Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

Donatello · 15-05-2011 3:21pm #1

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

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

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 3:24pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

What do you think should happen?

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 3:45pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

The Catechism says this:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

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

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

Of particular note:

The Place of Prudential Judgement

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

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

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

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

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

Quo Vadis · 15-05-2011 3:56pm

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

Ms Jennifer Mills-Westley RIP

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

Amen.

old hippy · 15-05-2011 4:01pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

I hope you are not representative of all Christians.

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 4:06pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

I hope you are not representative of all Christians.

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

False compassion.

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

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 4:12pm

Donatello wrote: »

False compassion.

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

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

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

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

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

15-05-2011 4:17pm

So, let me get this straight.

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

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

That must be the very definition of a hypocrite.

wolfsbane · 15-05-2011 4:20pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 4:24pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

So, let me get this straight.

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

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

That must be the very definition of a hypocrite.

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 4:31pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

What would Jesus do?

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:01pm

old hippy wrote: »

What would Jesus do?

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

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

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

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

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

rainbow kirby · 15-05-2011 5:03pm

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

15-05-2011 5:04pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

That's beside the point I was making.

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:04pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:05pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:08pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

And why should a religion dictate law and order?

What authority should a church have over life and death?

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:11pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

CCC2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

old hippy wrote: »

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

And why should a religion dictate law and order?

What authority should a church have over life and death?

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

The Catholic Church proposes, She does not dictate.

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:17pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

Isn't that ironic, though?

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:20pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:24pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

15-05-2011 5:26pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

Fanny Cradock · 15-05-2011 5:28pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:28pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:29pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

15-05-2011 5:33pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:36pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Perhaps try to be more objective in future?

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:43pm

old hippy wrote: »

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

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

Perhaps try to be more objective in future?

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

15-05-2011 5:46pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

Donatello · 15-05-2011 5:48pm

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

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

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

old hippy · 15-05-2011 5:55pm

Donatello wrote: »

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

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

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

Fact or fiction, you decide.

Tenerife Killer - Suitable punishment?

What should happen to the maniac? 153 votes

Comments