|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on May 13, 2013 8:59:14 GMT -5
Is it possible to consistently oppose the death penalty but support just wars? Or must a person who is opposed to the death penalty also be opposed to warfare?
|
|
|
|
Post by sorchaprice on May 13, 2013 14:23:56 GMT -5
It is possible to oppose the death penalty but support war because war is for a purpose--it is believed--and that purpose being to defend the country and keep the rights one has but the death penalty is for one instance and it is an internal measure that the country goes through privately. It is possible to support both war and the death penalty or just one and oppose the other because they are different.
|
|
|
|
Post by shawnlapiana on May 13, 2013 14:28:05 GMT -5
I agree with sorcha that you can be against death penalty but support just war because war is trying to change a problem that has no other solution. Death penalty is something that is an unnessacary precaution that could be solved in other ways, but just war means there was no other way.
|
|
|
|
Post by elizabethg on May 14, 2013 8:33:33 GMT -5
I agree with both Shawn and Sorcha. War is used to protect our country from dangerous threats. And war is usually only used as a last resort. While the death prnalty is used as a punishment for one man's crime. You could be opposed to the death penalty because there are other punishments that can be used to punish the criminal and some of the criminals aren't as big of threats to the entire country.war on the other hand is to protect out. Country and out people from terrorists which threaten the whole country. Since war and the death penalty are 2 completely different things, you are able to be for one and oppose the other.
|
|
WillL
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by WillL on May 14, 2013 8:34:07 GMT -5
I agree with the above statements. I think that in a war to fight for a purpose--our freedom--- while the death penalty only kills convicted civilians. There is a huge difference between convicted criminals and enemy combatants. In fact I will go as far to say that I am protorture but anti death penalty. And I believe that ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahmichalek14 on May 14, 2013 20:44:44 GMT -5
I agree with the statements made up above, war is a completly different idea than the death penalty. War is fighting for what is right and to make the country a stronger place. The death penatly is putting down people for actions committed in the past. I know what they have done is completly wrong is some cases, but everyone deserves a second chance at life. With that said, by being agaisnt the death penatly and being for war it is apporpiate.
|
|
perry
New Member
Posts: 29
|
Post by perry on May 16, 2013 9:19:57 GMT -5
I understand where the above stetements are coming from, but I would disagree with them. I believe that if one opposes the death penalty than they must also be against just war. No matter which way you look at this question, lives will be lost, and blood will be shed. Innocent lives will be lost, because many of the soldiers in combat are drafted or forced to fight for their countries even if they are against war. I believe that if one is against the death penalty than you must also be against war of any kind.
|
|
johnr
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by johnr on May 16, 2013 14:38:06 GMT -5
You make a valid point by comparing war and capital punishment because lives are lost, Perry. But you also mention that innocent lives are lost in war. That is often true, especially if peaceful and cooperative civilians are killed. But death penalty trials are very expensive and thorough, and, though there may be mistrials, most of the lives lost are guilty. I would also add that Catholic Catechism has much more specific guidelins for entering war than for administering the ultimate punishment, so even Catholics have a hard descision to make sometimes.
|
|
nico
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by nico on May 16, 2013 21:32:37 GMT -5
Well if we were able to easily lock up are enemies that were trying to kill people for the rest of their life’s without them able to escape or without the death of any lives in every war then yay we would have to be against war. But that is never the situations
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahmichalek14 on May 19, 2013 15:25:04 GMT -5
Perry makes some valid points how lives will be lost in both situations, but i still think that people can be opposed to the death penalty and not war. Perry says that innocent lives are lost in war but innocent lives are also lost in the death penatly. I did a speach on the death pentalty is many statistics showed how alot of innoecnt lives have been lost due to wrong judgement during a trial. I am agaisnt the death penalty becuase of this reason and i also think others should get a second chane at life. I am for war though becuase we need to fight for what we beilve in and America is a strong place and being in war shows what kind of nation we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by isabeller on May 19, 2013 21:50:08 GMT -5
I would have to agree with Perry, one of the main arguments opposing death penalty is death should not be compensated with more death. And war wether just or unjust is going to end with death and many lost lives. So it is a hard argument to sell saying i believe the death penalty is wrong because it's killing someone and then saying war is right even though it still involves killing people. I think this is a lot like the many topics we cover how it is not completely black and white but a very grey area.
|
|
johnr
New Member
Posts: 22
|
Post by johnr on May 20, 2013 13:24:41 GMT -5
The grey area that Isabelle mentions is definitely where a lot of people get lost while contemplating these issues. Seldom are there issues that people can definitively call as moral or immoral in all circumstances. The conditions surrounding an instance are what define one moral war or execution from another immoral one. That is why details are so important in considering descisions in which lives are at stake. For example, the United States entrance into WWII was justified, not because war is always acceptable, but because of the lives at stake if the US were passive and did not react. This is a good example of Jus ad Bellum being exercised.
|
|
|
|
Post by geekay55 on May 20, 2013 20:01:10 GMT -5
i agree we sorcha and shawn. I think that someone can oppose the death penalty but believe in just wars. I really think that the death penalty is a more personal problem with each state and it is internal because most of the time we are deailng with killing us citizens. But when we talk about just war that has to do with america as a whole going against other countries. Also when we have a just war we are trying to keep peace to keep everything running smoothly and not really trying to punsih another counrty, but more trying to settle arguments. And the death penalty is more about personaly punishing for their actions.
|
|
frank
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by frank on May 20, 2013 20:15:39 GMT -5
I agree with sorcha, it is possible to oppose the death penalty but Support a war. War, assuming it is a just war, is fought to defend people and their rights. The death penalty, however, is an internal affair in which the government has total control over. There can be a just war, but i don't think their can be a just execution when the inmate already is powerless behind bars.
|
|
|
|
Post by eringallan on May 20, 2013 20:25:52 GMT -5
i disagree in order to oppose both you would have to be for both too and since they both are done to keep society safe i believe that you have to oppose or believe in both at the same time.
|
|
