Pope Francis on Sunday called for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty[/b], saying the commandment "You shall not kill" was absolute and equally valid for the guilty as for the innocent.
Using some of his strongest words ever against capital punishment, he also called on Catholic politicians worldwide to make "a courageous and exemplary gesture" by seeking a moratorium on executions during the Church's current Holy Year, which ends in November.
"I appeal to the consciences of those who govern to reach an international consensus to abolish the death penalty," he told tens of thousands of people in St. Peter's Square.
"The commandment "You shall not kill," has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty," he told the crowd.
The 1.2 billion-member Catholic Church allowed the death penalty in extreme cases for centuries, but the position began to change under the late Pope John Paul, who died in 2005.
The pope added that there was now "a growing opposition to the death penalty even for the legitimate defense of society" because modern means existed to "efficiently repress crime without definitively denying the person who committed it the possibility of rehabilitating themselves."
Francis made the comments to throw his weight behind an international conference against the death penalty starting Monday in Rome and organized by the Sant'Egidio Community, a worldwide Catholic peace and justice group.
Francis, who has visited a number of jails since his election as pope nearly three years ago - the latest in Mexico last week - also called for better prison conditions.
"All Christians and men of good will are called on to work not only for the abolition of the death penalty, but also to improve prison conditions so that they respect the human dignity of people who have been deprived of their freedom," he said.
In the past, the pope also denounced life imprisonment, calling it "a hidden death penalty" and saying that more should be done to try to rehabilitate even the most hardened of criminals.
When does the life penalty end? It's the precursor.
To stay on topic though, I really do believe that a life sentence is cruel, though not unusual, punishment. You just get to sit and rot, dwelling on the fact that death is your only release.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Mon Feb 22, 2016 6:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dalek Prime wrote:So, you would kill yourself if you were serving a life term with no parole, Arising?
Not sure but hope I'd meditate, read, write and do yoga but, if I'd done it, I'd consider accepting a death sentence if incarceration got to much. But my apologies as I misread your post, as such I think life imprisonment is an apt punishment for those who take a life willingly but I'd still have the death penalty back for serial and multiple murderers.
surreptitious57 wrote:
For Once The Pope Is Absolutely Right As The Death Penalty Should Be Universally Abolished And Not A Moment Too Soon
I'd have thought a more just and fair legal and police process might mitigate the existence of a death penalty. Why should a multiple or serial murderer or a child killer live when the other is dead?
Dalek Prime wrote:So, you would kill yourself if you were serving a life term with no parole, Arising?
Not sure but hope I'd meditate, read, write and do yoga but, if I'd done it, I'd consider accepting a death sentence if incarceration got to much. But my apologies as I misread your post, as such I think life imprisonment is an apt punishment for those who take a life willingly but I'd still have the death penalty back for serial and multiple murderers.
Fair enough. And no need to apologize. Life happens.
It's against the law to kill...so, we'll enforce this law by killing. ?
In a way, isn't that a little illogical?
.
Yes. One of my biggest complaints on this forum is that ethics are often discussed, but hypocritically neglected.
In the spirit of Camus, the death penalty is no more than legalized murder by the state. More so, it calls to question how we as a culture value life, when life itself is so valuable because all things which humans do, including philosophy, require life's existence as an essential part of it. However, we cannot value on life over another life because each life always has the same potentiality too do good, even if that individual has done bad in the past. This being stated, most people value their own life. Thus, if we value our own life, we are required to value the lives of others as well. Since the death penalty violates our value of life since it is murder, the death penalty should never be allowed.
I agree that taking a life because that person has ended the life or lives of others is not justified, but I object to requiring society to support the incarceration of that person. Make them pay their way, and if they can't pay or refuse to do what is required to pay, then impose the death penalty, or isolate them from society so that they can no longer enjoy the benefits of that society.
Joe kills...killing is bad...Joe is tried by his peers...Joe is found guilty...joe is sentenced to death...
...here's the good part...
...the sentence must be carried out by someone close to the victim...friends, family...if none of these folks can carry out the sentence, Joe walks...mebbe a big, red, MURDERER ought to be tatooed on his forehead...wear that for five or ten years...be a pariah.
Seems to me: the aggrieved, if lobbying for death, should have to do the dirty work...if they can't then, seems to me, their lost loved one just wasn't important enough to avenge...and, if that loved one wasn't that important to them, then - sure as shit - that person isn't important to me.
Joe kills...killing is bad...Joe is tried by his peers...Joe is found guilty...joe is sentenced to death...
...here's the good part...
...the sentence must be carried out by someone close to the victim...friends, family...if none of these folks can carry out the sentence, Joe walks...mebbe a big, red, MURDERER ought to be tatooed on his forehead...wear that for five or ten years...be a pariah.
Seems to me: the aggrieved, if lobbying for death, should have to do the dirty work...if they can't then, seems to me, their lost loved one just wasn't important enough to avenge...and, if that loved one wasn't that important to them, then - sure as shit - that person isn't important to me.
I would add that they should be required to choose the means of execution, it would say a lot about the morality of those involved.
