Capital punishment...again

[Ender]

Ender, if I have read his fullsome arguments over the last 10 years on CAF correctly, sees Punishment for murderers as necessary (at all times/places) by appealing to the Commonweal principle just as you do! I have never understood his somewhat convoluted reasonings.

No, I have never held that capital punishment is necessary at all times/places. In fact I have repeatedly recognized the validity of a moratorium on its use in particular circumstances. I am hardly going to oppose a position taken by both Aquinas and Augustine. That said, absent such circumstances, yes, I believe capital punishment should be the norm. That is, I accept the position put forth by St. Bellarmine:

For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept.

I think a reasonable argument can be presented that modern circumstances are such that they meet the criteria for a moratorium on the use of capital punishment. That is a reasonable (accurate or inaccurate) judgment, but it is a practical judgment about its affect on society. It is not a moral choice.

 

[Canvas]

Frankly speaking, I really don’t understand the bizarre attachment some people on this forum have for the death penalty. Why kill someone when you don’t have to? Assuming the person is guilty, which is a big “IF” in some cases, why the need to kill them? It won’t undo their crimes.

Then there are people on death row that may very well be innocent…

This is a list of people from the The Innocence Project that:
Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

a . Been acquitted of all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row, or

b . Had all charges related to the crime that placed them on death row dismissed by the prosecution or the courts, or

c . Been granted a complete pardon based on evidence of innocence.

Description of Innocence Cases | Death Penalty Information Center

and this here is about a man that was executed by the state of Texas in 2004 despite some of the leading experts in arson saying that the fire that he supposedly started that killed his children was probably an accident caused by a defective space heater. He doesn’t get a chance for a new trial.

Cameron Todd Willingham - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ender]

exnihilo: It seems to me based on the constant teaching of the Church the death penalty is a just punishment.

I think there are only two criteria that determine whether a punishment is just:

• its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and
• use of the punishment does not introduce other harm to society

As for the first, if capital punishment was ever just then it can only be because death is a commensurate punishment for (at least) the crime of murder, and this relationship can never change since the severity of neither the crime nor the punishment can ever change. As for the second, this is a prudential judgment (as I have always recognized) that is the responsibility of the government to make based on its own evaluation of the impact of the punishment.

However, just though the death penalty may be for criminal murderers…it fairly clearly cannot be justly done if there is non-lethal means to protect the safety of the public.

Justice is not determined by whether or not the public is protected. Just as the need for protection does not allow too severe a punishment, that it is not needed for protection does not justify too lenient a punishment.

In short, the right to punish death with death is subserviant to the “common good” which is here interpreted as “the people’s safety”.

The common good cannot be equated merely to security. This idea was explicitly rejected by Pius XII:

‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.

 

[Ender]

exnihilo: Did the Church teach that torture was a just punishment and then later teach that it was unjust?

Here is the difference between the question of torture and capital punishment: to “reverse” itself on torture meant disagreeing with one document from one pope. Reversing itself on capital punishment means repudiating the virtually unanimous position of the Fathers, all of the Doctors (who addressed the subject) and the dozens of popes who either explicitly endorsed it or actually applied it, as well as a half dozen catechisms…not to mention the councils which addressed - and accepted - its use. These are really not comparable.

 

[exnihilo]

Frankly speaking, I really don’t understand the bizarre attachment some people on this forum have for the death penalty. Why kill someone when you don’t have to? Assuming the person is guilty, which is a big “IF” in some cases , why the need to kill them? It won’t undo their crimes.

Then there are people on death row that may very well be innocent…

This is a list of people from the The Innocence Project that:
Defendants must have been convicted, sentenced to death and subsequently either-

We don’t have to impose any punishment. So why impose any punishment at all? We could always be wrong.

The innocence project while it may do some good work is very political. And just because someone is released by their work doesn’t mean they are innocent. Our courts only determine guilty or not guilty. Innocence is not the same as not guilty.

Here is the difference between the question of torture and capital punishment: to “reverse” itself on torture meant disagreeing with one document from one pope.

Oh yeah, they aren’t in the same class at all. And to attribute significance to it in this issue is to ultimately undermine papal authority.

 

[Canvas]

We don’t have to impose any punishment. So why impose any punishment at all? We could always be wrong.

There has to be some deterrent for crime; prison is good enough in my opinion. Prisons are horrible places; it isn’t like most violent criminals are living it up on the inside.

Also, some people are natural predators, and it is for the good of society at large to have them incarcerated away from the general public.

None of this justifies killing when not in the act of self defense or defending someone else.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Frankly speaking, I really don’t understand the bizarre attachment some people on this forum have for the death penalty. Why kill someone when you don’t have to?

From my observation, there is a large group who think the death penalty is still needed for the common good. There is a small but dominant minority who want to retain the false ‘right to kill’ with no one including the Holy Spirit to take that right away. That group are piggy backing their position on the other. Shameful.

 

[adgloriam]

It is a yes or no question.

The question itself is false.

The question is besides the point.

The question seeks only to mislead.

 

[adgloriam]

It won’t undo their crimes.

It’s not about undoing their crimes.

Neither is it about justice.

It’s thirst for revenge from the desire to hate.

 

[Ender]

There has to be some deterrent for crime; prison is good enough in my opinion. Prisons are horrible places; it isn’t like most violent criminals are living it up on the inside.

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment, but it is not the primary objective. Whether or not the punishment one person receives deters others from the same crime really has nothing to do with whether that punishment was justly applied.

None of this justifies killing when not in the act of self defense or defending someone else.

Defense is also a valid objective of punishment, but, again, it is not the primary objective. The church has never taught that protecting against future crimes justifies the punishment for the crime already committed.

 

[exnihilo]

There has to be some deterrent for crime; prison is good enough in my opinion.

Why? The primary purpose of punishment is justice. As for being a deterrent neither the death penalty or life in prison deter everyone from grave crimes.

 

[adgloriam]

The primary purpose of punishment is justice.

The primary purpose of punishment is rehabilitation of the offender together with justice.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Canvas:

There has to be some deterrent for crime; prison is good enough in my opinion.

Why? The primary purpose of punishment is justice. As for being a deterrent neither the death penalty or life in prison deter everyone from grave crimes.

You have bought into the falsehood of a chronology of purposes. In fact justice is not served if the death penalty does not first serve the common good.

Aquinas - it is lawful to kill an evildoer **in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community**

Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good,

Don’t be led into error by anyone claiming this chronology of purpose falsehood.

 

[Ender]

The primary purpose of punishment is rehabilitation of the offender together with justice.

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles)

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Deterrence, rehabilitation, and defense are all about what happens in the future. It is retribution that seeks to redress the disorder of past crimes, and it is the obligation of the State to ensure that the primary objective is satisfied. If the secondary objectives can be achieved as well then that should be sought, but the primary objective must be met whether or not it satisfies the other objectives. This is nothing less than saying the punishment must be just above all other considerations.

In fact justice is not served if the death penalty does not first serve the common good.

Yes, everyone recognizes this, but the question of whether it in fact serves the common good is a prudential judgment about which disagreement is legitimate.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

Here is the difference between the question of torture and capital punishment: to “reverse” itself on torture meant disagreeing with one document from one pope.

Oh yeah, they aren’t in the same class at all. And to attribute significance to it in this issue is to ultimately undermine papal authority.

What strange logic. Your position is to reject the papal authority proscribing use of the death penalty as harmful to the common good, but happily accuse one who has never rejected Church teaching as ‘undermining papal authority’.

Welcome to topsy turvy land people.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

In fact justice is not served if the death penalty does not first serve the common good.

Yes, everyone recognizes this, but the question of whether it in fact serves the common good is a prudential judgment about which disagreement is legitimate.

Prudence is not mere opinion but the “mother of all virtues”.

Catholic Encyclopedia.

So it is that whilst it qualifies immediately the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue.

This is because the moral agent finds in it, if not the eliciting, at any rate the directive principle of virtuous actions. According to St. Thomas (II-II:47:8) it is its function to do three things: to take counsel, i.e. to cast about for the means suited in the particular case under consideration to reach the end of any one moral virtue; to judge soundly of the fitness of the means suggested; and, finally, to command their employment. If these are to be done well they necessarily exclude remissness and lack of concern; they demand the use of such diligence and care that the resultant act can be described as prudent, in spite of whatever speculative error may have been at the bottom of the process. Readiness in finding out and ability in adapting means to an end does not always imply prudence. If the end happens to be a vicious one, a certain adroitness or sagacity may be exhibited in its pursuit. This, however, according to St. Thomas, will only deserve to be called false prudence and is identical with that referred to in Rom., viii, 6, "the wisdom of the flesh is death"

People who’ve done their due diligence and humbly recognise their limitations to be truly prudent, will defer to the moral authority of the Church to guide and command. To reject a teaching of the Church which is unanimously accepted by the college of Bishops, is ‘false prudence’ and pretty grave especially when the agenda is to lead others to reject Church teaching.

 

[adgloriam]

purposes of punishment (…) is rehabilitation

Killing a guy is rehabilitating to him?

 

[exnihilo]

You have bought into the falsehood of a chronology of purposes. In fact justice is not served if the death penalty does not first serve the common good.

Justice is not simply for the common good.

What strange logic. Your position is to reject the papal authority proscribing use of the death penalty as harmful to the common good, but happily accuse one who has never rejected Church teaching as ‘undermining papal authority’

Not strange at all. If you are saying the Catholic Church, via a Pope, taught torture was good when it was in fact evil then that would seem to undermine the authority of all Popes. Of course you could save that authority by narrowing the force of the torture document. But then that could justify narrowing the force of the capital punishment declaration.

 

[Ender]

Prudence is not mere opinion but the “mother of all virtues”.

Then again, maybe not.

The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin. … The law, nevertheless, is clear that for public prosperity it is to the interest of all that virtue - and justice especially, which is the mother of all virtues - should be practiced (Pope Leo XIII, Exuente iam anno)

 

[Ender]

Killing a guy is rehabilitating to him?

2266 … punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)

(67) Lk 23: 40-43 - references the salvation of the good thief. The church cites a case of capital punishment as an example of a punishment that in fact led to the correction of the offender and his ultimate salvation.