Capital punishment and protection from error

[Ender]

How does one death justify another death?

That’s really a good question because it leads back to the concepts of punishment and justice. What is the primary objective of punishment? Although most people have trouble accepting this, the Church teaches that it is in fact retribution - retributive justice. This isn’t so hard to accept if we understand what retribution means:* Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.* (Aquinas)
That is, retribution is nothing more than either punishment or reward for a person’s behavior and just as commendable behavior merits a reward so too does harmful behavior require punishment. We earn our retribution by our actions. An evil person deserves to be punished and the Church says that this is in fact an obligation of the State (2266). It is a matter of justice.

Furthermore, as the Church teaches (2266), a just punishment is one that is of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime. And what has God himself said about what punishment is to be meted out for the crime of murder? (Hint: Gn 9:6)

Finally, another critical point often overlooked in these debates is the need for expiation. It is not enough for the murderer simply to repent of his sin; that will not excuse him from the punishment his sin has earned him. How can a murderer expiate his sin?
*Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life. *(Pius XII)
*Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime *(Aquinas)
Just as we have lost an understanding of the nature of murder and the obligation of justice we have also forgotten the concept of the expiation of sins.

I would not feel that justice had been served to find that two (or even more) people were killed. I see justice as more of a thing left to God, really. But, I can understand the feeling of necessity of justice.

Justice is a cardinal virtue, the “mother of all virtues” (Leo XIII), and we cannot ignore our responsibility to satisfy its obligations.

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

Life in prison has been common for centuries.
*…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. *(Fifth Lateran Council, 1512)

Was the Lateran council discussing a violent criminal? My research indicates this was a penalty for blasphemy.

Is there any evidence that murderers were ever imprisoned permanently before modern times?

His comment contradicted the argument that capital punishment should not be used because it would reduce the amount of time a man had to repent of his crimes.

Ender

No. His comment affirmed that the condemned could be executed even though prolonged imprisonment could potentially result in repentance. There is a difference.

 

[Ender]

Was the Lateran council discussing a violent criminal? My research indicates this was a penalty for blasphemy.

True, that was what was being addressed in this section of the document. It is still relevant to the existence of lifetime prison sentences.

Is there any evidence that murderers were ever imprisoned permanently before modern times?

There is this from Wikipedia:

King Louis XIV, who wanted a bigger fleet, ordered that the courts should sentence men to the galleys as often as possible, even in times of peace; he even sought to transform the death penalty to sentencing to the galleys for life (and unofficially did so - a letter exists to all French judges, that they should, if possible, sentence men to life in the galleys instead of death).citation needed]

Regarding the fate of murderers, I suspect that most societies were a good deal less indulgent with them than we have become. In any event, I have seen nothing at all to support the assertion that ancient prisons were inadequate to protect the public from dangerous criminals.

Ender

 

[M-Dent]

Regarding the fate of murderers, I suspect that most societies were a good deal less indulgent with them than we have become

No question. Yet, not just murderers. Thieves cost citizens livelihood’s or lives as well. Some were dealt the DP.

One thing that can’t be overlooked is the “sensitivities” of many people is what appears to have lead the Church to stand firm against Capital Punishment. I tend to believe the sensitivities of those in the Church herself.

This article a few years back by John Allen is such an example. The viewpoint is written from one who highlights gore and a sense of tribalism - and genuinely disturbed that Capital Punishment ever had a place in society.

 

[Equites_Christi]

I don’t know how this applies to this particular issue, but this is how I think of a popular subject:

Church teaching (especially if not exclusively social and behavioral teaching) changes over time, but its principles do not. Let me explain:

A father does not allow his 5-year-old son to handle a knife. When the son is 18, he allows him to. This is not because the father changed his mind on the morality of knife-handling, but rather because the son changed, and so the application of the principle of safety changed. The principle behind it was constant.

Likewise, because society changes, the way to apply the Church’s principles changes, yet the principles are intact. To my mind, Church teaching is the best way to implement God’s will at the time of proclamation. This seems consistent with revelation in general: the way God commanded the Israelites to live is very different from the way He commands us now. We are no one to challenge it or devise our own rules.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t know how this applies to this particular issue, but this is how I think of a popular subject:

Church teaching (especially if not exclusively social and behavioral teaching) changes over time, but its principles do not. Let me explain:

A father does not allow his 5-year-old son to handle a knife. When the son is 18, he allows him to. This is not because the father changed his mind on the morality of knife-handling, but rather because the son changed, and so the application of the principle of safety changed. The principle behind it was constant.

Likewise, because society changes, the way to apply the Church’s principles changes, yet the principles are intact. To my mind, Church teaching is the best way to implement God’s will at the time of proclamation. This seems consistent with revelation in general: the way God commanded the Israelites to live is very different from the way He commands us now. We are no one to challenge it or devise our own rules.

Further, handling a knife is not inherently immoral which is why a father can forbid at one point and allow in the other. If handling a knife were inherently evil, he would never be able to allow it at any time.

 

[Ender]

Church teaching (especially if not exclusively social and behavioral teaching) changes over time, but its principles do not.

This is a valid observation … so let’s evaluate the principles that the Church teaches on this subject.

• Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, deterrence.
• The primary objective of punishment is retribution.
• The individual has an obligation to forgive but the State has an obligation to punish.
• A just punishment has a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime.
• The State has a right to impose the death penalty for serious crime.
• Death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.
• The punishment a man justly deserves may be reduced by public concerns.

I’m sure there are others but we can start with these. Do you disagree with any of them? Which ones would you say are conditioned by circumstances (other than the last one)?

Ender

 

[SonCatcher]

There is this from Wikipedia:

King Louis XIV, who wanted a bigger fleet, ordered that the courts should sentence men to the galleys as often as possible, even in times of peace; he even sought to transform the death penalty to sentencing to the galleys for life (and unofficially did so - a letter exists to all French judges, that they should, if possible, sentence men to life in the galleys instead of death).citation needed]

The “citation needed” tag speaks for itself (I blame the Wikipedia ethic - it seems there isn’t enough motivation for their contributors to put in a citation). At any rate, there does not seem to be evidence of a society successfully implementing life imprisonment in lieu of execution for violent offenders before the modern day.

 

[Ender]

The “citation needed” tag speaks for itself (I blame the Wikipedia ethic - it seems there isn’t enough motivation for their contributors to put in a citation). At any rate, there does not seem to be evidence of a society successfully implementing life imprisonment in lieu of execution for violent offenders before the modern day.

Other than asserting that this is so no one has even tried to support a contention that quite frankly seems absurd on its face. I imagine in the past there were a whole lot fewer violent criminals that weren’t executed so the problem was nowhere nearly as common as it is today. Nonetheless there is no reason to believe that the resources available in the past (mines, galleys, dungeons, etc) were inadequate to the job. If the Romans were able to safely incarcerate gladiators - whom I think we can surely accept as extremely dangerous - then I think they could handle your garden variety murderer.

Ender

 

[Lujack]

This is a valid observation … so let’s evaluate the principles that the Church teaches on this subject.

• Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, protection, deterrence.
• The primary objective of punishment is retribution.
• The individual has an obligation to forgive but the State has an obligation to punish.
• A just punishment has a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime.
• The State has a right to impose the death penalty for serious crime.
• Death is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.
• The punishment a man justly deserves may be reduced by public concerns.

I’m sure there are others but we can start with these. Do you disagree with any of them? Which ones would you say are conditioned by circumstances (other than the last one)?

Ender

All this leaves out a final principle, though, that is critical to understanding any opposition to the death penalty, and that is the avoidance of punishing an innocent man. For example, this is one article that points out the number of men who have been convicted based on sloppy and negligent work in the FBI crime labs.

washingtonpost.com/local/crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-forensic-flaws-found-by-justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_story.html

One man was executed based on possibly tainted evidence. This is a serious concern-directing retribution against an innocent man is something that is always to be avoided, and not acting properly to protect the rights of an innocent man would be a serious offense.

You can fix a mistake when it comes to life in prison, but you cannot fix a mistake with the death penalty. Your construction assumes that only guilty people are executed.

 

[sw85]

All this leaves out a final principle, though, that is critical to understanding any opposition to the death penalty, and that is the avoidance of punishing an innocent man. For example, this is one article that points out the number of men who have been convicted based on sloppy and negligent work in the FBI crime labs.

washingtonpost.com/local/crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-forensic-flaws-found-by-justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_story.html

One man was executed based on possibly tainted evidence. This is a serious concern-directing retribution against an innocent man is something that is always to be avoided, and not acting properly to protect the rights of an innocent man would be a serious offense.

You can fix a mistake when it comes to life in prison, but you cannot fix a mistake with the death penalty. Your construction assumes that only guilty people are executed.

OK, but this is a prudential problem. It in no way bears on the moral liceity of the death penalty in principle.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I find the late Avery Cardinal Dulles adequately summizes the current position of the magisterium

Quote:
In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied.** The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.**

catholiceducation.org/art…on/re0461.html
__________________ .

Since it’s in the Catechism, I would think this prudential judgment ought to require “submission of religious will and intellect”.

 

[sw85]

Since it’s in the Catechism, I would think this prudential judgment ought to require “submission of religious will and intellect”.

Indeed, such a judgment should not be disregarded prima facie.

But that has nothing to do with it. Even if the bishops unanimously agree that the death penalty in the present age is prudentially a bad idea, they must agree that it offends against no ethical principle. The state always reserves the right to execute criminals, even if the circumstances of a particular age make it unwise for it to exercise that right.

 

[triumphguy]

The State is not subject to the Church.

But the Church has a right, even a duty to challenge the State, even when the State says the Church has no rights.

And when the State executes more poor people, from ethnic minorities, who are also uneducated (and under represented by the legal system) for crimes committed (which seem to stem from the very same pit of poverty) than middle class, white, educated people who commit similar crimes, I would say the Church has a duty to stand up and use it’s prophetic voice to say that this is immoral. Especially, especially when these State executions are so expensive, so protracted, and do so little to address that same very poverty, do not affect the crime rate at all and so do not make society more safe.

 

[Ender]

Since it’s in the Catechism, I would think this prudential judgment ought to require “submission of religious will and intellect”.

Prudential judgments do not require our assent.
“Prudential”… refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

And when the State executes more poor people, from ethnic minorities, who are also uneducated (and under represented by the legal system) for crimes committed (which seem to stem from the very same pit of poverty) than middle class, white, educated people who commit similar crimes, I would say the Church has a duty to stand up and use it’s prophetic voice to say that this is immoral.

The Church has never made this argument. This has nothing to do with the comments she has made.

Ender

 

[triumphguy]

My argument certainly makes it more “prudential” that we follow current Church teaching on capital punishment.

Also: one thing I don’t get. If the Pope writes that capital punishment is wrong why don’t we all just get in line behind him?

Especially, when it’s the poor and disadvantaged who are more likely to be executed.

 

[M-Dent]

Since it’s in the Catechism, I would think this prudential judgment ought to require “submission of religious will and intellect”.

What is required is prudence and humility. We have to closely examine the moral principles and examine what the Church is teaching. This goes along with properly forming our conscience.

Yet, there is the possibility as, then, Cardinal Ratzinger explained for legitimate diversity of opinion in some areas.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.** There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia**.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.htm

 

[sw85]

And when the State executes more poor people, from ethnic minorities, who are also uneducated (and under represented by the legal system) for crimes committed (which seem to stem from the very same pit of poverty) than middle class, white, educated people who commit similar crimes, I would say the Church has a duty to stand up and use it’s prophetic voice to say that this is immoral.

Perhaps the unequal treatment would be immoral, but not the death penalty itself, which was my concern here. (At any rate, the prudential concern is not whether more poor people are executed than rich ones but with whether more poor people are executed proportionate to their rate of violent crime than rich people.)

Especially, especially when these State executions are so expensive, so protracted, and do so little to address that same very poverty, do not affect the crime rate at all and so do not make society more safe.

Again, these are prudential concerns and have no bearing on whether the state may execute criminals with moral liceity.

My argument certainly makes it more “prudential” that we follow current Church teaching on capital punishment.

OK, but again, we’re not obliged to give assent to prudential judgments, or at least not the same level of assent required of doctrinal teachings. That was my concern here: it appeared to me that the church had changed a doctrinal teaching. It has always historically taught that the death penalty is morally licit. Its present teachings appeared to me to contradict that. The Church cannot contradict itself without error at some point in time, and the Church is supposed to be invulnerable to error in its doctrinal teachings. The only way to resolve the apparent contradiction is, as Ender has pointed out, to accept that the Church’s present stance is not doctrinal at all.

Also: one thing I don’t get. If the Pope writes that capital punishment is wrong why don’t we all just get in line behind him?

If he wrote that, he would be in error, because he would be contradicting the historical teachings of the Church. Again, that was my concern here.

 

[JNdoum]

I apologize, but I feel I must try to explain my view again. It seems like people support this for the sake of “justice,” but the very word seems to imply a transaction. Something was done, so it must be paid for according to this law, in this way. I don’t see human life, or human beings, as capable of being transacted. A brother or sister in Christ should not be treated like a subhuman, and killed for their crimes. Isn’t it our Christian duty to give counsel and healing to this person, and not make them into a somehow inhuman concept? Your brother could suddenly go insane and kill someone, and then you would respond by killing him in…what? A sense of justice? A form of legal revenge, of a repayment of debt? A life for a life?

Jesus refuted the law of “an eye for an eye” in the Gospel, and charged us that we should not forgive our brother seven times, but seven times seven times. If we are struck across the face, turn the other cheek. If we are forced to go one mile, go two with him who forced you. If you are sued for your shirt, give the man your cloak also. I simply can’t reconcile these constant teachings of Jesus and the Church with the idea of hard-lining and killing someone for a crime, no matter what.