Pope Declares Death Penalty Unacceptable in All Cases

[Take It In Blood]

Pope is more rational and progressive than GOD himself

 

[acri1]

It’s not that I don’t believe you, but in the long run wouldn’t it save more money. Instead of keeping a serial rapist alive for 50 years wouldn’t killing him be easier. Why is it so expensive to kill people? Serious question.

And if killing criminals was cheaper than jail time, would you find it to be a viable option?

Whether it you think it should be or not, the fact is that the death penalty isn't cheaper and doesn't save money in the long term.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyp...g-the-death-penalty-your-tax-dollars-at-work/

While those complex debates rage on, some like to point fingers at perhaps the most simple reason to support the death penalty: It's cheaper to kill an inmate than to keep an inmate alive.
That may not, however, be true. "It's 10 times more expensive to kill them than to keep them alive,"says Donald McCartin, known as The Hanging Judge of Orange County. McCartin knows a little bit about executions: he has sent nine men to death row.

McCartin isn't talking about the comparisons between the cost of the actual execution and the cost of keeping an inmate in prison: those aren't apples to apples comparisons.

It's true that the actual execution costs taxpayers fairly little: while most states remain mum on the cost of lethal injections because of privacy concerns from pharmaceutical companies, it's estimated that the drugs run about $100 (the Texas Department of Criminal Justice put the cost of their drug cocktails at $83 in 2011). However, the outside costs associated with the death penalty are disproportionately higher.

To begin with, capital cases (those where the death penalty is a potential punishment) are more expensive and take much more time to resolve than non-capital cases. According to a study by the Kansas Judicial Council (downloads as a pdf), defending a death penalty case costs about four times as much as defending a case where the death penalty is not considered. In terms of costs, a report of the Washington State Bar Association found that death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense versus a similar case without the death penalty; that doesn't take into account the cost of court personnel. Even when a trial wasn't necessary (because of a guilty plea), those cases where the death penalty was sought still cost about twice as much as those where death was not sought. Citing Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center, Fox News has reported that studies have "uniformly and conservatively shown that a death-penalty trial costs $1 million more than one in which prosecutors seek life without parole."

And let's not forget about appeals: in Idaho, the State Appellate Public Defenders office spent about 44 times more time on a typical death penalty appeal than on a life sentence appeal (downloads as a pdf): almost 8,000 hours per capital defendant compared to about 180 hours per non-death penalty defendant. New York state projected that the death penalty costs the state $1.8 million per case just through trial and initial appeal.

It costs more to house death penalty prisoners, as well. In Kansas, housing prisoners on death row costs more than twice as much per year ($49,380) as for prisoners in the general population ($24,690). In California, incarceration costs for death penalty prisoners totaled more than $1 billion from 1978 to 2011 (total costs outside of incarceration were another $3 billion). By the numbers, the annual cost of the death penalty in the state of California is $137 million compared to the cost of lifetime incarceration of $11.5 million.

That said, even if that wasn't the case I'd still be uncomfortable with the death penalty considering how much more often black and poor people get it.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Show me in the Bible where its wrong it's wrong in all cases? Oh wait the Bible isn't as important then his opinion. Nevermind

It's pretty obvious in the story of the woman caught in adultery who was going to be stoned, where Jesus says, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." John chapter 8

Or when Jesus says, "Do not judge, do not condemn." Repeatedly.

Or in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says we are to love and forgive even our enemies, and that the old way was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but Jesus is bringing a new way.

What about aok those people the church has executed over the years? Do they get pardons ?

The church formally apologized for that and noted that it was wrong decades ago. Though obviously you can't take back someone you've killed. Which is one of the major points about how wrong it is.

Trump>The pope are far as most Christians/Catholics are concerned

Personally always struck me as odd how much Christians love the death penalty, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

Most Catholics didn't vote for Trump, and Christians have often led the fight to abolish the death penalty. The big issue is the strain of White evangelical Christian that has been captured by the Republican movement over the last 40 or so years.

What about terrorists, war criminals, serial killers, rapists/molesters and criminal masterminds? I understand the death penalty is not always fair especially to blacks and poor people. But if we refine the system, I believe some people shouldn’t be allowed to live, so we can ensure the safety of others.

If they are really that dangerous, then lock them up for life. The number of people who have been locked up in a federal supermax, escaped, and then killed again is far smaller than the number of innocent people who have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.

If we want to show killing is wrong, then we actually have to show that with our actions. Not just "killing is wrong unless I believe it is justified," because most of those terrorists and serial killers and gangbangers thought they were justified when they killed too.

Lock them up and throw away the key.

It's actually cheaper than the death penalty anyway. And like you said, the way it's applied is massively unfair anyway.

Yup.

 

[valet]

It's pretty obvious in the story of the woman caught in adultery who was going to be stoned, where Jesus says, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone." John chapter 8

Or when Jesus says, "Do not judge, do not condemn." Repeatedly.

Or in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says we are to love and forgive even our enemies, and that the old way was "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but Jesus is bringing a new way.

This guy puts them all together here: The Biblical Argument Against the Death Penalty





The church formally apologized for that and noted that it was wrong decades ago. Though obviously you can't take back someone you've killed. Which is one of the major points about how wrong it is.





Most Catholics didn't vote for Trump, and Christians have often led the fight to abolish the death penalty. The big issue is the strain of White evangelical Christian that has been captured by the Republican movement over the last 40 or so years.





If they are really that dangerous, then lock them up for life. The number of people who have been locked up in a federal supermax, escaped, and then killed again is far smaller than the number of innocent people who have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.

If we want to show killing is wrong, then we actually have to show that with our actions. Not just "killing is wrong unless I believe it is justified," because most of those terrorists and serial killers and gangbangers thought they were justified when they killed too.





Yup.

The story of the woman caught in adultery actually proves it's not wrong in all cases. Why would they come to Jesus to ask shouldthey stone her? That would be murder? There messed up because 1) Where was the nigguh who was banging her at? 2) how they know she was getting banged out? Some feel that one of them one banging her. So they was hypocrites and it was laws on how stoning was to be done (i.e. witnesses). So the Pope view is unbiblical

 

[ROLLTIDE4EVER]

Death penalty in old days was very cheap. Just took an obvious convicted offender behind the courthouse for execution. Now with regulations, etc. it's expensive.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The story of the woman caught in adultery actually proves it's not wrong in all cases. Why would they come to Jesus to ask should they stone her? That would be murder? There messed up because 1) Where was the nigguh who was banging her at? 2) how they know she was getting banged out? Some feel that one of them one banging her. So they was hypocrites and it was laws on how stoning was to be done (i.e. witnesses). So the Pope view is unbiblical

You have to literally make up a theory out of thin air in order to justify that interpretation.

Jesus never asks, "Where is the other guy?" Jesus never asks, "How do you know she is guilty?" He doesn't imply anything about your interpretation at all.

Jesus instead states, "Whichever of you is without sin should cast the first stone."

He is stating that only the sinless have standing to condemn others to death for their sin. That's perfectly in line with his repeated edict, "Do not condemn, or you will be condemned."

Seriously, read the link by this breh, it explains it all: Would you throw the first stone?


I've heard your interpretation before. But it doesn't make any logical sense. It would make the whole passage meaningless, a pointless aside that proves nothing. If the only reason he frees the girl is because the pharisees were corrupt, then what does that teach us? Nothing. Would the lesson be that all prisoners should be freed in corrupt systems? What's your lesson in your interpretation?

It's just an excuse made by people in power who don't want to face the truth about how radical Jesus's teachings are.

 

[tru_m.a.c]

Lock them up and throw away the key.

It's actually cheaper than the death penalty anyway. And like you said, the way it's applied is massively unfair anyway.

Don't feed the trolls

 

[Canon]

Pope is more rational and progressive than GOD himself

God hit the pope up like my views are evolving

 

[Double J]

To me the Life in prison is actually more cruel than the death penalty. The thought of spending the rest of my life in a tiny cell with no women, awful food, no technology, amenities, no fresh air, and constantly being at risk of be raped or abused by inmates or staff is worse than death

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

Show me in the Bible where its wrong it's wrong in all cases? Oh wait the Bible isn't as important then his opinion. Nevermind

thou shalt not kill sixth ammendment. its pretty direct about that. now you can probably find other religious laws in the old testament where a death penalty is appropriate punishment. but the most recent covenants and teachings of jesus imply that something like the sixth ammendment for a human to try to follow rather than rely on than contradicting covenants.

It’s not that I don’t believe you, but in the long run wouldn’t it save more money. Instead of keeping a serial rapist alive for 50 years wouldn’t killing him be easier. Why is it so expensive to kill people? Serious question.

And if killing criminals was cheaper than jail time, would you find it to be a viable option?

a lot of the people on death row are never executed because their legal team appeals or the execution is never scheduled. the costs of keeping someone on death row are higher than other prisoners.

 

[valet]

thou shalt not kill sixth ammendment. its pretty direct about that. now you can probably find other religious laws in the old testament where a death penalty is appropriate punishment. but the most recent covenants and teachings of jesus imply that something like the sixth ammendment for a human to try to follow rather than rely on than contradicting covenants.


a lot of the people on death row are never executed because their legal team appeals or the execution is never scheduled. the costs of keeping someone on death row are higher than other prisoners.

The two don't contradict. Even in this country (although I don't agree with the way we do it) we recognize the difference between killing an innocent person vs. someone being guilty of a crime like Dylan Roof and being sentenced to death. Sothe 6th amendment isn't some trump card which outlaws the taking of life in all cases. Pope is wrong.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

The two don't contradict. Even in this country (although I don't agree with the way we do it) we recognize the difference between killing an innocent person vs. someone being guilty of a crime like Dylan Roof and being sentenced to death. Sothe 6th amendment isn't some trump card which outlaws the taking of life in all cases. Pope is wrong.

theres no specification in the sixth amendment though. it doesn't say thou shalt not kill the innocent. it refers to all human beings.

 

[valet]

You have to literally make up a theory out of thin air in order to justify that interpretation.

Jesus never asks, "Where is the other guy?" Jesus never asks, "How do you know she is guilty?" He doesn't imply anything about your interpretation at all.

Jesus instead states, "Whichever of you is without sin should cast the first stone."

He is stating that only the sinless have standing to condemn others to death for their sin. That's perfectly in line with his repeated edict, "Do not condemn, or you will be condemned."

Seriously, read the link by this breh, it explains it all: Would you throw the first stone?


I've heard your interpretation before. But it doesn't make any logical sense. It would make the whole passage meaningless, a pointless aside that proves nothing. If the only reason he frees the girl is because the pharisees were corrupt, then what does that teach us? Nothing. Would the lesson be that all prisoners should be freed in corrupt systems? What's your lesson in your interpretation?

It's just an excuse made by people in power who don't want to face the truth about how radical Jesus's teachings are.

I read the link and it misses the point. The adultery law is clear: Leviticus 20:10 10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. That was the law. If that's the case then once again, where was the niguh who was banging her at? You had to stone both of them. They just brought the woman, which shows you something fishy was going on. As far as his question he is without sin cast the first stone. That was not a question of whoever is sinless cast the first stone because nobody is obviously is sinless. If you take that standard to it's logical conclusion then nobody judge anybody in that Jewish culture. It would just be anarchy. Obviously the New Testament allows judgement. You see Apostle Paul judging a man in I Corinthians 5 for sleeping with his step mama. You see Jesus telling people to judge whether someone was a false prophet or not. Judgment is good. We do it all the time. Hypocritical judgment is what's bad. Matthew 7 which is the condemn passage is clear. If you judge then you gotta make sure you ain't doing the same thing. And if you are then take care your issue first then you can judge your bro. He didn't say you can't judge your bro. He said take the log out your eye first. Then you take the speck out your brother eye. How could you do that unless you're able to judge. You just can't judge hypocritically about it. For example, if I tell a bro to stop smoking crud but I'm doing the same thing, then that's hypocritical judgement. I gotta stop doing it first before I tell bro he should stop doing it.

Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

 

[98Ntu]

thou shalt not kill sixth ammendment. its pretty direct about that. now you can probably find other religious laws in the old testament where a death penalty is appropriate punishment. but the most recent covenants and teachings of jesus imply that something like the sixth ammendment for a human to try to follow rather than rely on than contradicting covenants.


a lot of the people on death row are never executed because their legal team appeals or the execution is never scheduled. the costs of keeping someone on death row are higher than other prisoners.

I’m hearing you and @acri1 , I just hear so many horrible stories of criminals getting slaps on the wrist and I suppose, in my heart I just want heavy punishments to be the price that super criminals pay. The death penalty just isn’t smart economically

 

[Jhoon]

What about terrorists, war criminals, serial killers, rapists/molesters and criminal masterminds? I understand the death penalty is not always fair especially to blacks and poor people. But if we refine the system, I believe some people shouldn’t be allowed to live, so we can ensure the safety of others.

What a redundant post.