Executing 7 men in 10 days this Easter will not restore justice to Arkansas

Mountain_Girl406

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2015
4,818
3,855
56
✟144,014.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Don't know.
My guess is no, he wasn't likely to escape, just because max security prisons are pretty difficult to escape from. We've successfully kept much more dangerous prisoners alive and incarcerated (Manson, for instance ). I also don't see any indication he was likely to harm prison guards. So, the ' we absolutely must kill him to be safe, it's self defense' argument isn't convincing to me.

If it is true in his case, he must be killed because of the threat he poses, there are probably scores of others that are more likely to be a threat..those with shorter sentances, lack of repentance, aggressive behavior, etc.

Maybe that was a valid argument for the death penalty in other times or other places, but I don't think it is today in the US.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
My guess is no, he wasn't likely to escape, just because max security prisons are pretty difficult to escape from. We've successfully kept much more dangerous prisoners alive and incarcerated (Manson, for instance ). I also don't see any indication he was likely to harm prison guards. So, the ' we absolutely must kill him to be safe, it's self defense' argument isn't convincing to me.

If it is true in his case, he must be killed because of the threat he poses, there are probably scores of others that are more likely to be a threat..those with shorter sentances, lack of repentance, aggressive behavior, etc.

Maybe that was a valid argument for the death penalty in other times or other places, but I don't think it is today in the US.
That's not the core of my argument. To me, it's about justice and punishment, a life for a life (four lives, actually). His reoffending just sort of seals the deal. This isn't contrary to traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,095
13,146
✟1,086,418.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees. He says the suffering of the guilty can have a purgatorial effect on them.

The idea of "redemptive violence" doesn't refer to the persons being executed or sacrificed. It refers to whether vengeance or scapegoating serves to heal our society. Why, I wonder, are the overwhelming majority of American prisoners people of color? Poor? Why are so many mentally disabled or challenged people executed in Texas and other southern states?

We tend to excuse white collar crime...after all, not much fuss was made of Tom Price's insider training with pharmaceutical stocks while Congress gave him the power to help deprive 24 million people of health insurance. But "murderers" in Texas with IQ's in the 60's are executed to heal society, even though I'd bet 10 to 1 that they were framed by cunning schemers with higher IQ's.

But there is no such thing as redemptive violence. Violence doesn’t save; it only destroys in both short and long term. Jesus replaced the myth of redemptive violence with the truth of redemptive suffering. He showed us on the cross how to hold the pain and let it transform us, rather than pass it on to the others around us.
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟68,185.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
We tend to excuse white collar crime...after all, not much fuss was made of Tom Price's insider training with pharmaceutical stocks while Congress gave him the power to help deprive 24 million people of health insurance.

And it's worth noting that when politicians vote to deprive people of health care, some portion of those people die because they couldn't get the care they needed at an early enough stage to matter. For example, someone with good health coverage who can go in for preventative care and get cancer screenings sometimes can be treated and recover. If that person can't afford anything and waits until things are so bad that she has to go to the emergency room, probably after putting over even that last step as long as possible because the costs would bankrupt her and she wasn't sure it was absolutely necessary- the cancer has spread and the patient dies.

Another example is a guy with high blood pressure who doesn't know he has high blood pressure. If he's going to see his doctor every six months, that will be caught, and he'll have a chance to consider lifestyle and diet modifications, and be prescribed medicine that he can get if he's insured. Otherwise, he waits until he has a heart attack. Worse than that, he might shrug off potential signs of a heart attack, not knowing he has risk factors (Since he doesn't know he has high blood pressure) and, in light of the ER visit bankrupting him if he goes, only go when it's too late.

Seconds and hours count with a heart attack, by the way. Many, many years ago I answer phones in a doctor's office and a guy called in trying to get an appointment for what he initially described as indigestion. If I had just straight forwardly made the appointment, he would have been scheduled for at least a month later. I felt he was very likely having a heart attack and told him to go to the ER. He refused the ER, but I doggedly persisted and told him to just come to the office now and if it was just indigestion, he'd get the visit out of the way (With a different doctor than his regular one, because that's who was in, but...), but if it were a heart attack, it could be the difference between life and death.

I wound up writing up notes on the call that underlined "Told to go to the ER, patient refused" three times with circles and arrows (Potential liability issue there if you tell someone you think is having a heart attack to go to the office instead of the ER, I only did the office thing because he outright refused the ER repeatedly), then I spoke with both the office manager and the doctor's nurse and told them what was going on and to get this person make and take a blood pressure reading the second he walked in the door. Then my shift was over and I went home.

The next day, the doctor told me I had saved the guy's life. He came in and literally had the heart attack in the office, which was fairly close to the hospital, and they called the ambulance for him. They said he wasn't literally having a heart attack at the time he called, but he did at the medical office like 20 minutes later. The doctor really thought if he had even waited a few hours, he'd have died.

Of course, it isn't always that dramatic- living versus dying- but it is often the difference between getting through a heart attack and having to make lifestyle modifications and stuff, but basically being okay, and something where you may not be able to properly speak or walk or whatever the rest of your life. There is a lot of importance to not waiting on these things.

If the guy I was talking to who thought he had indigestion hadn't been insured, he probably would have bought some antacids at the Dollar Store and died. He'd never have made the phone call or come into the office, and the ER would have been a last resort that he'd have waited too long on.

People really do die from lack of health insurance. I will never for the life of me understand why this isn't considered a life issue by some folks. The deaths of some of people who would have lost insurance had Obamacare been repealed would have been on the consciences of the people in Congress who voted to repeal it, and the guy who would have signed it into law. And they didn't even commit a crime, unless we criminalized poverty and I missed it.

Alan Grayson is not a perfect person. Some bad things came out about him in the last year or two. However, I always appreciated the courage he showed in 2010 when Obamacare was being debated. He read the names of all the people who had died due to lack of health insurance that he could document into the Congressional record, and he read the names by first announcing which congressperson's district they had lived in and reading them grouped like that, selecting Congresspeople who were planning to vote against the bill or who were undecided.

He also gave this short presentation:


That didn't win him a lot of friends on the other side of isle and, of course, it's outdated now- The Republicans did, admittedly, 7 years after the fact, come up with a plan, but had it been implemented, a lot of people would have lost their health care relative to Obamacare, and they had factions within their party on both sides who opposed (On the one side, ultra-conservative Republicans who thought it left too much of Obamacare in place, and on the other side more moderate Republicans who knew they have all the people who lost health care in their states in their face getting out the vote for their opponents when they ran for re-election*) it to the point where even with both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, they couldn't pass into in a law.

Obamacare isn't perfect, because it doesn't cover everyone and there are a few inefficiencies there. But the answers Republicans give always wind up amounting to covering fewer people, with the argument being about how many fewer it should cover or even whether there should be a health care system at all that covers anyone that the government helps out with in any way. I don't think that's very Christian of them.

Democrats got Obamacare in place, and will preserve it against plans that would cover fewer or no people. When Obamacare is eventually replaced, my hope is that it will be by the Democrats as well, with a single-payer Medicare for all type plan like the one Bernie Sanders ran on last year- truly universal coverage. Almost all western nations have universal health care for all their citizens run directly through the government- and usually do so at far less in terms of cost per patient than we do. So, it'd be both morally and fiscally responsible.


* John Kaisch, Republican Governor of Ohio, who saw how the Medicaid expansion portion of Obamacare was working in his state, which opted into it, actually went to the White House and tried to plead with Trump for over an hour to keep the Medicaid expansion available in any Obamacare replacement bill.
 
Upvote 0

Godlovesmetwo

Fringe Catholic
Mar 16, 2016
10,398
7,257
Antwerp
✟17,860.00
Country
Djibouti
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
They say he found Jesus and repented and became a model prisoner in his last years. That's good. It could have been his eminent death which convicted him to repent.
sorry, just citing the example of "convicted" being used in a sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tallguy88
Upvote 0

Mountain_Girl406

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 9, 2015
4,818
3,855
56
✟144,014.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
That's not the core of my argument. To me, it's about justice and punishment, a life for a life (four lives, actually). His reoffending just sort of seals the deal. This isn't contrary to traditional Catholic teaching on the subject.
I wasn't speaking to your core argument, although if I were, I'd point our that 'an eye for an eye' isn't supposed to be how we do it anymore. I was just responding to you statement that I originally quoted, that his execution made us safer.
 
Upvote 0

tadoflamb

no identificado
Feb 20, 2007
16,415
7,531
Diocese of Tucson
✟74,331.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Oddly enough, while considering the biblical support for and against the death penalty the passages offered by our non-Christian friend resonated most with me.

Speaking of the Old Testament....

There are also commands to stone a woman to death if she is caught in adultery and not to suffer a witch to live. I am sure those commands would not be suitable for a modern, civilized society today.

Again, concerning the OT, there seems to be some confusion over whether to take revenge or not...

"It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them." - Deuteronomy 32:35

And this is repeated in the New Testament....

"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord." - Romans 12:19

And these words of Jesus from Matthew 5:38-48....

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor" and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Source: Bible Gateway

Though the meaning of these Sacred Scriptures seem clear to me, they didn't go without commentary from pro-death penalty advocates. While this blows a hole in the sola scriptura myth of the Perspicuity of Scripture, it also confirms my belief the my personal interpretation of scripture will always trump that of the protestant.

When it comes to Catholics, I have the benefit of appealing to the teaching authority of the Church which states (and I agree) that the need for the death penalty is "very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

Coupled with the theme of my own pastor's homily on Divine Mercy Sunday that we are called to the same unconditional love and forgiveness that our Lord offers us, personally, I can't find any room in my heart for the death penalty.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Since I've said it a few times, I'll go ahead and post the reference. Faithful catholics can disagree over this issue and still be in good standing with the Church, according to Pope Benedict (shortly before being elected):

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,095
13,146
✟1,086,418.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You've shown us that the Church allows you to disagree on the death penalty, but I don't know what you are looking for from us. If you have this edict to support you, isn't that enough?

In the gospels Jesus often called people to a higher standard than the bare bones minimum--like forgiving 70 times 7. Those of us who oppose the death penalty feel Jesus is calling us to the standard of mercy.

We look at the cross on the altar and see Jesus commuting St. Dismas' sentence to eternal life in paradise--just as he did Kenneth Williams'.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Site Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,426.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
It's a good debate and I like to hear all sides. I'm not really a pro-DP guy, I just am not anti-DP either. I'm OK with retaining it for the most egregious crimes, like one that happened near my locale recently where a whole family including the little children were murdered. I'm not shedding any tears over killers like that being put to death. But I'm all for making the system more racially and class fair (across the board, not just in DP cases). Maybe I just have a different perspective since I'm a part of the legal system.
 
Upvote 0

tadoflamb

no identificado
Feb 20, 2007
16,415
7,531
Diocese of Tucson
✟74,331.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
After reviewing the provided Sacred Scriptures and the quotations from the CCC, I'm still of the mind that, at least in this country, there is no good excuse for the death penalty. I can't wiggle my way around this one. As I heard in a recent homily, we're a vengeful society and I don't want to be that way. I'm trying to adopt a spirit of mercy.

I don't think what's going on in Arkansas is so much about society exacting justice but the state trying to use their execution drugs before they expire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shiloh Raven
Upvote 0