BIBLE SAYS: DONT KILL

DEATH PENALTY IS KILLING

ISNT THIS EVIL?

SOMEBODY CAN CHANGE AND BECOME GOOD

AND JERRY TOLD ME THAT CHRISTIANS FORGIVE EACH OTHER

SO ISNT THIS EVIL

AND GEORGES BUSH TELLS THAT HE IS CHRISTIAN BUT KILLED PEOPLE ON DEATH PENALTY

DONT YOU REALISE HE IS FAKE?

-- PUNKER (GREG_PISAHOV@HOTMAIL.COM), January 11, 2005

Answers

1: The deaht penalty is killing for the punishmet of a crime and proitectin of society. The Biel syas not to MUDER, bt often killing is needed, such as in wartimes.

The deaht Penalty s supported by some because it is a deteent to violent crme, and safeguards society.

Likewise, those put to death by this penalty are guilty of a heinous crime, and lost here right o life as a result.

2: I beleive the current Pope is acutlaly pposed to the death penalty.

3: bush is fre Meathodist, not Cahtolic, so probbaley doesnt care much for the Popes positin...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 11, 2005.

2: I beleive the current Pope is acutlaly pposed to the death penalty.

nope, opposed to the widespread use of it as a tool of justice, but doesnt deny that it is nescessary in some cases.

3: bush is fre Meathodist, not Cahtolic, so probbaley doesnt care much for the Popes positin...

irrelevant. bush isnt a judge, he doesnt penalize people with the death penalty. he refuses to EXCUSE their death penalty based on the opinions of people with higher legal training than himself. further, as already discussed, the death penalty is not murder.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 11, 2005.

Here's the Catechism about it:

"Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

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.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]"

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), January 11, 2005.

when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor

you can also defend other humans by locking the guy up...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 12, 2005.

you can also defend other humans by locking the guy up...

sdqa,

Your position seems predicated upon temporal reality alone -what of the supernatural? What if the 'guy' might do harm to others by leading them astray?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), January 12, 2005.

i do not believe ANYONE has the right to condemn someone to death.

-- jas (jas_r_22@hotmail.com), January 12, 2005.

Danny boy I really wish you would read what the Church’s documents actually say for once, instead of just assuming they support your extreme positions. The Catechism allows the theoretical possibility of CP only where it is strictly necessary “to defend the lives of human beings”. Their LIVES. Not their souls. No doubt you’d love to kill people just on the grounds that they might lead others astray (from YOUR ideas?), but the Church does not endorse this. On this issue, sdqa has got it right for once – congratulations!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 12, 2005.

hahahaha thanks

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), January 13, 2005.

"Danny boy I really wish you would read "

Steve, Please stop refering to Daniel as "Dannyboy". Daniel isn't a boy. He is a man in his 40's taking care of his older family!

A far cry from a "boy".

-- - (David@excite.com), January 15, 2005.

The fact of the matter is that with the astronomical error rate in our judicial system, capitol punishment just isn't a good idea. Every year, dozens of cases are reviewed and it is found that some poor, undereducated person was railroaded through the system and they turn out to be innocent (or guilty of a lesser crime not warranting the death penalty). There are no advantages to the death penalty, as opposed to imprisonment. People say it is cheaper to execute someone than it is to feed and clothe them for 40+ years. Aside from the fact that this is an incredibly dehumanizing argument, it isn't even true. The court fees incurred by twelve appeals can easily top the expenses of 40 years worth of cheap food and orange jumpsuits. We don't need the death penalty.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 16, 2005.

I agree completely that we don't need to murder murderers, and that the death penalty does not deter crime. However, the cost of housing, feeding, clothing, educating, and providing medical care for someone for 40 or 50 or 60 years while paying a troop of people to watch him 24 hours a day, 365 days a year far outweighs the cost of sticking a needle in his arm. The matter of appeals is not a significant factor since such just as many appeals if not more will be filed over a life sentence as over a death sentence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 16, 2005.

Yeah well the $ cost of feeding, clothing and educating a child is a hell of a lot more than the $ cost of an abortion too, but that is absolutely no justification for abortion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 16, 2005.

"Yeah well the $ cost of feeding, clothing and educating a child is a hell of a lot more than the $ cost of an abortion too, but that is absolutely no justification for abortion. "

The "spin doctor" at work with Steve like usual.[Steve what does your post have to do with the high price of fish in China?]

And even Deacon Paul had to coment on Anti's backward analogy.[ Do you understand the(simple) math Anti? I can break it down for you if you want? You are 100% WRONG with the math no matter how you feel about capital punishment.

-- - (David@excite.com), January 16, 2005.

And in the New Testament we read how the crowd who had every LEGAL right to stone the adulteress to death all walked away when Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

She was rightly condemned to death. She repented.

Only God has the right to decide when a human life is to be ended. The cost of incarceration isn't a factor when one considers a person's immortal soul. Charles Manson can live another 50 years on my tax dollars if that's how long it takes for him to have the opportunity to repent and be able to achieve salvation. He is no threat to the community where he is.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), January 16, 2005.

Sorry you didn’t understand me David, I thought the point of my post was self-evident. When you’re deciding whether it’s morally right to kill someone, the fact that killing them will save you some money should make no difference to the decision.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 16, 2005.

"However, the cost of housing, feeding, clothing, educating, and providing medical care for someone for 40 or 50 or 60 years while paying a troop of people to watch him 24 hours a day, 365 days a year far outweighs the cost of sticking a needle in his arm. The matter of appeals is not a significant factor since such just as many appeals if not more will be filed over a life sentence as over a death sentence."

That can vary from case to case, I guess it's not always cheaper to keep someone for life, but still...are we prepared to make a decision on whether or not to kill a person based on monetary factors? It just seems a little dehumanizing to me...

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 18, 2005.

forget monetary factors, y'all are treating this like people who go to jail for life forego any crime after that point. RIDICULOUS!!! people get murdered in jail all the time. the question, to me, isnt whether or not the person deserves death, its are they violent enough that they are going to murder other inmates/guards in prison? just as in war sometimes blood must be shed to protect life, so in the justice system the same sometimes rings true.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 19, 2005.

"are they violent enough that they are going to murder other inmates/guards in prison?"

A: Solitary confinement will prevent that. Homicide is not a necessary solution to the situation.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 19, 2005.

solitary confinement is not a possibility for as many people as could be deemed highly likely to murder in prison. finances shouldnt be a consideration, but if they make a solution impossible then that does weigh in as a factor. nonetheless, could you see the lawsuits resulting from putting someone into solitary confinement for the rest of their life??? that wouldnt go over any more easily than the death penalty, solitary for that long is enough to drive a man insane.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 19, 2005.