How exactly is being pro-capital punishment consistent with being pro-life?

[Little-Acorn]

How exactly is being pro-capital punishment consistent with being pro-life?


(patiently)

Capital Punishment is done to people who have unjustly destroyed innocent lives and may do so again.

(How many times has this been explained to screeching liberals, who still keep trying to pretend they don't understand it?)

 

[Conservative65]

[It seems someone stupid as you doesn't know the difference between killing and punishment. That they both involve someone dying doesn't make them the same. Killings is what the one being punished with death gets because he killed. That you don't understand that either means you don't want to or you are simply to damn stupid to be able to.

Killing is taking a life. Murder is taking a life without appropriate cause. Punishment is a penalty levied on an offender for breaking the law. Murder is always killing. Killing isn't always murder. I used the neutral term.

My reasoning:

This argument continually misses the point. Nobody's claiming that vicious murderers don't deserve to die and when they do, no wrong has been committed. We're arguing that if we have a choice, we ought always to err on the side of life and allow a righteous God to tender final judgment.

It's not even really religious though. In the case of a murderer, at least one life has already been lost. The murderer is no longer much of a threat if they've already been caught and found guilty. Why should another life be taken when that threat has been neutralized non-violently? What gives us the right to kill someone who's already locked up under high security? "Justice?" There's no justice in that. None of the lives they took will stop being dead if we kill them. It would just be pointless, petty retribution at that point. If they can mentally handle freedom, then they need to be reformed through the penitentiary system. That's what it was always actually for anyway. If not, then keep them penned up somewhere they can be kept under close supervision and allow them to work for the benefit of society and their own well being from there. That we don't do this and treat prison as an industry and punishment rather than a place to work on your own reform is exactly why the Scandinavian system outpaces our own.

Then kill those who murder innocent people. As long as they no longer walk this earth for what they did, fine by me.

 

[koshergrl]

Which one of these do you think most likely has killed someone who didn't deserve to die?

This one:

or
this one:

 

[Conservative65]

How exactly is being pro-capital punishment consistent with being pro-life?


(patiently)

Capital Punishment is done to people who have unjustly destroyed innocent lives and may do so again.

(How many times has this been explained to screeching liberals, who still keep trying to pretend they don't understand it?)

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How can the OP be so ignorant of the law.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

Putting someone who committed a crime of that nature into confinement away from the free body of society is necessary. That doesn't mean we should revel in it. There's a reason we don't let the often fickle and bloodthirsty crowd decide who lives and who dies. Justice would stop being an applicable concept in our society. Properly served justice has been since the criminal "justice" system became an industry with a public spectacle arm.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.
And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I support neither... does that answer your question?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

This argument continually misses the point. Nobody's claiming that vicious murderers don't deserve to die and when they do, no wrong has been committed. We're arguing that if we have a choice, we ought always to err on the side of life and allow a righteous God to tender final judgment.

It's not even really religious though. In the case of a murderer, at least one life has already been lost. The murderer is no longer much of a threat if they've already been caught and found guilty. Why should another life be taken when that threat has been neutralized non-violently? What gives us the right to kill someone who's already locked up under high security? "Justice?" There's no justice in that. None of the lives they took will stop being dead if we kill them. It would just be pointless, petty retribution at that point. If they can mentally handle freedom, then they need to be reformed through the penitentiary system. That's what it was always actually for anyway. If not, then keep them penned up somewhere they can be kept under close supervision and allow them to work for the benefit of society and their own well being from there. That we don't do this and treat prison as an industry and punishment rather than a place to work on your own reform is exactly why the Scandinavian system outpaces our own.

But it is religious to us Catholics. We choose life over death because in the New Covenant, mercy wins over justice. Our just punishment for sin is stayed because of the blood of Christ, the perfect propitiation for sinners.

Where your argument fails is in its wrongful attempt to assign immorality to capital punishment. You ask "What gives us the right?" and the quick, and devastatingly accurate response is God gives us that right. God instituted the death penalty as the backbone of human criminal justice in his covenant with Noah before mankind was once again spawned over the face of the earth and reinforced it with Moses when he gave the law on Mt. Sinai. This is what I learned, that when people who oppose capital punishment impugn those who support it as immoral, it repels them. And the reason it repels them is simple, it's not true. Capital punishment as a response to murder is not and is never wrong, and when we claim it is, we're written off as kooks.

The issue of capital punishment is not one of good vs evil, but rather one of a choice between justice, which is never wrong, and mercy, which is the better way. The Catholic Church offers a better alternative to execution, allowing somebody a lifetime to consider their actions and come to a state of repentance. Many murderers do arrive at this epiphany and are able to seek forgiveness. This is the better way.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The OP's awful logic is what you get when someone never reads the other side and does not examine issues objectively and logically.

By what twisted reasoning can anyone say that you can't be pro-life if you support the execution of criminals who have committed murder and who were sentenced to death after being tried and found guilty of murder by a jury of their peers?

By what bizarre logic can you compare a convicted murderer to an innocent baby in the womb?

Supporting the death penalty in vicious, egregious cases of murder is not the least bit inconsistent with being pro-life. Civilized nations have long recognized that certain crimes are so terrible and inhumane that they warrant death as the punishment. That is showing respect for life, for the innocent life taken by murderers.

 

[koshergrl]

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

Putting someone who committed a crime of that nature into confinement away from the free body of society is necessary. That doesn't mean we should revel in it. There's a reason we don't let the often fickle and bloodthirsty crowd decide who lives and who dies. Justice would stop being an applicable concept in our society. Properly served justice has been since the criminal "justice" system became an industry with a public spectacle arm.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.
And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.

Nobody revels in executions, except progressive douches who demonize victims in order to get murderers out to walk the streets.

People who have no value for innocent life have no business telling the rest of us that convicted murderers should be spared.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

But it is religious to us Catholics. We choose life over death because in the New Covenant, mercy wins over justice. Our just punishment for sin is stayed because of the blood of Christ, the perfect propitiation for sinners.

Where your argument fails is in its wrongful attempt to assign immorality to capital punishment. You ask "What gives us the right?" and the quick, and devastatingly accurate response is God gives us that right. God instituted the death penalty as the backbone of human criminal justice in his covenant with Noah before mankind was once again spawned over the face of the earth and reinforced it with Moses when he gave the law on Mt. Sinai. This is what I learned, that when people who oppose capital punishment impugn those who support it as immoral, it repels them. And the reason it repels them is simple, it's not true. Capital punishment as a response to murder is not and is never wrong, and when we claim it is, we're written off as kooks.

The issue of capital punishment is not one of good vs evil, but rather one of a choice between justice, which is never wrong, and mercy, which is the better way. The Catholic Church offers a better alternative to execution, allowing somebody a lifetime to consider their actions and come to a state of repentance. Many murderers do arrive at this epiphany and are able to seek forgiveness. This is the better way.

This is true to a Catholic. In a secular society no gods are recognized organizing part of the law or giving society rights. Citizens create the laws they live under which give them rights and obligations.

 

[Conservative65]

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

Putting someone who committed a crime of that nature into confinement away from the free body of society is necessary. That doesn't mean we should revel in it. There's a reason we don't let the often fickle and bloodthirsty crowd decide who lives and who dies. Justice would stop being an applicable concept in our society. Properly served justice has been since the criminal "justice" system became an industry with a public spectacle arm.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.
And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.

Equating those who support the death penalty to pro abortion people is invalid.

Society would be better served to rid itself of those that deserve the punishment they earned.

So sad you want to give a guilty murderer more of a chance than you do the innocent victim(s) killed.

The victims aren't coming back by letting the guilty murderer live. That's why the guilty murderer no longer needs to exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

Putting someone who committed a crime of that nature into confinement away from the free body of society is necessary. That doesn't mean we should revel in it. There's a reason we don't let the often fickle and bloodthirsty crowd decide who lives and who dies. Justice would stop being an applicable concept in our society. Properly served justice has been since the criminal "justice" system became an industry with a public spectacle arm.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.
And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.

Nobody revels in executions, except progressive douches who demonize victims in order to get murderers out to walk the streets.

People who have no value for innocent life have no business telling the rest of us that convicted murderers should be spared.

You and others on the social right are truly the bane of the American Nation.

 

[Conservative65]

They don't get it. They equate the punishment of putting someone away as murder.

Putting someone who committed a crime of that nature into confinement away from the free body of society is necessary. That doesn't mean we should revel in it. There's a reason we don't let the often fickle and bloodthirsty crowd decide who lives and who dies. Justice would stop being an applicable concept in our society. Properly served justice has been since the criminal "justice" system became an industry with a public spectacle arm.

While none of the lives the murderer took will stop being dead if the murderer gets what he/she deserves, they won't come back to life if we let the murderer live. When the guilty murderer continuing to live brings the innocent ones back, I'll support letting them live.
And it's our right to decide who lives and who dies? How does that make us any better than the pro-abortion crowd? At least they're admitting that they believe themselves the final arbiters of whether someone is worthy not to be killed. Yes, the murderer is guilty. Yes, the murderer should be punished. Society and justice would be better served with a punishment that doesn't remove yet another life from society and allows the the chance of reforming the guilty into a healthy, productive member of society once again. That was what the penitentiary system was for: penitence. The victims aren't coming back. They don't even exist anymore. Killing the guilty won't allow any reform or penitence because they won't either.

Nobody revels in executions, except progressive douches who demonize victims in order to get murderers out to walk the streets.

People who have no value for innocent life have no business telling the rest of us that convicted murderers should be spared.

You and others on the social right are truly the bane of the American Nation.

You bleeding hearts are what's destroying this nation. Get the **** out now while the rest of us still have a chance to fix the problem.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Equating those who support the death penalty to pro abortion people is invalid.

Society would be better served to rid itself of those that deserve the punishment they earned.

So sad you want to give a guilty murderer more of a chance than you do the innocent victim(s) killed.

The victims aren't coming back by letting the guilty murderer live. That's why the guilty murderer no longer needs to exist.

Both sides are advocating killing those people they see as worthless. They simply disagree about who those people should be exactly and the reasoning for why their worthlessness makes them deserve to be killed. One wants it to be the unborn because "I'd rather not have them in my life". The other wants it to be people who've committed a crime because "**** 'em". I consider both wrong but the one claiming the label of "pro-life" for itself while doing so as especially hypocritical.

I can see where the pro-death penalty people are coming from, even if I don't personally agree with them. I can see where the anti-abortion people are coming from and do agree with them. I can't really see how someone could take the label of "pro-life" because they oppose abortion but then turn around and support killing an offender despite the label they claim.

 

[koshergrl]

Equating those who support the death penalty to pro abortion people is invalid.

Society would be better served to rid itself of those that deserve the punishment they earned.

So sad you want to give a guilty murderer more of a chance than you do the innocent victim(s) killed.

The victims aren't coming back by letting the guilty murderer live. That's why the guilty murderer no longer needs to exist.

Both sides are advocating killing those people they see as worthless. They simply disagree about the exact victims of their policies. I consider both wrong but the one claiming the label of "pro-life" for itself while doing so as especially hypocritical.

I can see where the pro-death penalty people are coming from, even if I don't personally agree with them. I can see where the anti-abortion people are coming from and do agree with them. I can't really see how someone could take the label of "pro-life" because they oppose abortion but then turn around and support killing an offender despite the label they claim.

Yes well if you don't understand the problem with viewing INNOCENT life as *worthless* then you are, yourself, worthless in the same way that the death row inmates are.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Yes well if you don't understand the problem with viewing INNOCENT life as *worthless* then you are, yourself, worthless in the same way that the death row inmates are.

I'm not entirely sure how you managed to twist "I'm pro-life" into "I believe innocent life is worthless". Please clarify?

 

[Conservative65]

Equating those who support the death penalty to pro abortion people is invalid.

Society would be better served to rid itself of those that deserve the punishment they earned.

So sad you want to give a guilty murderer more of a chance than you do the innocent victim(s) killed.

The victims aren't coming back by letting the guilty murderer live. That's why the guilty murderer no longer needs to exist.

Both sides are advocating killing those people they see as worthless. They simply disagree about who those people should be exactly and the reasoning for why their worthlessness makes them deserve to be killed. One wants it to be the unborn because "I'd rather not have them in my life". The other wants it to be people who've committed a crime because "**** 'em". I consider both wrong but the one claiming the label of "pro-life" for itself while doing so as especially hypocritical.

I can see where the pro-death penalty people are coming from, even if I don't personally agree with them. I can see where the anti-abortion people are coming from and do agree with them. I can't really see how someone could take the label of "pro-life" because they oppose abortion but then turn around and support killing an offender despite the label they claim.

Difference is that the murderer has proven him/herself as worthless. The innocent unborn baby has done nothing.

That you don't see the difference is obvious.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

Difference is that the murderer has proven him/herself as worthless. The innocent unborn baby has done nothing.

That you don't see the difference is obvious.

It's not so much that I don't understand the difference you're drawing. It's that I don't agree with your essential belief that the inherent value of a life can be lost. I've been through all kinds of shit with the pro-abortion crowd on this too. Life has inherent and inalienable value by mere virtue of being alive. You can't increase the value of your life over that of someone else's. You can't lose the value of your life. Mine will never be more or less valuable or worthy of protection that yours. Supposedly our country was partially founded on this idea of an inalienable right to life, though that isn't now and has never been the case in practice.

 

[BluesLegend]

Look, some low life raping murdering animals just need to be put to death. Innocent unborn babies on the other hand, wow not even in the same solar system.