Posted on 08/02/2018 7:25:10 AM PDT by fwdude
>>If they are executed and we find 5 years later that they were innocent, there is nothing that can be done to minimize the mistake.<<
The poster’s argument that you describe as “silly” is definitely NOT silly, and the first word of your statement above demonstrates why it’s not.
The rest of your post has some interesting points. A few corrections or responses are in order:
What should be the penalty for someone doing life after a murder conviction who kills a guard or other inmate.
Prisoners should be confined to individual cells, and should generally live a miserable existence. Threats to guards and fellow inmates are mainly a function of the way we coddle them rather than punishing them.
Why can a police officer shoot a person who draws a weapon beefier they fire it. Shouldn’t they wait until there is a shot to make sure the person is intending to kill them? We give that power to the police because not is moral for the officer to live and the person drawing a weapon to die no matter what they are thinking or intending.
Two points here ...
1. You have erased the very wide, obvious line between an imminent threat and a deliberative process where there is no imminent threat. If a convicted criminal represents an imminent threat, then why not shoot him right in the courtroom rather than wait until he tries to escape and grabs a gun from the court officer?
2. Why even mention the police at all? We don't "give" the police the power you describe. The right of self-defense applies to individuals regardless of whether or not they are police officers.
>>What if a convicted felon dies in prison after a life sentence (many do.) How is that un-doable?<<
Exactly the point I just made in my post.
Matthew 10:29 and John 19:10-11 indicate that death penalty authority comes from G-d. So let’s see if G-d complies with pope. ;^)
Ironically, it's also possible that the longer a person lives in a prison, the more likely their life expectancy will exceed what it would have been on the outside.
>>Emotions, however, are not an appropriate guide to sound policy.<<
In my view that old and trite cliche has no credibility due to the fact that such pronouncements concerning what is or is not “sound policy” are equally predicated on emotion.
living 30 years longer than the victims is hardly finality.
when i married a catholic girl as a non denominational protestant, i had to denounce my cultist ways and agree to bring up any children as catholics.
Name one innocent person that was executed.
I am getting a lot of entertainment from this thread.
Looking forward to this current fake-Pope going full homo. That’s the rational endpoint of his craziness.
What about the inviolability and dignity of the victim(s)? Guess that isn't as important to these jackwagons.
I also liked his tracts about catholics!
That would have been a deal breaker for me. My mother was a catholic and tried to raise us kids that way, but none of us bought it. My children and grandchildren are all Protestants. Catholicism in our family died with my mother.
To your point #1, I think this is a good case for restricting...not limiting, the death penalty. The standard for conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but I would be fine with imposing “beyond a shadow of a doubt” standard for the DP. Use it only in cases such as the Ted Bundy’s, the night stalkers, the John Wayne Gacy’s where there is no doubt whatsoever.
As to point 2, I really don’t see that repentance is a state function, so from that standpoint it is irrelevant. I do believe God will forgive a repentant murderer, even at the point of execution. But that does not change the earthy consequences of ones actions.
I love Catholics, they are my brothers and sisters in Christ. But this pope is a fine example of why I could not be one. He is a man and not infallible...and although some would say that the infallibility only extends to doctrine, this example, or his stances on illegal immigration, or socialism show how easily ANYTHING can be dragged into the arena of doctrine.
I do not emphasize prevention my entire argument is based on morality and justice.
Your response on the inmate killing someone indicates a lack of knowledge of mirders committed inside even on SHU units.
Point taken on the right to self defense.
Cameron Todd Willingham—In 1992, Willingham was convicted of arson murder in Texas. He was believed to have intentionally set a fire that killed his three kids. In 2004, he was put to death. Unfortunately, the Texas Forensic Science Commission later found that the evidence was misinterpreted, and they concluded that none of the evidence used against Willingham was valid. As it turns out, the fire really was accidental.
There are others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.