Illinois governor signs death penalty ban - Page 2

Rich Olszewski · #16 Mar 10, '11, 7:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimR-OCDS

Essentially it called for the death penalty where a convicted murderer continued to be a threat to others while serving time. Fellow prisoners and guards are considered others that need to be protected in addition to the general public.

The Mass legislature rejected the proposal.

And rightly so. You don't execute a prisoner just for being a threat to others.

irishpatrick · #17 Mar 10, '11, 7:46 am

FYI: Pat Quinn won his office by 20,000 votes. It was merely 20,000 votes that has moved llinois even further to the left. If Illinois continues like this, it will make Massachusetts look conservative by comparision.

And some people say their vote does not count.

Suudy · #18 Mar 10, '11, 7:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

And rightly so. You don't execute a prisoner just for being a threat to others.

That's not what it was saying. He wasn't being going executed for being a threat, but for his crimes. And this is consistent with the Catechism's statement on capital punishment:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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.

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'

Rich Olszewski · #19 Mar 10, '11, 7:51 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suudy

That's not what it was saying. He wasn't being going executed for being a threat, but for his crimes.

That seemed to be the implication because it was already stipulated that the miscreant was serving time, obviously a life sentence, for his crime, obviously murder in this situation.

Rich Olszewski · #20 Mar 10, '11, 7:52 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

FYI: Pat Quinn won his office by 20,000 votes. It was merely 20,000 votes that has moved llinois even further to the left. If Illinois continues like this, it will make Massachusetts look conservative by comparision.

And some people say their vote does not count.

You, of course, consider a further move to the left as a bad thing.

Beau Ouiville · #21 Mar 10, '11, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by irishpatrick

FYI: Pat Quinn won his office by 20,000 votes. It was merely 20,000 votes that has moved llinois even further to the left. If Illinois continues like this, it will make Massachusetts look conservative by comparision.

And some people say their vote does not count.

Well, since the last Republican governor supported and has applauded this ban, I don't know if this is moving the state to the left. And I don't think that the state moving to the left is automatically a bad thing, either.

Folks here have commented on abortion, the political stance of the state and even other states. However, the topic remains the death penalty.

irishpatrick · #22 Mar 10, '11, 7:57 am

.................

stanmaxkolbe · #23 Mar 10, '11, 7:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gift from God

Actually Stan, the death penalty is illegal in Canada, the UK, France, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Mexico, and a whole bunch of other nations.

Actually Gift, what does that have to do what I posted?

No country in the world can guarantee that a murderer can never escape or get an early release and I gave two examples that happened in Texas.

irishpatrick · #24 Mar 10, '11, 8:01 am

.............

Rich Olszewski · #25 Mar 10, '11, 9:02 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ender

One would normally think so, but that is not what 2267 appears to state.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

This surely states that prisoners may be executed if it perceived that this is the only way to "defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor." Apparently we can execute prisoners for being a threat to the lives of others.

Ender

The Church's fine theories aren't governing. The U.S. is not a theocracy. Regardless what the Church says, there's not a death penalty state in the union that would execute a prisoner for the crime of "threatening."

Suudy · #26 Mar 10, '11, 9:09 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

The Church's fine theories aren't governing. The U.S. is not a theocracy. Regardless what the Church says, there's not a death penalty state in the union that would execute a prisoner for the crime of "threatening."

This is the second time you've claimed this. Yet you haven't justified such an interpretation. I think you are spinning this. Just as is consistent with the Catechism, if the only way to preserve the safety of others is to put to death a convicted criminal, then this is not being executed "for the crime of 'threatening' ", but execution for the original conviction.

**pnewton** · #27 Mar 10, '11, 9:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by hxcCatholic413

in that case is abortion murder? putting a prisoner on death row is no accident......murder is murder

Catholic theology has never considered capital punishment murder. Yes, murder is murder, but the death penalty is neither (

) at least in Catholic doctrine.

**pnewton** · #28 Mar 10, '11, 9:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

And rightly so. You don't execute a prisoner just for being a threat to others.

That was only the final criteria. No, you do not execute for being a threat. You execute for the crime, if convicted, showing to be a continued threat by commiting subsequent acts of aggression, or any other such criteria. The root is still the initial murder. If you read Catholic teaching, this is actually in concert to what the Catechism says. If a person can not be safely incarcerated where he continues to harm others, that is the only justified use of the death penalty.

**pnewton** · #29 Mar 10, '11, 9:18 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

The Church's fine theories aren't governing. The U.S. is not a theocracy"

This is a Catholic website though. It is reasonable that Catholics seek a Catholic perspective and act in accord with that.

Ender · #30 Mar 10, '11, 9:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski

The Church's fine theories aren't governing. The U.S. is not a theocracy. Regardless what the Church says, there's not a death penalty state in the union that would execute a prisoner for the crime of "threatening."

Ah, I thought we were discussing the moral appropriateness of capital punishment but if that's not your concern then on what basis would you object to executing people? After all, if we're not concerned about the morality of it, why would we not execute people for being threats to others?

Ender