Sigh. I'm pro Death Penalty again.

[desflood]

They said the same about Jesus. I think that puts me in some good company.

Jesus said, "What a man sows, so shall he reap." Which, by plain common sense, one infers that this man should be raped and killed. Are you and Jesus still in each other's company?

[Spurminator]

Jesus said, "What a man sows, so shall he reap." Which, by plain common sense, one infers that this man should be raped and killed.

That's not what that means at all.

If it was, He would have said, "What a man sows should be sewn upon him."

[Spurminator]

Here's the full Parable. I think you'll find it has nothing to do with the discussion we're having.

It's like a man planning a journey who called his servants and put capital in their hands.** He gave one five bags of gold,* another two,* and another one,* each according to his ability.** Then he set out.** The man with the five bags began trading right away and made a profit of five bags.** The man who had the two bags added two.** But the one who had received a single bag of gold dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.** Eventually their master returned and called them to account.** The servant entrusted with five bags produced the five he had made.** "Master,"* he said,* "you left five bags with me.** See,* I have gained five more."** "Well done,* my good and trusty servant!"* said the master.** "You have proved trustworthy with a little.** Now I'll give you a greater responsibility.** Come and share your master's delight."** The man with the two bags then came and said,* "Master,* you left two bags with me.** See,* I have gained two more."** "Well done,* my good and trusty servant!"* said the master.** "You have proved trustworthy with a little.** Now I'll give you a greater responsibility.** Come and share your master's delight."** Then the man entrusted with one bag came and said,* "Master,* I knew you to be a hard man.** You reap where you have not sown.** You gather where you have not scattered.** So I was afraid and I went and hid your gold in the ground.** Here is what belongs to you."** "You lazy rascal,"* said the master.** "You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered?** Then you should have invested my money with the bankers.** On my return I would have received what is mine with interest.** Take the bag from him and hand it to the one with the ten bags.** Throw this useless servant out."

Mt 25:14-28* Lk 19:12-27

[desflood]

I stand corrected! Seems I heard a different version. Damn religion teachers...

[Guru of Nothing]

Jesus said, "What a man sows, so shall he reap." Which, by plain common sense, one infers that this man should be raped and killed.

Unless you are killing a killer, right?

Exceptions!

[NeoConIV]

That's the problem with the death penalty. It's about satisfying emotions. It's about satiating our thirst for revenge. But that's not what's best for society.

I would argue it's less of a thirst for revenge as it is the bolded text below.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's iden y 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.

Jesus also said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesars. Give to God what is God's". I think Jesus's main concern for this man and all murder/rapists is not whether they will be executed or not, but that they have a total and complete conversion of their hearts. Jesus of course understands the very VERY finite nature of our existence on Earth and the infinite nature of the afterlife. Jesus wants the sinner to repent and have proper contrition for their sins. To renew their heart and to learn to love God and fellow man. So I think Jesus's first concern is a real and deep conversion of the heart. Everything else just doesn't matter.

[Useruser666]

I'd probably kill him. That doesn't necessarily make it right for me to do so. Emotional/personal involvement doesn't suddenly make me better at determining right and wrong.

That's the problem with the death penalty. It's about satisfying emotions. It's about satiating our thirst for revenge. But that's not what's best for society.

But it's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of what the punishment should be. If this guy is convicted, why would it be wrong to execute him?

[Guru of Nothing]

What is "2267", and who authored it?

[Spurminator]

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Is the death penalty the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY of defending human lives?

I happen to agree with this text, but I have a much different interpretation of it than you. IMO, this speaks more to self defense than a captured criminal.

Jesus wants the sinner to repent and have proper contrition for their sins. To renew their heart and to learn to love God and fellow man. So I think Jesus's first concern is a real and deep conversion of the heart.

I agree. And I think Jesus would prefer for a criminal to have the chance of doing this instead of his fellow man determining his life must end. Which, I believe, is why He stopped the stoning of the adultress.

[Spurminator]

But it's not a question of right or wrong, it's a question of what the punishment should be. If this guy is convicted, why would it be wrong to execute him?

Because it's unnecessary. The punishment should be whatever is necessary to prevent him from taking innocent lives.

[NeoConIV]

Guru, from the Catholic Catechism. I quoted it in the very first post, but as you had already said, it's already a huge thread and impossible to catch up entirely on.

Spurm, to hone in on the point of defending human lives, I want to make clear that by 'human lives' we are no longer talking about the general public, but all those people that will be in contact with him once in prison; Prison guards, other inmates etc. Those are the folks we should be in the business of protecting. But as I mentioned earlier, it's kind of pointless when the stay on death row is a number of years.

But for the sake of discussion, what I'm saying is this. Say I have the final authority on whether Nichols gets lethal injection or life without parole. I say life in prison. Two weeks later, he manages to kill a prison guard. It's my responsibility to call the prison guards spouse and let them know that Nichols has murdered their spouse. Who's hand's is the blood really on? Nichols or my own? Forget the plausibility for a moment and appreciate the point I'm trying to make. Is this just?

[Duff McCartney]

Why would you be against it anyway? I say..fry em all.

[NeoConIV]

Because it's unnecessary. The punishment should be whatever is necessary to prevent him from taking innocent lives.

Exactly, and again, the point we're making is that for these select few that have a dintinct penchant for evil and murder, innocent lives now exclusively mean fellow inmates and prison guards. Prison protects the general public from criminals, sure, but prison does not sufficiently protect prison staff and fellow inmates from stone cold killers. So if you say the punishment should be whatever is necessary to prevent him from taking innocent lives, then we are in agreement. That punishment is the death penalty.

[Spurminator]

But for the sake of discussion, what I'm saying is this. Say I have the final authority on whether Nichols gets lethal injection or life without parole. I say life in prison. Two weeks later, he manages to kill a prison guard. It's my responsibility to call the prison guards spouse and let them know that Nichols has murdered their spouse. Who's hand's is the blood really on? Nichols or my own? Forget the plausibility for a moment and appreciate the point I'm trying to make. Is this just?

The blood is absolutely on Nichols' hands. I'm sure, being human, you would place guilt on yourself, and so would the guard's wife, most likely. But it was Nichols who chose to kill again, not you.

If Nichols kills a security guard or fellow prisoner, the fault is not the system's for failing to execute him... the fault is the system's for failing to keep him from having the capability to kill. I cannot think of any scenario in which the LAST POSSIBLE RESORT to protect the further loss of life is the death penalty, can you?

[Spurminator]

So if you say the punishment should be whatever is necessary to prevent him from taking innocent lives, then we are in agreement. That punishment is the death penalty.

As long as walls can be made stronger than humans, the death penalty is never the necessary punishment.

[Guru of Nothing]

But for the sake of discussion, what I'm saying is this. Say I have the final authority on whether Nichols gets lethal injection or life without parole. I say life in prison. Two weeks later, he manages to kill a prison guard. It's my responsibility to call the prison guards spouse and let them know that Nichols has murdered their spouse. Who's hand's is the blood really on? Nichols or my own? Forget the plausibility for a moment and appreciate the point I'm trying to make. Is this just?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is sounds to me that you opt for the death penalty because of what they might do, moreso than the actual murder they have already commited. And, it sounds like a back door attempt for mortals to wrest powers from God, just to satisfy their emotions.

[NeoConIV]

As long as walls can be made stronger than humans, the death penalty is never the necessary punishment.

I understand your point of view. And I am with you with this line of arguement with murderers on a lesser scale, ie a crime of passion murderer, or any other murder that wasn't indiscriminate in nature. These folks I feel clearly pose less of a threat than those that have killed indiscriminately. Nichols falls into both categories. But we'll have to agree to disagree on Nichols. Nichols, for punitive reasons, and for the protection of others (walls stronger than humans is a bit of a simplistic answer, truth be told.) should face the needle.

[Spurminator]

NeoCon... a similar scenario to yours has occurred several times in psychiatric wards. Would you condone the execution of mental patients who may be a risk to the staff and patients in the ins utions?

[desflood]

All sorts of ways to defeat walls.

[MannyIsGod]

Question: While Nichols perpetrated the acts, how much blood is on the hands of a really stupid system in Atlanta that allowed this to happen? In reality, this situation should never have come about at all with proper security.

[Spurminator]

Nichols, for punitive reasons, and for the protection of others (walls stronger than humans is a bit of a simplistic answer, truth be told.) should face the needle.

Agree to disagree, sure, but I think killing him is far more simplistic.

[Spurminator]

All sorts of ways to defeat walls.

Ten by ten foot stone room. A light 15 feet overhead. Stone walls. Water and food three times a day, with plastic utensils. A small drain.

Defeat that.

[NeoConIV]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but is sounds to me that you opt for the death penalty because of what they might do, moreso than the actual murder they have already commited. And, it sounds like a back door attempt for mortals to wrest powers from God, just to satisfy their emotions.

Or to rephrase it again, is it responsible to not put down a known, indiscriminate killer? Either way though, with the current length of stay for Death Row inmates, what does it matter? The proclivity to lash out will most likely be in the first few years of Death Row, still years away from the actual sentance. So whether Nichols gets life or death, the prison guards that have to deal with him are under the same danger either way.

My line of arguement makes much more sense if the death sentance is carried out soon after the sentance. But Guru, I do believe firmly in the punitive aspect of the death penalty to be sure. I was just honing in on the 'protecting innocent lives' part of the arguement for the moment.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, for as much as a danger as this guy is, the authorities handled it really stupidly.

#1. The guarding of the prisoner was inadequete, even after previous security concerns (the shanks)
#2. The locking of weapons was incredibly stupid as well.
#3. He carjacked a car, drove it up a level in the car garage, and left it there. However, APD and the authorities spent incredible amounts of time searching for that car. Didn't anyone think that a search of the garage where many things took place might be an appropriate thing to do?
#4 Alerts were never issued to their subway system. Why the not, how could it have hurt?

Yeah, Nichols is a dangerous man without a doubt, but saying he has an exceptional ability to escape is wrong. It took a lot of luck and a lot of actions that were rather stupid by the authorities.

[NeoConIV]

Ten by ten foot stone room. A light 15 feet overhead. Stone walls. Water and food three times a day, with plastic utensils. A small drain.

Defeat that.

I'll have to check into prison iteneraries for death row inmates, but I'm almost positive they come into contact with prison personnel at various points. Maybe I don't know my prison facts very well.