Trump’s March for Life Message


#156

Last I looked Maine is still too complex to count completely yet and release the data. Once it is though, the analytics are going to be insane to see. I think proportional representation is likelier to take hold than ranked-choice but of course PR is impossible in a two-party system so nobody get your hopes up lol


#157

That’s Aquinas’ concern too, hence the metaphor of doctor amputating the infected limb (convicted) to save the body (society) from the infected limb. No argument that the limb should be cut off bc the limb has no worth. It may have some worth but it’s danger to the body outweighs any worth it has.

I understand and it’s a solid argument but practically I can’t see how it could “never” happen. Less likely? Sure. But humans are fallible hence any system run by humans including prison system is fallible thus always risk of escape or political corruption leading to release. Especially someone like a Hitler with proven past of massive political influence


#158

Risk isn’t a valid reason. It must be an imminent threat, not a perceived one. Otherwise we just go down a witch hunt of killing anyone who we perceive as dangerous.

Can’t base this action on the past, people can redeem themselves and change. This must be built on the current and threat, otherwise we are punishing based on past deeds, not present ones. In effect, we are rendering conversion impossible and worthless.

If such a situation presents itself then that is one thing but I do not believe we will ever see such a situation


#159

It is valid reason because the claim was “this situation will never happen” implying zero risk. Hence any risk refuted that assertion

But again the assertion isn’t that they can, it’s that they must (so that “this situation will never happen”) , thus only need to show it’s not certain they’ll change.


#160

Not true, I’m implying our prison and policing abilities are enough with new innovation to reduce and eliminate this risk to a healthy degree. There are violent prisoners, that would imply risk. I’m saying they are secured enough where the risk to others is minimal if proper measures are taken and put into place

And how does one show this? Quoting their past actions isn’t how you show they haven’t changed


#161

That’s different than prisoner reoffending “will never happen”

That was what I responded to & gave reasons why


#162

Reoffending may happen if they are released but they served their term. If they have 25 years they serve it and leave. We can’t just kill them because we think they will reoffend. We cannot presume they won’t have a change of heart. Otherwise we might as well kill every criminal who seems psychotic


#163

Ageed… the country needs lots of prayers and action… this presidency has been so very bad. Let’s hope that the words spoken at the March start to manifest themselves in actions


#164

I’m 100% behind ranked choice. More choice, more voice. Puts more power in the hands of the citizens and will eventually break the two party system


#165

But then need for death penalty is not “impossible” or “never happen”.

You’ve chosen absolute language.


#166

In terms of catholic morality, all ranked choice is, is instead of picking the lesser of two evils, you line up all the evils from least evil to most evil, the morality doesn’t change in this system.

From a political standpoint, it seems the most logical but is highly confusing which will lower turnout, voting takes minutes as opposed to seconds, and it requires voters to actually know who the candidates are, every single one. This system would not work if people shirk half their ballot which people already do, and the need for knowledge of all candidates increases shirking. I read multiple scholarly articles on this, it’s in concept great but in practice unbelievably flawed.

Proportional representation is the best thing if people want more choice, they will get more influence. But this system can’t be two-party, as you know in your comment, so in the US this system wouldn’t work unless we fundamentally changed our entire electoral system


#167

You are confused on my point or we are talking two different things. If a guy murders someone, serves 25 years then is released and kills someone again, you are saying he should get death penalty? I say no. Reoffense can happen but I don’t punish reoffense with death, neither does JPII because while the person is in prison they pose no threat, it is when they are in society.

Not to mention if you reoffend on murder, you are never coming out again so the risk becomes zero. Thus the need for the death penalty is zero. Doesn’t matter if a guy kills 50 people or 500. We don’t measure the “need” for the death penalty (which there isn’t one) by total kills, we measure it by risk. When the prisoner is locked up there is zero risk as long as proper precautions are taken


#168

No I’m saying the need for death penalty is not “Impossible” or “will never happen” (as your post asserted) if someone is released & kills again which (you’ve conceded is possible).


#169

But I am confused why you think the DP is needed if someone reoffends. I do not think it is needed because it’s irrelevant. Reoffending has nothing to do with the DP.

If the DP has any moral use it is when someone is a risk of escaping or killing guards or inmates, something that cannot happen in the most secure and tight prisons due to increasing advancements in technology.

Reoffending is not a relevant “risk” to determine if someone should get DP. My assertion is, in theory, you and I could come up with a situation that needs the DP but in actuality, this situation will never happen and thus the DP is immoral. Also the thoughts of JPII on this


#170

No, DP is needed so they can’t reoffend

(those convicted of capital offenses)

You’ve conceded there is risk the convicted can be released and kill again so you’ve conceded risk to society of prison and release instead of DP. Perhaps you feel that risk doesn’t outweigh loss of life from DP? I can see that if that is JP II argument even if I disagree


#171

Australia has for decades had a system called “preferential voting” in the lower house (sounds very similar to ranked voting in that candidates are ranked by the voters in order of the voter’s preference) and it hasn’t caused notable confusion. By the way, we also have proportional representation in our upper house.

Australia is a two-party system however, particularly in the upper house, the major parties can end up without a clear majority. So minor party candidates can end up holding the balance of power, thereby providing some genuine checks and balances on the behemoth party apparatus.


#172

Eh…that’s not entirely accurate. Ranked choice has its own problems. The biggest problem being that it drives down turnout and participation. If you look at France which has ranked choice, only about a third or so of the French electorate actually voted for Macron. And it also gives a disproportionate amount of influence to more fringe/smaller parties.


#173

But if there is a substantial risk of the person reoffending upon release, the person wouldn’t be paroled. The person would get life in prison. At most we are talking about a 1/1,000,000,000 situation that slips out the cracks


#174

There’s been a lot of discussion on death penalty vs no death penalty, but no alternative has been proposed…
I suggest a sentence of ‘life at hard labor with no chance of parole’. The convicted criminal, if wrongly convicted, could be released…the convicted criminal, if rightly convicted, could repent…the proceeds from the hard labor, after expenses, could be given to the victims of the crime…the criminal who chose not to work would not be fed, so in effect would be freely choosing the death penalty.
I know there are details that would have to be worked out, but it seems like a reasonable pro-life solution.


#175

This is interesting.

I am not a big supporter of the death penalty and do not relish by any means the taking of a human life.

But this is the exact argument my cousin used to use. There’s always the chance you could make a mistake and execute the wrong person. But if the murderer is not executed there’s the chance they could be set free to kill again, or kill someone in the prison system.

And while the chance is “very low,” it’s there, and it’s happened. There’s always the chance of incompetence or negligence in the prison system (letting someone out by mistake, letting someone escape) or the possibility that the person may have some influence in the prison system to let them out.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.