than anything.

Tbh, I don't know the guy you quoted, so don't know his motives etc, but taking the quote at face value, I don't personally find it laughable. I think I know what you appear to be laughing at (correct me if I'm wrong), but just as God abhors murder and values life, he also placed a heavy sentence on those who murdered. That wasn't laughable was it?

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

To be fair, I think this confuses matters. Valuing life can mean wanting the heaviest of sentences for people who fly in the face of this value, such as murderers. Again, I'm not talking about the case here, just talking generally.

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.

I suppose its an emotive subject, that can make people think rashly. When i hear stories about the Jamie Bulger murder, and what that poor little boy was put through before his final breath , I must say, its hard not to wish death on his murderers.

dvpower

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?

I was just replying to this when I noticed you answered it yourself in the last line.

thebullkf wrote:

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

Even if it was cheaper to kill them, I wouldn't be for it. I'd be prepared to pay the extra cost.
If things got so bad that we simply couldn't afford to keep people in prison, I'd be prepared to allow chronic overcrowding, much worse conditions, less supervision, forced labour, almost any measure before I'd even contemplate state killing of prisoners.

georgieporgy

One example to support the argument against capital punishment would be David Berkowitz, the infamous Son of Sam murderer from the 70's. He terrorised New York city for a while before his arrest in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz

He converted to christianity in prison 10 years later. Since then he has refused to be paroled saying he deserves to be locked up for life for his crimes. he is now active in prison counselling and engaging in efforts to help victims of crime. He is a model prisoner. Sort of like a new man after baptism.

Stark

thebullkf wrote: »

does that mean that an executioner flipping a switch should receive the same treatment as the person in the chair whos switch he just flipped

what do you think yourself ?

I would hope that the person being executed was an actual murderer who was tried and convicted under the legal system rather than a "hypothetical killer" being murdered by someone who felt they were doing "God's work".

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

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?

How many people have to die before we get the message that we need to kill more people?

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

How many people have to die before we get the message that we need to kill more people?

The fella needs to be dealt with to protect society. Please read my previous post.

Meanwhile.... I've said it before, I'll say it again...

[T]he 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 opposition to the death penalty, along with 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.

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

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...


... 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?

Is a man possessed surely innocent then & doesn't that go at odds with your view that execution is not killing innocent people?

Do you blame all liberals for the bad things in life? Oddly, I blame religion but I realise I may be in the minority here. Ridiculous, eh?

JimiTime

Barrington wrote: »

Forgiveness, Love One Another.... Thou Shalt Not Kill? Ring any bells?

When you have simply a passing interest in the subject matter (i.e. Christianity) its best not to be a smart alec.
Forgiveness you say. Doesn't this mean no sentence then?
Love one another you say. It is loving to seek the protection of the innocent, and defend the victimised.

Thou shalt not kill (Murder being the accurate translation) you say, quoting from Gods law, a law which also commands that murderers be put to death.

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?

This is the skewed thinking I loathe. You are basically saying that a kidnapper is the same as a prison officer. its the utmost nonsense.

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.

the mental health issue is something I can't comment on too much, as i don't know enough about mental health.

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.

I agree. Protection can be obtained by other means.

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 locking them away to prevent them from doing something again is what exactly?

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

Again, i accept that this is your view, but its not an argument.

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

The fella needs to be dealt with to protect society. Please read my previous post.

I did.
I couldn't see anything in it that justified the killing of the Tenerife killer, even by your own codes. He can remain locked up for the duration of his life and never be a threat to anyone again. Its not necessary to kill him.

Evangelium Vitae's Impact wrote:

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.”

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

I did.
I couldn't see anything in it that justified the killing of the Tenerife killer, even by your own codes. He can remain locked up for the duration of his life and never be a threat to anyone again. Its not necessary to kill him.

One of the elements of my argument is that prison guards and mental nurses are members of society and ought to be protected from undue risk. If this guy is like Hannibal Lector, then keeping him in prison remains a risk to others.

virmilitaris

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

....

"I believe we (humanity) need to ger over our preoccupation with death."

(Ironic given your prescriptions above)

Yes sorry I should have been clearer but when I'm on the phone i'm just happy my spelling is somewhere near accurate. I made a boo boo.

I absolutely do not support capital punishment in this case but when I said I support capital punishment in the most extreme circumstances what I mean is a situation where the continuance of life itself leads to greater suffering. Take the death of Mr Bin Laden recently, we might all find it distasteful but it's hard not to agree that his capture and incarceration wouldn't have led to greater suffering and loss of life then his quick death. There are very very few situations where I could imagine myself supporting capital punishment but since there is at least one (as above) then I must concede that I do.

What I meant when I talked about death was that I believe that we as a species have a huge preoccupation with dying. It affects so much of society and usually people are against it, afraid of it. A perfectly natural feeling to have. But one mustn't forget that death itself is also natural, it's the ultimate end of our journey through life. You as a Christian might welcome it because you believe you're going to heaven to be with your deity and loved ones. I hope that when my time comes I will welcome it as the final page in my book so to speak.

To quote a French philosopher "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived."

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

How many people have to die before we get the message that we need to kill more people?

You've found Bob Dylan's missing lyric. The wind tells me the answer is seven.

This guy is obviously not well in the head. I don't think he is some cool calculated killer out for getting his jollies. I'm all for putting him in a secure mental facility for life, then again I do believe the insanity angle is abused by others. Apart from the gruesome gory beheading aspect of the case I am still failing to see what sets this man apart from other murders and murders that have occured recently. Imprisonment for life, where life actually means a life sentence.

On the other hand I do have sympathy for and share to some degree Donatello's argument re right and wrong and the protection to the health and property of law abiding people in our society. Personally I think we are being failed to a large degree.

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

One of the elements of my argument is that prison guards and mental nurses are members of society and ought to be protected from undue risk. If this guy is like Hannibal Lector, then keeping him in prison remains a risk to others.

That's a pretty weak argument I must say.
The way to mitigate risk to prison staff is to have a secure environment, good training, well developed procedures etc. That protects them from undue risk.

If we want to go into Hannibal Lector type fantasy land, didn't they build a whole mask / cage contraption for him? (Anyway, didn't keeping him alive help to catch another killer?)

virmilitaris

JimiTime wrote: »

Like so many things in relation to this subject, the above sounds ok in idealistic terms, but the practicalities concern me. As i mentioned previously, my issue with the death penalty is certainly not idealistic, but rather practical.

The reason I asked was because if (buddha forbid ) I found myself in such a situation as to face life imprisonment or capital punishment I am certain I would choose the latter if given the choice.

I believe that to some people incarceration, to be locked up in a cage, is a worse fate than death. I can't know for sure because I've experienced neither but if I had to choose this minute I would choose to die.

That's what some of the anti-side don't realise. Sometimes the greater evil is life.

I'm just interested in your opinion on this since I think most Christians would see voluntary death as a sin.

JimiTime

georgieporgy wrote: »

One example to support the argument against capital punishment would be David Berkowitz, the infamous Son of Sam murderer from the 70's. He terrorised New York city for a while before his arrest in 1977. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berkowitz

He converted to christianity in prison 10 years later. Since then he has refused to be paroled saying he deserves to be locked up for life for his crimes. he is now active in prison counselling and engaging in efforts to help victims of crime. He is a model prisoner. Sort of like a new man after baptism.

Never knew that, and it certainly lends weight, from a Christian perspective anyway, to the anti-capital punishment side of things.

Fanny Cradock

Perhaps my question got buried under the weight of posts. I'd love to hear an answer to it.

dvpower

Would it be permissible, from a Christian perspective, to assist a convicted killer facing life in prison with no parole to commit suicide?

old hippy

Donatello wrote: »

One of the elements of my argument is that prison guards and mental nurses are members of society and ought to be protected from undue risk. If this guy is like Hannibal Lector, then keeping him in prison remains a risk to others.

Hannibal Lector is a fictional character, I wouldn't really base my arguments around fiction...

Donatello

dvpower wrote: »

Would it be permissible, from a Christian perspective, to assist a convicted killer facing life in prison with no parole to commit suicide?

Well we don't support assisted suicide. Giving him (or her) a choice in the punishment received is an uncalled for privilege. Some prisoners have great crack in prison, others find it unbearable and would prefer death.

Nobody bothered to comment on my observation, in large print, above. I thought there were remarkable similarities.

dvpower

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps my question got buried under the weight of posts. I'd love to hear an answer to it.

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 wouldn't have thought that the majority of atheists take a purely utilitarian view of society (but maybe residual Christianity is keeping my on the straight and narrow). Anyway, I excluded myself from that point.

JimiTime

virmilitaris wrote: »

The reason I asked was because if (buddha forbid ) I found myself in such a situation as to face life imprisonment or capital punishment I am certain I would choose the latter if given the choice.

I've thought about that myself. In that putting someone to death could actually be the merciful thing.

I'm just interested in your opinion on this since I think most Christians would see voluntary death as a sin.

Its an interesting conundrum, and I think I'd have to give it more thought. At this moment, I'm actually feeling uneasy with it. The more I think about it, the more I think such a choice should not be allowed. You either believe that prison is best, or capital punishment is, and proceed on this basis. Someone who has just been convicted is probably not in the frame of mind to make a rational choice anyway. Its a tricky one.

virmilitaris

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?

I don't know why you'd think atheists have a common view here (or anywhere else barring the existence of deities) but I'll give my own 2 cents.

I believe that life is the most precious thing someone has because it's all we really have anyway. I don't see saving money for society as anywhere near as important as life is for an individual.

dvpower

Donatello wrote: »

Well we don't support assisted suicide. Giving him (or her) a choice in the punishment received is an uncalled for privilege. Some prisoners have great crack in prison, others find it unbearable and would prefer death.

OK

Donatello wrote: »

Nobody bothered to comment on my observation, in large print, above. I thought there were remarkable similarities.

There was a lot of stuff all mixed into that comment - I couldn't quite parse it. Were you suggesting that we execute abusing priests?

Fanny Cradock

dvpower wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought that the majority of atheists take a purely utilitarian view of society (but maybe residual Christianity is keeping my on the straight and narrow). Anyway, I excluded myself from that point.

Perhaps I'm wrong. So if you don't take a utilitarian view of morality (and surely execution is a matter of morality) then what do you base it on? Why not execute this man if it could be shown that the tangible benefits to society (probably most easily accountable in monetary terms) outweigh any vague hope that this man might contribute to society?

As somebody who also opposes capital punishment (likely for different reasons) I'm not trying to divest you of your opposition to the death penalty. I am, however, trying to understand the rational behind it.

Penn

I think I've given my opinion enough times, and can't see how anything further I say will change anything.

I will say this though. Unless you can be absolutely 100% sure that a) the person is guilty, b) the person cannot be rehabilitated, and c) measures cannot be put in place to prevent him from being able to kill again, and d) that he will definitely kill again, then the death penalty is unjustified.

JimiTime

virmilitaris wrote: »

I believe that life is the most precious thing someone has because it's all we really have anyway. I don't see saving money for society as anywhere near as important as life is for an individual.

Isn't that the point that FC was making though? The greater good philosophy? Potentially, execution could free up resources that will prevent lives being lost (both potential criminals and the potential victims). Obviously its rhetorical, but if it could be shown to be the case, where would yee stand?

Fanny Cradock

virmilitaris wrote: »

I don't know why you'd think atheists have a common view here (or anywhere else barring the existence of deities) but I'll give my own 2 cents.

I believe that life is the most precious thing someone has because it's all we really have anyway. I don't see saving money for society as anywhere near as important as life is for an individual.

You missed the point of my question.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

I still wouldn't agree with it, myself. If you argue along similar lines:

I'm sure the net advantages to society would be, to a greater or lesser extent, promoted if we implemented eugenics. Perhaps the same would be true if we euthanised or sterilized those with physical and psychological deficiencies. At a stretch the same may be true if we were to forbid the "mating" of those of significantly low intelligence.

All could be argued to be valid using similar logic to what you've suggested. But I doubt that anybody would suggest the above to be valid in practicality, I'd argue that the death penalty should be thought of in the same way.