It seems to me it must be OK in parts of the justice system in the USA - - when the system hands down a death penalty on people, when we need to kill those people to show the world that killing people is wrong.
I understand the atrocity of deeds done by some people. I just, in general, still sort of question the whole death penalty concept of killing people to prove that killing people is wrong.
How about something simple like someone is coming at you with a knife? And you have a gun. And they are going to kill you if you don't shoot.
Then the courts get involved. You killed him. It was self-defense. That is okay in my book. Now if he manages to kill you, should we now kill him in return? That is where I draw the line. I don't think we should be killing people in the justice system. But there are so many obstacles that make it necessary. The person may be released later on by an incompetent and if this is a dangerous killer, that means he will kill again. Should we kill him because someone in the future may release him? That seems horrible as a reason. But it is done as a reason all the time.
As always, you make great points! Yup, and I agree with you on all your point here, too.
And we haven't even mentioned the people who got wrongfully sent to Death Row. Just last night I saw an episode of a TV show "Death Row Stores" and two brothers were on Death Row for over 30 years for a murder neither had anything to do with -- and thanks to a newly-formed organization (I forget its name) that specifically 're-investigates' Death Row inmates' cases, the two brothers were proven uninvolved with the murder -- someone else was proven to have done it. The brothers were immediately released. The original prosecutor had intentionally held back evidence from the original defense team. Anyway, I've heard about/read about more-than-several cases about people wrongfully sent to Death Row.
Interesting question to me, Sharon. And your question relates directly to a movie I'm watching that a friend recommended to me -- "Hacksaw Ridge." And, no surprise to me (especially lately, ha!), it's taking me days to watch -- I keep getting upset, tearing up in the eyes -- I, so far, have only been able to watch in two 20-minutes-or-so chucks at a time, ha! :) Don't tell me anything about it if you've seen it, ha! but it does relate to your question! i plan on finishing the movie today. :)
I have to be in the mood for that kind of thing. I am watching Game of Thrones, 8th and final season and I am done watching the finale and that is it for Game of Thrones, but it is so complicated, that it will take me all my time just to re-watch everything. I need to see the final season at least once more. That will take the next few weeks since I come home from work and pass out in front of the TV. LOL
So, Hacksaw Ridge is not on the agenda. I'll have to trust you on that one.
The general premise thus far (this is not a plot spoiler) of "Hacksaw Ridge" -- the movie is based upon a true story of a young American man who joins the service during WWII but he refuses to touch a gun because he strongly believes any killing is wrong, regardless of the dynamics of war. But he wants to support and help the cause, that's why he signed up - - to help out.
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at May 27, 2019 1:56 PM MDT
You say, "the whole death penalty concept of killing people to prove that killing people is wrong."
I've never heard that as being the concept on which the death penalty was based.
When I was much younger, part of the expressed reason was deterrence. When people objected that there was no guarantee that the execution of one person for a specific crime would guarantee that other people would be deterred from acting in a way to incur that same penalty, the pundits would say, "Well, it will sure as he** deter the individual sentenced to death from committing that same crime again."
But I digress---the rationale for the death penalty has always been (in my education) the protection of society from the individual who committed the offense for which he or she had received the death penalty.
Recently, the Catholic catechism has been changed to reflect both the development of doctrine and the more effective systems of detention (that) have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
And while that revision and the revised stance (which does make sense to me in terms of consistency with previous doctrinal reasoning and in the context of penal system advances), I must admit I am more steeped in justice than mercy.
(Guess it's time to reread and reflect on Act IV, Scene I in The Merchant of Venice---"The quality of mercy speech...".)
I love that. We are taking on their Karma when we kill them. We are sharing in that agreement that death deserves death in return as an answer. We should never be quick to dole out death as a punishment, especially as a convenience. If it makes a family feel better to know their son's killer is being executed, is the poorest excuse for an execution I can think of. The family needs to accept and process and move on. Not exact revenge. Not in that measure. It is not their call. It is not our call.
However, circumstances beyond our control make it now necessary. We cannot control murderers. We cannot keep them locked up forever. There is no room. We cannot let them go. They are dangerous. There is that argument. Capital Punishment does not deter crime. Whatsoever. There is that argument as well.
But the biggest argument of all is that killing is wrong. Abortion is wrong. I don't believe in death as an answer to anything life throws at us. But I mostly don't believe in asserting my beliefs over those who believe otherwise. There is no cut and dried answers anymore. I know we all have to exist together. I know laws are for a reason and must be respected and I also know that we are reasoning, thinking, evolving creatures and we need to exercise compassion and justice in equal measure for every act that is judged in a courtroom.
My words you quoted -- yeah, it makes sense the points you made based on that. I should have said in my original post that I do realize my words/concept are not related to what inspired the Death Penalty. It's just my take on it -- regardless of the good points you make, I still end up thinking the same thing - - in the long run, to me, we, as a society, with the Death Penalty, are killing people who have killed people because killing people is wrong. And that just doesn't fall easily into my mind.
And I don't necessarily agree that killing someone who has killed is justice.
But, also in that so-called 'long run' :), I tend to think you may be better educated in the legalities and the actual ins-and-outs of the justice system than I am. In any case, I appreciate your adding your thoughts to and with my thoughts. :)
This post was edited by WelbyQuentin at May 28, 2019 1:37 PM MDT
Our understanding and appreciation of the inherent value in human life comes sometimes with age and experience---or sometimes in a way one just can't ignore.
Consider: "Saul, Saul, Why do you persecute me."
Apparently, Saul's conversion was immediate---and He became a changed man with a totally different outlook on life.
I'm not sure that the totality of Saul's /Paul's story should be reduced to "well, he was wrong, but now he's gotten right."
Why he had the values that he had and acted according to them (humans cannot choose evil unless they mistakenly believe that evil to be good because the will cannot choose anything but what it judges to be good) vs how and to what his values changed and why is the real point of the story.
It's a story of redemption
There is nothing wrong with regretting our mistakes, but we need to allow for the fact that change is a law of our being and life is about moving from potency to act---from what we can be to achieving that---and that is typical of human progress..
This post was edited by tom jackson at May 28, 2019 2:17 PM MDT
I would hope that if a police officer shoots and kills a perpetrator because that was the only reasonable action that he could take, that he does not regret the killing itself.
The only realistic and healthy response to a necessary killing is to regret the necessity of being in a position of having to kill, not the killing itself.
Critical thinking requires that we distinguish between what we are required to do by circumstances over which we have no control in order to prevent greater evil, and the actual thing we are therefore required by law or morality to perform.
I disagree that "We are sharing in that agreement that death deserves death in return as an answer."
The principle was that given the inadequacies of prisons to absolutely guarantee that a person so dangerous to society could be kept away from the society he threatened, his execution was the only reasonable remedy.
It's hard for me to argue this because I see the wisdom of this. I do. But we can house dangerous things if we try. It is less expensive than killing them most times. I don't think God would judge a person who is going to exact justice objectively and take the life of a killer. It is weird. I have no problem killing someone who is trying to kill someone else or me, but I have a problem with this. But I do allow for others to make the decision and stand with me or not. I would not push this idea. I just am not behind capital punishment. I think a life sentence is way worse than Capital Punishment by the way. That is the easier, softer way out of the punishment.
There are cases like self-defense and protecting others against imminent harm when we can say killing is justified. I won’t say justified and OK are the same thing.
Is it OK to gun down an active shooter in a grade school? Kill an armed terrorist running amok on a crowded aircraft?
We have the answer "In self-defense" ... but that leaves the question of: at what point is lethal self-defense justified?
Just in the USA, we have at least 2 very different answers (according to state laws). In one - you are allowed to "stand your ground". You don't have to try and escape the attack before using lethal force. In the other - you MUST attempt to escape before using lethal force. Even if someone is attacking you in your own home.
WelbyQuentin 