Capital punishment...again

[exnihilo]

A lot of people who are in prison find God. I’d be interested to know how common this is with true life sentences vs. those eligible for parole. Of course finding a God is good for the parole board hearing.

One problem with the current system is that it allows someone to sit on death row for decades. That isn’t how capital punishment should work and is wrong as it is cruel. Of course we got here thanks to courts that want to undermine our system of justice. I can see how people under our current system have no hope. They expect to die but it is so far off that they wouldn’t have the motivation to repent.

 

[graciew]

You are very welcome

 

[SteelArchangel]

He was with an inmate all last year, right up to when he was executed.

Everything up until their point of death is misery, with no hope. Imagine someone telling you that you will die on 3/13/2029. From right now until that very date, there would be absolute misery for you. Nothing you experience from now until then will ever be the same.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Not if the inmate used his time wisely and had the assistance of a chaplain!

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So, if death was a just punishment before because of the nature of the crime then it is equally just today. If the severity of the crime was more serious in the past because of existing circumstances then it would merit a more serious punishment in the past than would be just today.

So why is there a disconnect between the penalty and the justice, or what’s deserved?

I don’t believe there is. Can you be more specific?

Yes I can be more specific. In the following OT passage, death is the penalty for adultery. This isn’t a just penalty today. So why is there a disconnect? If you think adultery was a more severe sin back then, what circumstances made that so? And why wouldn’t those same circumstances apply to a death penalty for murder instead of adultery? Has something about the nature of adultery changed since then?

If a man is discovered lying with a woman who is married to another, they both shall die, the man who was lying with the woman as well as the woman. Thus shall you purge the evil from Israel.

 

[Richca]

He was with an inmate all last year, right up to when he was executed.

Everything up until their point of death is misery, with no hope. Imagine someone telling you that you will die on 3/13/2029. From right now until that very date, there would be absolute misery for you. Nothing you experience from now until then will ever be the same.

Everybody is going to have to and does face death. Millions of people face death and die everyday. Many of these people have known for some time that they are dying and only have so much time left to live on earth. And this happens to the young, middle age, and old people. So, it’s not like deathrow inmates who face an execution date of death is like something unique to them. It’s happening everyday around the world and to the vast majority of the people who haven’t committed any heinous crimes, to the good and bad alike. If we were to follow the logic you are presenting here, then many people, young and old alike, who die from various diseases or cancers would have a greater reason to despair than the death row inmates because they may die and do die at a younger age without even committing the crimes of the inmates.

As ioannes_pius just stated, whether one is an inmate facing execution or anybody facing imminent death, than one needs to use their last hours or time very wisely cooperating with God’s grace to not fall into despair but to retain hope. Facing imminent death is our final trial on earth and the forces of evil, the demons, are most active here to try and win that soul over to eternal destruction especially through disbelief and despair of God’s mercy, salvation, eternal life such as what happened to Judas the apostle of Christ. Disbelief and despair are very grevious sins against God. An inmate or anybody facing imminent death who falls into despair is refusing God’s offer of grace and salvation. At the point of death, all of us and especially an inmate on death row or facing imminent execution can repeat what the good thief said on the cross:

“Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23: 40-43).

Also, many people suffer in the body from various maladies for many years even before they die. Today, I suppose some of this suffering is alleviated from modern medications but this was not the case for the greater part of the history of mankind on earth. The execution of inmates is pretty much immediate so in this sense they have not suffered bodily before death such as millions of other people have and do.

 

[SteelArchangel]

Yes there are people who have terminal illnesses, and know when they will die.

From my understanding, these people have nothing. No family, no support, no happiness, no joy, no hope. This combined with being in a cell 23 hours a day by yourself for years at a time prolongs such an insufferable existence.

There are some death row inmates that he reaches, and there are some who refuse. My initial comment was more about the finality of their existence and how my cousin sees it. Media that hypes up these death row cases are often woefully inaccurate.

 

[Richca]

(continued)

Again, many people who are not criminals in prison live sadly without hope or very little in society such as people who commit suicide, who are euthanized, severe cases of depression or sorrow, and who are addicted to drugs. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says 'Every day, more than 130 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids." These opioids include prescription pain relievers, heroine, and synthetic ones such as fentanyl. On average, there are about 123 american suicides per day. There is a much greater problem in the American free society apparently with despair than in its prisons and inmates on death row.

A final thought in this post in relation to my prior post is to look closely at what the good thief says in his execution on the cross from the gospel of Luke. Inspired by Christ’s grace and moved by the Holy Spirit, he says to the bad criminal “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?” It seems the good thief is saying that his and the bad thief or criminal’s sentence of condemnation of capital punishment is God’s sentence on them being administered by the Roman authorities (cf. Romans 13: 1-7). And then the good thief says “And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds.” The good thief says that their sentence of capital punishment is just “for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds.”

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God…for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13: 1,4).

 

[Dakota111]

Remember what is required for a punishment to be just: it

For punishment (capital) to be just it must be a last resort and there be no other means of protecting society.

Also it must not be so violent as to offend the intrinsic dignity of the criminal.

Pope Francis prudentially appears to have ruled out CP in modern countries as passing these two principled criteria.

You likely disagree with these two principles.
Yet they are implicit in the deposit of faith and the former bobs to the surface often in ancient discussions.

Yes Francis has made these principles explicit, just as Paul VI did re contraception.

As @donrugerro advises Catholics owe religious assent to these normatively declared principles even if they cannot accept them.

We may well debate the prudential judgement that modern conditions do truly well exist even in USA…though I agree with Pope Francis on that also.

 

[Dakota111]

no murder ever falls below the level where death is not a commensurate punishment.

So, if death was a just punishment before because of the nature of the crime then it is equally just today

Do you agree that death is the commensurate punishment for adultery today?

If not who changed that and why?

May I suggest Jesus’s teaching implicitly changed that.
The punishment was prudentially judged as no longer being in accord with the above principle of the dignity of the person as Jesus implicitly taught re the woman caught in adultery.

Alternatively it might be argued that Jesus there newly taught (or corrected) that the authority to wield the sword or throw the killing stone on God’s behalf is conditional…on sinlessness of the State. In other words even the State cannot always justly stand in Gods place to carry out punishments reserved for God. The just punishments are best completed in heaven…as Jesus says elsewhere. Sometimes the State may only justly impose partial punishments and must leave the remainder to God.

Regardless, Jesus demonstrated here the principle that even rightly proscribed capital punishment can have further conditions to be met if the agent (ie the State) is to act justly.

So Moses said nothing about purity of heart or the sinlessness condition Jesus explicitated. Now the Magisterium has explicitated a few more, and not out of the blue as Jesus did.

Do you disagree Ender?
If so what is your take for today denying the just capital punishment commanded in the OT for adultery.

 

[Dakota111]

everything turns on why capital punishment is now seen as inadmissible: does it mean it is always morally wrong, or does it simply mean it is now judged to be universally unwise and socially harmful?

It seems your formulation of your difficulties is itself problematic. Surely there are other possible solutions than the binary “it must logically be one or the other” you have limited yourself to here?

Personally it seems to me it is not a logical either or.

 

[Ender]

Yes I can be more specific. In the following OT passage, death is the penalty for adultery. This isn’t a just penalty today. So why is there a disconnect? If you think adultery was a more severe sin back then, what circumstances made that so? And why wouldn’t those same circumstances apply to a death penalty for murder instead of adultery? Has something about the nature of adultery changed since then?

I don’t intend to defend the death penalty for the crime of adultery; whether it is or is not is irrelevant. I have argued only that death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. Murder is the worst of all crimes, so if death is an unjust punishment there it is unjust for all lesser crimes, but that it may be unjust for a lesser crime doesn’t make it unjust for more serious ones.

In the case of murder, circumstances cannot make a crime that already calls for the strictest punishment call for an even stricter one. There isn’t one. Murdering two people carries the same penalty as murdering one. So while circumstances could have made adultery a more serious crime in the past, no circumstance can worsen the nature of murder such that a more serious punishment is called for.

Unlike other crimes, whose severity may depend on circumstances (think horse stealing), nothing changes the essential nature of murder: it is as evil today as it ever was, and if death was a just penalty before it is equally just today. That it may not always be applied is due to the effect the punishment may have on the society that uses it, but it has nothing to do with the essential equality of crime and punishment.

 

[Ender]

For punishment (capital) to be just it must be a last resort and there be no other means of protecting society.

No, the protection of society is not now and has never been the primary objective of punishment.

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

Protecting society against future crimes has nothing to do with redressing the disorder already caused by a past offense.

You likely disagree with these two principles.

I do disagree. This is not what the church teaches, regardless of what may be inferred from 2267.

 

[Ender]

Alternatively it might be argued that Jesus there newly taught (or corrected) that the authority to wield the sword or throw the killing stone on God’s behalf is conditional…on sinlessness of the State.

I don’t think the church ever taught this either.

Thirdly, from St. Augustine, who says, “Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)

If so what is your take for today denying the just capital punishment commanded in the OT for adultery.

I don’t need to argue it; it is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a just punishment for the crime of murder. If capital punishment is unjust because the severity of the punishment exceeds the severity of the crime then the church for 2000 years has not only taught that wrong was right but engaged in that wrong herself. Recognize the implications of that position. Everyone in the church, all her greatest theologians and saints as well as every pope and magisterium until last year has been wrong about a serious moral issue.

 

[Emeraldlady]

1Lord1Faith:

Yes I can be more specific. In the following OT passage, death is the penalty for adultery. This isn’t a just penalty today. So why is there a disconnect? If you think adultery was a more severe sin back then, what circumstances made that so? And why wouldn’t those same circumstances apply to a death penalty for murder instead of adultery? Has something about the nature of adultery changed since then?

I don’t intend to defend the death penalty for the crime of adultery; whether it is or is not is irrelevant. I have argued only that death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. Murder is the worst of all crimes, so if death is an unjust punishment there it is unjust for all lesser crimes, but that it may be unjust for a lesser crime doesn’t make it unjust for more serious ones.

In the case of murder, circumstances cannot make a crime that already calls for the strictest punishment call for an even stricter one. There isn’t one. Murdering two people carries the same penalty as murdering one. So while circumstances could have made adultery a more serious crime in the past, no circumstance can worsen the nature of murder such that a more serious punishment is called for.

Unlike other crimes, whose severity may depend on circumstances (think horse stealing), nothing changes the essential nature of murder: it is as evil today as it ever was, and if death was a just penalty before it is equally just today. That it may not always be applied is due to the effect the punishment may have on the society that uses it, but it has nothing to do with the essential equality of crime and punishment.

If you are dispensing of Scripture as the basis of your claim that only death is a just punishment for murder, then what are you drawing from? We know that the very first murder recorded in Scripture ie. Cain upon Abel, that God punished Cain with exile.

What authority do you base your claim on?

 

[Ender]

If you are dispensing of Scripture as the basis of your claim that only death is a just punishment for murder, then what are you drawing from? We know that the very first murder recorded in Scripture ie. Cain upon Abel, that God punished Cain with exile.

What authority do you base your claim on?

As I have never made that claim I don’t base it on anything. Again and again I have said there are two criteria that must be met for a punishment to be just: that the severities of the crime and the punishment must be comparable, and that the punishment not harm the society that applies it.

 

[Dakota111]

No, the protection of society is not now and has never been the primary objective of punishment.

I agree.
I stated the licitness of what is otherwise a violent but commensurate punishment has always been conditioned by other principles (which may or may not be secondary objectives of punishment).

Namely the condition that there is no other means of containing the criminal,
and the violence does not deny the dignity of the person.

I fail to see how a CCC quote about scope can be used to deny this given the same CCC (even the old one) also affirms what I say. There being no contradiction in the old CCC means your attempt to oppose with the above quote is groundless and you have mistakenly inferred from it as I suggest.

If you believe there is a contradiction even in the old CCC why do you attempt to quote from it?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

If you are dispensing of Scripture as the basis of your claim that only death is a just punishment for murder, then what are you drawing from? We know that the very first murder recorded in Scripture ie. Cain upon Abel, that God punished Cain with exile.

What authority do you base your claim on?

As I have never made that claim I don’t base it on anything. Again and again I have said there are two criteria that must be met for a punishment to be just: that the severities of the crime and the punishment must be comparable, and that the punishment not harm the society that applies it.

Do you agree then, that if 2nd criteria is not met ie. the punishment harms society, it renders the punishment unjust?

 

[Dakota111]

I don’t need to argue it; it is irrelevant to the question of whether it is a just punishment for the crime of murder. If capital punishment is unjust because the severity of the punishment exceeds the severity of the crime then the church for 2000 years has not only taught that wrong

This is just a little illogical Ender.
Do you deny that Capital Punishment was also required for crimes against the 6th as well as the 5th Commandment.

Why are you making a special exception for adultery but not for murder?

You do need to argue your case for using a different set of moral principles in each case.

Pope Francis and his predecessors dont need to because their principles (which you seem to disagree with) already explain the apparent contradiction.

 

[Ender]

I stated the licitness of what is otherwise a violent but commensurate punishment has always been conditioned by other principles (which may or may not be secondary objectives of punishment).

Containing the criminal, which is essentially part of the protection of society, is only a secondary objective and of itself cannot determine the severity of the punishment.

Namely the condition that there is no other means of containing the criminal,
and the violence does not deny the dignity of the person.

If an execution denies the dignity of the person then its use has always been immoral. It cannot deny it today and not have denied it in the past, so the objection still stands: if it is wrong now it has always been wrong and the church taught evil as good.

I fail to see how a CCC quote about scope can be used to deny this given the same CCC (even the old one) also affirms what I say.

The catechism does not affirm what you say. You have inferred your position; I have quoted mine.

If you believe there is a contradiction even in the old CCC why do you attempt to quote from it?

The contradiction is not between catechisms but between what the catechism actually says and what you have concluded.