Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

[IWantGod]

Isn’t this to heavy?

The Church does teach that under certain conditions the state may rightly use capital punishment, scriptures and tradition agreement, so maybe those who carry out such sentences are doing their job and may be considered just when they stand before God.

I think that would only work if the state is unable to hold a person in prison and they have good reason to think that person will kill again. Then, and only then, would capital punishment be considered self defense.

Self defense is the only situation where killing a living person is justified, and even then its nothing to celebrate.

Killing a living person out of hatred and vengeance is wrong.

The people who sit down and watch executions make me sick. There’s something really twisted about it.

Its very hard to do but we must love the psychopath.

if a child grows up and starts murdering people, i can’t help but think that society has in some way failed that child. Its always easy to condemn the monsters, but sometimes society creates monsters.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Salvation is wonderful, but how do we protect society against psychopaths?

Focus on rehabilitation rather than just warehousing human beings.

 

[mikekle]

Focus on rehabilitation rather than just warehousing human beings.

Yes, but the problem today is, warehousing humans is a lucrative thing, so its in their best interest that MORE and MORE people are arrested and sentences are longer and longer, naturally this industry is going to try and lobby for as strong of a police state as they can get.

From what I have seen, rehabilitation is not the goal, everything is set up to ensure once a person is a convicted felon, its extremely tough for them to lead a normal life and remain free, example would be background checks on virtually every job out there, heck even gas stations and factories require clean BGs now, most apartment communities now require BG checks to rent, etc. All these things work together to stack the odds in favor of returning to crime, or the equivalent…NOT being able to afford to be a good, productive citizen greater chance of being arrested and sent back to the warehouse.

I remember my grandparents used to always stress education and training, they would say “no matter what kind of legal problems a person gets into, they can never take an education away”, but thats not really true today, while they cant take a persons education/degree/certificate away, the key is, they can take THE ABILITY to get a job in the first place, and that is what its all about.

Of course they have everyone brainwashed into thinking all this increased security is a good thing, but the fact is, we have more workplace problems today versus the times when it was rare to require a BG check for a job!

It is 2017, there is no reason why society should still be at a level where we need to warehouse criminals or execute them, there are much more effective ways to deal with this now. Great strides have come in our understanding of human behavior and psychology, medieval times are long gone.

 

[Seamus_L]

I believe in some circumstances the death penalty is still necessary. For instance I have no problem with a country executing members of ISIS, because they are a large fanatical terror group who would still pose a very real threat to prison guards. I also believe that the death penalty, in many instances makes the accused more seriously contemplate eternity when they’re informed that they will be going to meet there maker on a specific date, rather than living year after year in prison till they sometimes die quickly of natural causes. Richard Speck and Ted Bundy are two good comparisons.

 

[Ender]

I see no inherent reason why the Church could not further specify a class of State Executions that are intrinsically evil. For example, it is always and everywhere wrong that CP be chosen when reasonable bloodless means of protecting society are available (eg modern day incarceration).

This is simply your interpretation of what 2267 says, and it is not consistent with what the church has always taught about punishment in general and capital punishment in particular.

That in effect is what the Magisterium already holds as a matter of practical prudential judgement.

Something cannot be both a prudential judgment and intrinsically evil. Those are mutually exclusive categories.

If this judgement were in fact to be clarified as actually being a moral precept and not merely a particular prudential judgement…then it would be in fact be close to what Swetlnd seems to be stating.

It might be close to what Swetland said, but it would not be close to what the church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think that would only work if the state is unable to hold a person in prison and they have good reason to think that person will kill again. Then, and only then, would capital punishment be considered self defense.

The church has never taught that capital punishment is a form of self defense, and indeed the two categories have quite different objectives and requirements. The primary requirement for killing in self defense to be valid is that the killing not be intended or desired. For capital punishment, however, the death of the prisoner is the entire objective of the act. This is very likely why Pope Francis said:Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past. Moreover, it is applied to people whose capacity to cause harm is not current, but has already been neutralized, and who are deprived of their freedom.

Self defense is the only situation where killing a living person is justified, and even then its nothing to celebrate.

Your claim does not accord what the church teaches:*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)

Killing a living person out of hatred and vengeance is wrong.

That acting out of hatred is wrong is true of all punishment. This is nothing unique to capital punishment.*It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4. *(Aquinas ST II-II 158, 1 ad 3)

if a child grows up and starts murdering people, i can’t help but think that society has in some way failed that child. Its always easy to condemn the monsters, but sometimes society creates monsters.

It is surely true that circumstances influence a person’s behavior, but we should never believe that a person should not be held accountable for his actions, for that would strip him of his human dignity and reduce him to the level of beasts, who we do not hold morally accountable.*In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. *(JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
Ender

 

[o_mlly]

…
It is 2017, there is no reason why society should still be at a level where we need to warehouse criminals or execute them, there are much more effective ways to deal with this now. Great strides have come in our understanding of human behavior and psychology, medieval times are long gone.

There is a reason: cost.

Society knows well that education is an important part of rehabilitation. The issue is: Who pays?

I worked as an instructor in the federal prison system. At that time, a felon had a right to earn an associates degree on the taxpayer. The budget crisis at the federal and state levels caused an outcry among taxpayers who had to pay for their own children’s college education. Their question was valid: Why does my child have no right to a free college education and the felon does? If we can’t make tuition payments, tell the child to rob a bank.

Since prisoners don’t vote, you can understand why congress and state legislatures eliminated the funding for education in prisons so quickly.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is simply your interpretation …

I see no inherent reason why the Church could not further specify a class of State Executions that are intrinsically evil. For example, it is always and everywhere wrong that CP be chosen when reasonable bloodless means of protecting society are available (eg modern day incarceration).

What I stated is entirely possible…even if Ender’s interpretation of Church history doesnt like it. And your last CP thread of dozens of pages got you nowhere in denying it .
BTW this is about Swetland’s thesis not yours.

Something cannot be both a prudential judgment and intrinsically evil. Those are mutually exclusive categories.

Perhaps, but maybe not in the flawed way you last asserted this before descending into silly games to avoid further embarrassment. Good to see youve done plenty of research since.

Would you, for example, consider a moral precept prudential?
Lets try “murder is always ane everywhere wrong”.

 

[JimG]

I think that the death penalty may have largely outlived its usefulness. The prison system also has major flaws, as does the prosecutorial system. But while practical application may change, Church teaching remains the same.

Why the Church cannot reverse past teaching on capital punishment.

Why the death penalty is still necessary.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The church has never taught that capital punishment is a form of self defense, and indeed the two categories have quite different objectives and requirements. The primary requirement for killing in self defense to be valid is that the killing not be intended or desired. For capital punishment, however, the death of the prisoner is the entire objective of the act. This is very likely why Pope Francis said:Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past. Moreover, it is applied to people whose capacity to cause harm is not current, but has already been neutralized, and who are deprived of their freedom.
Your claim does not accord what the church teaches:*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pope St. Pius X)
That acting out of hatred is wrong is true of all punishment. This is nothing unique to capital punishment.*It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4. *(Aquinas ST II-II 158, 1 ad 3)
It is surely true that circumstances influence a person’s behavior, but we should never believe that a person should not be held accountable for his actions, for that would strip him of his human dignity and reduce him to the level of beasts, who we do not hold morally accountable.*In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. *(JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)
Ender

Ender you know as well as I do that the poster here is substabtially correct even though you choose to interpret his colloquial language merely so you can make your paper tiger points.

When are you going to change from a biased Old Testament rhetotical hack and become a balanced and scholarly Christian seeker of truth?

Noone can disagree that not even the State can directly kill in hatred or animosity which the poster clearly meant.

And to say that the “entire objective” in State killings is death is rediculous and a huge exaggeration, and hence erroneous, on your part.
It may be the primary objective…but respecting of the common good is also a necessary and wider objective. Therefore you are wrong .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The church has never taught that capital punishment is a form of self defense…

An unbiased scholar would not be able to read CCC 2263 to 2267 without coming to exactly that denied conclusion I fear Ender. Here the obvious face reading it seems is that CP is dealt to as but a special case of the preceeding topic, “Legetimate Defence” transitioning from defence of the individual to defence of the State (war) then defence of the State by CP.

As it only takes one example to destroy your universal hypothesis above… case proven m’lud.

 

[Ender]

BTW this is about Swetland’s thesis not yours.

True, and if that was Swetland’s position then, as Feser said, it is not supportable.

Would you, for example, consider a moral precept prudential?
Lets try “murder is always and everywhere wrong”.

Yes, murder is always and everywhere wrong; it is intrinsically evil. Is this really in question? And no, that is not a prudential judgment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When are you going to change from a biased Old Testament rhetotical hack and become a balanced and scholarly Christian seeker of truth?

The better question is will you ever stop your incessant and petty insults?

And to say that the “entire objective” in State killings is death is ridiculous and a huge exaggeration, and hence erroneous, on your part.

It is difficult enough to communicate when the reader is trying to understand your point. It is impossible when the reader is simply looking for things to disagree with. While it is true that the entire trial, sentencing, and execution process is about justice and the common good, the sole objective of the execution is just that: the execution - that is, the death - of the condemned. If the executioner has any objective other than the death of the prisoner I cannot imagine what it would be. This is what distinguishes the executioner’s act from that of the person defending himself: while the result of both actions may be someone’s death, that will be the specific intent in the former case, and must not be in the latter.

Ender

 

[Ender]

An unbiased scholar would not be able to read CCC 2263 to 2267 without coming to exactly that denied conclusion I fear Ender. Here the obvious face reading it seems is that CP is dealt to as but a special case of the preceeding topic, “Legetimate Defence” transitioning from defence of the individual to defence of the State (war) then defence of the State by CP.

As it only takes one example to destroy your universal hypothesis above… case proven m’lud.

Given Pope Francis’ observation that*the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.
*your interpretation would be hard enough to defend, but the fact that the person defending himself is explicitly denied the right to intend the death of his opponent while the executioner can have no other objective means that an execution cannot satisfy the primary restriction for valid self defense.

The defender cannot intend death, and the executioner must. Your position requires you to accept things that are mutually exclusive, and while you might not find that an obstacle I imagine others will.

Ender

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Pope Francis’ statements have been, quite as Vatican Radio stated, unequivocal.

We give thanks to God that He guides the Magisterium, in faith and morality…even as we pray for those Catholics who refuse the submission they owe to the Successors of the Apostles.

(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life. In today’s world, the death penalty is “inadmissible, however serious the crime” that has been committed. That was Pope Francis’ unequivocal message to members of the International Commission against the death penalty who met with him on Friday morning in the Vatican.

In a lengthy letter written in Spanish and addressed to the president of the International Commission against the death penalty, Pope Francis thanks those who work tirelessly for a universal moratorium, with the goal of abolishing the use of capital punishment in countries right across the globe.

Pope Francis makes clear that justice can never be done by killing another human being and he stresses there can be no humane way of carrying out a death sentence. For Christians, he says, all life is sacred because every one of us is created by God, who does not want to punish one murder with another, but rather wishes to see the murderer repent. Even murderers, he went on, do not lose their human dignity and God himself is the guarantor.

Capital punishment, Pope Francis says, is the opposite of divine mercy, which should be the model for our man-made legal systems. Death sentences, he insists, imply cruel and degrading treatment, as well as the torturous anguish of a lengthy waiting period before the execution, which often leads to sickness or insanity.

The Pope also condemns the use of the death penalty by “totalitarian regimes” or “fanatical groups” who seek to exterminate “political prisoners”, “minorities”, or anyone seen as a threat to political power and ambitions.

But he makes quite clear that the use of capital punishment signifies “a failure” on the part of any State. However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.

en.radiovaticana.va/news/2015/03/20/pope_francis_no_crime_ever_deserves_the_death_penalty/1130871

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Let us make Archbishop Chaput’s vehement opposition to the death penalty and his work for its abolition quite clear. He is not defender of the use of the death penalty in any fashion.

Ender continues to grossly misrepresent where the Magisterium is on this issue in the 21st century, preferring, it seems, to live in the 19th century or earlier.

To deliberately misrepresent the thoughts of not only of clerics but the of the very Successors of the Apostles and the most esteemed of the theological community – as he does repeatedly in post and post and thread and after thread – is utterly beyond grotesque. It deserves to be castigated…and in the severest possible terms.

Capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion and war: All these issues raise profound questions for Catholics as we reflect on the sanctity of human life. But while they all touch on human dignity, they don’t all have the same moral content.

Euthanasia and abortion are always, intrinsically wrong because they always involve an intentional killing of innocent human life. War and capital punishment, in contrast, can sometimes be morally acceptable as an expression of society’s right to self-defense.

Both Scripture and a long tradition of Catholic thought support the legitimacy of the death penalty under certain limited circumstances. **But as Pope John Paul II argued so eloquently, the conditions that require the death penalty for society’s self-defense and the discharge of justice in modern, developed nations almost never exist. As a result, the right road for a civilized society is to abolish the death penalty altogether.

Readers of this column know that I’ve written and spoken many times, for many years, against the death penalty**. But I’m hardly alone in that view; bishops and many lay Catholics around the world and across the United States have urged public officials to end capital punishment for more than four decades. Earlier this year the four bishops of Colorado jointly revisited the issue yet again, saying:

As the Catholic bishops of Colorado, and consistent with Christian respect for the sanctity of human life, we oppose the use of capital punishment in our state.

We believe that all people have a natural right to life, because every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, who alone is Lord of life from its beginning until its end (cf. Gn 1: 26-28).

Obviously, behavior that threatens or takes lives cannot be tolerated. Those whose actions harm others must be held accountable. Society has a right to establish laws that protect all people and promote the common good. But the need to punish violent criminals does not logically lead, in our day, to the conclusion that capital punishment should be employed.

We grieve for the victims of murder and the terrible suffering of their families. In capital murder cases, we recognize that grave punishment is needed both to serve justice and to ensure the safety of the community. But we also believe, as Pope John Paul II once observed, that improvements in the penal system of developed countries like our own make the death penalty unnecessary to protect the community.

The state of Colorado has other means available to it besides the death penalty to exact justice and render the criminal unable to do harm. We need to continue the reform of our criminal justice system, and we need to impose punishment in a way that protects society from violence while avoiding further killing under official guise.

All human life, from conception to natural death, including the life of a convicted murderer, has intrinsic value. For the sake of our own humanity, we need to turn away from a mistaken idea of justice based—in practice—on further and unneeded violence.

The Colorado General Assembly currently has before it an important and hopeful piece of legislation—House Bill (HB) 1274—that would end the death penalty in our state. Support for capital punishment has steadily eroded around the country in recent years as more people come to see the inadequacy of the death penalty as a deterrent, the racially and ethnically biased manner in which it’s often applied, and the number of innocent persons wrongly condemned to death who have been exonerated by new DNA techniques.

I ask Catholics around the archdiocese to please contact their elected state lawmakers. Please ask our legislators to support HB 1274. ** We need to end the death penalty now; it’s the right course for a humane society**

catholicnewsagency.com/column/lets-end-the-death-penalty-now-703/

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes, murder is always and everywhere wrong; it is intrinsically evil. Is this really in question? And no, that is not a prudential judgment.

Ender

Interesting.
Given your opinion above would you then agree that a similar moral precept “fornication is always wrong” is to be treated the same as the above moral precept (“murder is always wrong”) .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Given Pope Francis’ observation thatthe prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion.
your interpretation would be hard enough to defend, but the fact that the person defending himself is explicitly denied the right to intend the death of his opponent while the executioner can have no other objective means that an execution cannot satisfy the primary restriction for valid self defense.

The defender cannot intend death, and the executioner must. Your position requires you to accept things that are mutually exclusive, and while you might not find that an obstacle I imagine others will.

Ender

Seriously, do you understand what a conditional clause actually is and what is being conditioned?
You seem to be interpreting him to say:

• “the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are never applicable in the social sphere.”*

If that is what he meant then he sure made a dog’s breakfast of it with all the unnecessary extra bits didn’t he .

Perhaps he really meant something else…something you object to in principle…and which you do not want to acknowledge … like:
“the prerequisites can be applicable but always with risk as its jolly difficult to do so and we have to be pretty careful when we do…” .

If you can supply the source reference it would be interesting to see what the context is and whether it modifies this face value interpretation further either way. Given he is consistent with past Popes I doubt it.

And given this is unlikely from any Magisterial doc I am aware of its seems your selective cherry picking has finally come to the bottom of the Ender preserved barrel of silver-bullets due to lack of material of substance.
And now you are bringing up neither cherries nor silver but only slimy wood-scrapings .

Do excuse the triple mixed metaphor.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I think that would only work if the state is unable to hold a person in prison and they have good reason to think that person will kill again. Then, and only then, would capital punishment be considered self defense.

Self defense is the only situation where killing a living person is justified, and even then its nothing to celebrate.

Killing a living person out of hatred and vengeance is wrong.

The people who sit down and watch executions make me sick. There’s something really twisted about it.

Its very hard to do but we must love the psychopath.

if a child grows up and starts murdering people, i can’t help but think that society has in some way failed that child. Its always easy to condemn the monsters, but sometimes society creates monsters.

Actually, punishment is also seen as retributive justice even within catholicism , it usually is proportional to the crime.

There are cases where the offended has committed same offense and bagged a smaller sentence and repeats same after he is released.

Add that to countries with actives terror groups where imprisoned terrorist are broken out of jail at will to continue butchering others.

In these cases it is actually in the interest of the common good to put such offenders to death and lesser punishment is just a temporary respite.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Focus on rehabilitation rather than just warehousing human beings.

Are you also against prison terms?