Capital Punishment: modern invention or grounded in tradition?

[dominikus28]

My question to those Catholics who say the Church has always been against the death penalty, is this:

Who were the Bishops, or the priests, or how did the Church condemn the execution of the Nazi criminals?

My understanding is that it is perfectly moral to support the death penalty. It seems to be grounded in the traditional teachings of the Church, and opposition to it is a very recent invention. I spoke to a priest today, and he told me the Church has always been against it. If so, then why were there no protests against the death penalty back then. St Thomas More even sentenced heretics to death.

 

[Michael0993]

The Church does not stand completely against the death penalty today, and never was completely against it. However, like just war theory there are conditions that must be met in order for the death penalty to be allowed. If a person has been fully identified as the perpetrator of crimes against human life for example, and the only way to protect human life/people from the aggressor it is allowed. However, if there are non-lethal means that keep society safe, then the death penalty is not-allowed and should not be followed through.

in the modern world it is possible to keep a murderer in prison for life, and by doing so society is safe. Therefore the death penalty should be rarely used and the need to use it is near non-existent.

Today, I would say the death penalty is not moral to support keeping in mind we must have a seamless garment, a consistent life ethic, if life can be preserved and the outcome the same we must always preserve life.

 

[carn]

Today, I would say the death penalty is not moral to support keeping in mind we must have a seamless garment, a consistent life ethic, if life can be preserved and the outcome the same we must always preserve life.

One should include a limitation about what country one is talking about. As i have written in another thread, even today there are situations in which the conditions for death penalty are fulfilled:

To make an example, Saddam Husseins execution probably was acceptable in light of catholic teaching, but not because he massacred, gased, raped, robbed thousands or hundreds of thousands or gave orders to do so, but because during the process Hussein had declared his intent to again be ruler of Iraq by suggesting the US should reinstate him so he can end the civil war (so he declared his intention to commit the crimes again, Saddam ending civil war would probably have looked similar to the worst parts of his reign), because Iraq was a state torn apart by a civil war and foreign nations interfering on the brink of failure (no state can imprison somebody for life if the state might fall apart 5 years later) and because their were about 5000-10000 armed, fighting and murdering followers of the old regime, who would have certainly considered an organized attempt to free Saddam, which might have put him with his intent to commit his crimes again at the head of a fighting force numbering up to 10000.

Also, imprisoned criminals can escape or commit crimes against other prisoners. If a murderer imprisoned for life murders another inmate, its questionable whether society can be realy kept safe from him.

 

[JerryZ]

My question to those Catholics who say the Church has always been against the death penalty, is this:

Who were the Bishops, or the priests, or how did the Church condemn the execution of the Nazi criminals?

My understanding is that it is perfectly moral to support the death penalty. It seems to be grounded in the traditional teachings of the Church, and opposition to it is a very recent invention. I spoke to a priest today, and he told me the Church has always been against it. If so, then why were there no protests against the death penalty back then. St Thomas More even sentenced heretics to death.

As long as people try to conflate “capital punishment” == “murder” we will have this debates.
When it is patently obvious they are not equal.
Capital punishment is the right of the secular government to defend itself (it’s people) against evil (by people).

It is the foundation of the doctrine of why the Church still and I believe will never speak against it dogmatically.
Because the evolution of society one would hope that it is less and less likely it will be applied. However we need to recognize the possibility that this can change in the future for the worse.
If our civilization devolves into the kind of society present 2000 years ago and the Church had declared the use of it inmoral by declaring it so, that society could have problems and perhaps repercussions against the Church itself could ensue.
I believe in the wisdom of the Church, She rightly condemms the indiscriminate use of it if there are alternative methods of protecting society.

–

 

[Khalid]

Strongly grounded in tradition, of course. The Church has always been in favour of the death penalty: history bears witness to this with one voice, both Church history and secular history, and where Church and saeculum coincide. However, it is no longer appropriate in a typical modern Western society, as the purpose of capital punishment is protection primarily, not retribution; ideally, in a society where prisons are common, even minimally economically viable, and used as a method of punishment (as opposed to holding prisoners for hanging alone), capital punishment is unjustified on these grounds alone, forbearing to mention the fact that human frailty in non-capital sentencing has less deleterious an effect (as innocent men can not be put to death, and it is great iniquity for innocent men to be judicially murdered).

Note, that I say “ideally”, because of human frailty (original sin, sin nature, etc.) in administering non-capital punishment is equal to that in administering capital punishment; it is that human frailty with the death penalty can not but help murdering some innocent men. The system should be designed to minimize the damage that human error and frailty can cause; and designing the system so that an innocent man can not be put to death is certainly minimizing the damage that human error can cause. Human frailty without the death penalty can release rapists, paedophiles, and other categories of almost-always-repeat-offender back in to the world.

This is not to say any penal system is perfect, or even close to it. But an ideal penal system and government should not have to use the death penalty except in extraordinary cases (emergencies, during war, military justice, etc.). For example, I am not opposed to the true life sentence (life without parole) for repeat offenders of such sort (most murderers are not repeat offenders); I am opposed to gaol sentences for drug offenders of pretty much any sort that didn’t commit any crime beyond using or selling the drugs; I am opposed to inequality in sentencing on race; I am opposed to serious criminals getting relatively light sentences, and junkies getting heavy ones - often heavier even in absolute numbers of years; etc.

To summarize, no penal system is perfect, but no imperfect penal system is helped to become more perfect by the use of capital punishment in the modern world, where capital punishment is too often used as a revenge, and not as a deterrent, protector, or rehabilitator; and almost all penal systems are helped to become more perfect by the lack of use or the removal of capital punishment.

 

[bilop]

The Church does not stand completely against the death penalty today, and never was completely against it. However, like just war theory there are conditions that must be met in order for the death penalty to be allowed. If a person has been fully identified as the perpetrator of crimes against human life for example, and the only way to protect human life/people from the aggressor it is allowed. However, if there are non-lethal means that keep society safe, then the death penalty is not-allowed and should not be followed through.

**in the modern world it is possible to keep a murderer in prison for life, and by doing so society is safe. Therefore the death penalty should be rarely used and the need to use it is near non-existent. **

Today, I would say the death penalty is not moral to support keeping in mind we must have a seamless garment, a consistent life ethic, if life can be preserved and the outcome the same we must always preserve life.

Except, the part I bolded is not true.

Prisoners assault, rape and kill other prisoners, and guards. Gang leaders continue to run their gangs from jail, and even order murders on the outside. There are plenty of criminals that are not neutralized by imprisonments. Practically, the death penalty is necessary, otherwise once someone receives a life sentence, they can murder at will in prison.

Also, I believe the death penalty is in some senses more merciful. It forces a condemned prisoner to face his imminent death, and encourages repentance. All life imprisonment does is give them decades to keep doing wrong, while hoping for a sharp lawyer to get them out.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

To summarize, no penal system is perfect, but no imperfect penal system is helped to become more perfect by the use of capital punishment in the modern world, where capital punishment is too often used as a revenge, and not as a deterrent, protector, or rehabilitator; and almost all penal systems are helped to become more perfect by the lack of use or the removal of capital punishment.

You fail to mention that retribution has always been considered appropriate grounds for punishment under Catholic teaching. Punishment is meant to render justice for the crime committed. Capital punishment can be justified based on retribution alone.

I actually have more problem with deterrence as a justification for punishment. Deterrence, it seems, is using the prisoner as an object to frighten others. He is being punished not for what he did, but because of what others might do. To me, that doesn’t square with the prohibition of using people as means to end.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Strongly grounded in tradition, of course. The Church has always been in favour of the death penalty…

Since the very beginning the church has recognized the right of states to employ capital punishment. Opposition to its use is an extremely new phenomenon.*Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. *(Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

However, it is no longer appropriate in a typical modern Western society, as the purpose of capital punishment is protection primarily, not retribution…

Oops, no, the primary objective of punishment has always been retribution and that teaching has not changed. This doctrine is even contained in the current catechism, albeit in a form as to render it mostly incomprehensible.CCC 2266 *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
Whatever else one may believe about this statement it is not possible to believe that protection - preventing new offenses - does anything to redress the disorder already caused by a past offense. Protection is clearly not the primary objective.

no imperfect penal system is helped to become more perfect by the use of capital punishment in the modern world, where capital punishment is too often used as a revenge, and not as a deterrent, protector, or rehabilitator

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, 2001)
As Dulles noted, deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives; he agrees with you on that much. Unlike him, however, you dismiss retribution as a proper response to crime when in fact it is an obligation of justice … which is why it is the primary objective of all punishment.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

My question to those Catholics who say the Church has always been against the death penalty, is this:

Who were the Bishops, or the priests, or how did the Church condemn the execution of the Nazi criminals?

My understanding is that it is perfectly moral to support the death penalty. It seems to be grounded in the traditional teachings of the Church, and opposition to it is a very recent invention. I spoke to a priest today, and he told me the Church has always been against it. If so, then why were there no protests against the death penalty back then. St Thomas More even sentenced heretics to death.

it is moral to be for or against the death penalty because the Church HAS NOT declared the morality of this. BUT recently those in power in the Church (i think of the Catechism quoting JPII) have stated in a non binding way that the death penalty is something that should be rarely used if any at all.

this is the way I see it (not saying its church teaching)

the death penalty is today something that in first world countries that should almost never be used. The reason being is that the death penalty is a protection of society when only those means are available. An example of this may be in an african country a man has killed 10 people in cold blood, he is caught and found guilty of all the crimes. In this country they have no good jail and the security isn’t great people escape it all the time. For the protection of the community the death penalty should be used. In a country like ours this is almost never the case. You can keep a criminal locked up in some of the highest security prisons in the world.

but again this my own personal view no necessarily the view of the Church, while I do believe that my views are in line with the recent movement of the Church but they are no way binding. Like divine revelation would be or dogmatic infallible statements.

 

[Ender]

the death penalty is today something that in first world countries that should almost never be used. The reason being is that the death penalty is a protection of society when only those means are available.

This is the natural assumption one would make based on what CCC 2267 says: the church accepts capital punishment “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *That assumption, however, is not accurate.

The appropriateness of any penalty is determined first and foremost by whether it is just, not by whether it is necessary to protect society, and for a punishment to be just its severity must be “*commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” *(CCC 2266) It is retribution - retributive justice - and not protection that (according to Catholic doctrine) determines the severity of the punishment.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

This is the natural assumption one would make based on what CCC 2267 says: the church accepts capital punishment “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *That assumption, however, is not accurate.

The appropriateness of any penalty is determined first and foremost by whether it is just, not by whether it is necessary to protect society, and for a punishment to be just its severity must be “*commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” *(CCC 2266) It is retribution - retributive justice - and not protection that (according to Catholic doctrine) determines the severity of the punishment.

Ender

Just to make sure I read your comment correctly

are you saying that both protection of society and the severity of the crime determine if the death penalty can be used?

or are you saying protection of the people doesn’t really matter?

 

[Ender]

Just to make sure I read your comment correctly

are you saying that both protection of society and the severity of the crime determine if the death penalty can be used?

or are you saying protection of the people doesn’t really matter?

The protection of the public does matter but cannot by itself justify the punishment; security is a valid objective of punishment but it is only secondary. The primary objective is retribution - retributive justice - and it is this that determines whether a punishment is appropriate.

Regardless of whether it is needed to protect society, capital punishment may not be used if it is too severe for the crime committed.

Regardless of whether it is needed to protect society, capital punishment should be used if it is the just punishment for the crime committed.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

The protection of the public does matter but cannot by itself justify the punishment; security is a valid objective of punishment but it is only secondary. The primary objective is retribution - retributive justice - and it is this that determines whether a punishment is appropriate.

Regardless of whether it is needed to protect society, capital punishment may not be used if it is too severe for the crime committed.

Regardless of whether it is needed to protect society, capital punishment should be used if it is the just punishment for the crime committed.

Ender

I get what your saying but you can’t forget the dignity of the human person or the common good. You are correct to say that the death penalty shouldn’t be used if the punishment is to server. We all agree with this, but I’m suspect in you saying that protection of society doesn’t matter with retributive justice or is secondary to protection of society. I don’t think the Catechism excusively says this in any way.

lets examine Evangelium Vitae

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

you are correct when you say the punishment should be determined by what the crime is, we don’t disagree here. But I think what we there is a disconnect is when you say that the primary means of our penal system is retributive justice can be dangerous. While yes retributive justice is important the “justice” that we practice in our legal system can’t take away the common good of that individual and can’t take away his human dignity. What the pope seems to be saying is that punishment is restorative, which leads to the persons ability to regain his or her freedom. The penal system should work to improve the criminals not just lock them up for punishment. The thought process the punishment fits th crime is a dangerous way to think IMO. Criminals need to be rehabilitated not just punished.

Granted you may want this to but the way your posts come off sounds like you are more concerned about making someone pay for what they did rather than improving this person and making sure they receive, even in prison, the same dignity that all human beings deserve.

when it comes to determining the punishment for crimes I don’t think it should be you did X so you deserve punishment Y. No what should be the central factor in determining what a persons punishment is how can we go about restoring this person so that he or she can live in freedom that he or she didn’t have when she committed that crime. Do you think it would be good for a priest to use retributive justice in the confessional? What good would that do. If we wouldn’t use retributive justice in the confessional why would we use it in our legal system?

to put it simply I believe the Church is calling our legal system to practice restorative justice, where we look at what needs to be done to improve this person and allow this person to again live in freedom.

note a truly retributive system of justice wouldn’t have any systems for those who have serious drug problems or mental issues and commit serious crimes. If a mentally handicap person murdered someone in a retributive system you would give them the same punishment as someone who is sane and murdered someone.

 

[Khalid]

As Dulles noted, deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives; he agrees with you on that much. Unlike him, however, you dismiss retribution as a proper response to crime when in fact it is an obligation of justice … which is why it is the primary objective of all punishment.

Ender

How would you answer:

Not only is retribution not a proper end of justice, it makes the victims sinners by forcing them to seek vengeance, even if indirectly, when the sum total of the law is to love God and forgive man?

 

[Ender]

I’m suspect in you saying that protection of society doesn’t matter with retributive justice or is secondary to protection of society. I don’t think the Catechism excusively says this in any way.

The catechism says “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” What do you think that refers to? It cannot possibly mean protection as protection from new disorders does nothing to redress the disorders of the past.

I think what we there is a disconnect is when you say that the primary means of our penal system is retributive justice can be dangerous.

I am trying to make the point that it is not I who says this but the church; that it is retribution the church actually means by the phrase “redress the disorder.”

What the pope seems to be saying is that punishment is restorative, which leads to the persons ability to regain his or her freedom.

Punishment is restorative only in the sense that: “the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice” (Aquinas)

The penal system should work to improve the criminals not just lock them up for punishment.

Rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment. This is what the church teaches (according to Cardinal Dulles) but, like protection, it is only a secondary objective.

The thought process the punishment fits the crime is a dangerous way to think IMO.

But again, this is what the church teaches.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

catholictiger:

your posts come off sounds like you are more concerned about making someone pay for what they did rather than improving this person and making sure they receive, even in prison, the same dignity that all human beings deserve.

I don’t doubt that you are right that this is how my posts are perceived but I think that is due to the fact that most people have a low opinion of retribution and cannot accept what the church teaches about it.

when it comes to determining the punishment for crimes I don’t think it should be you did X so you deserve punishment Y.

You might be right except for the crime of murder where God himself said that "Whoever sheds the blood of man (X) by man shall his blood be shed (Y).]

No what should be the central factor in determining what a persons punishment is how can we go about restoring this person so that he or she can live in freedom that he or she didn’t have when she committed that crime.

Do you believe “redressing the disorder caused by the offense” means “rehabilitating the criminal”? Is this what you think the church has defined as the primary purpose of punishment?

to put it simply I believe the Church is calling our legal system to practice restorative justice, where we look at what needs to be done to improve this person and allow this person to again live in freedom.

You don’t seem to accept that a person who sins deserves punishment, that this is a matter of justice.

If a mentally handicap person murdered someone in a retributive system you would give them the same punishment as someone who is sane and murdered someone.

There is no justification for such an uncharitable charge. It should be obvious that circumstances alter all cases but the debate here is not about whether everyone who commits murder ought to be executed but whether it is the proper punishment for those with no mitigating conditions.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How would you answer:

Not only is retribution not a proper end of justice, it makes the victims sinners by forcing them to seek vengeance, even if indirectly, when the sum total of the law is to love God and forgive man?

I would cite a variety of church sources that refute this assertion. Here are just a few:*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, 2001)

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. **We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment ***(USCCB 1980)

The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and* it describes retribution as the first of these purposes.** *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L)

*Retribution: A penalty or reward that a person deserves for moral conduct. Its basis is the divine justice that repays each person according to his or her works. *(Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary)
You mistake the obligation of the state, which is to punish the sinner, with the obligation of the individual which is to forgive him. Retribution is exclusively reserved to the state and is forbidden the individual.

Ender

 

[catholictiger]

The catechism says “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” What do you think that refers to? It cannot possibly mean protection as protection from new disorders does nothing to redress the disorders of the past.
I am trying to make the point that it is not I who says this but the church; that it is retribution the church actually means by the phrase “redress the disorder.”
Punishment is restorative only in the sense that: “the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice” (Aquinas)
Rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment. This is what the church teaches (according to Cardinal Dulles) but, like protection, it is only a secondary objective.
But again, this is what the church teaches.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)

Ender

let me put it simple what I’m worried about when people read this is that when they read retributive justice is that its all that matters and that the severity of the punishment is all that matters. The Dignity of the human person and the common good is what matters for justice because that is the definition of justice. Giving someone what is due to them. What is due to them is the common good and that they have dignity. No justice system can ever take away someone’s human dignity or their common good no matter how bad the crime.

Of course people should be punished for the wrongs they do, but the punishment should seek to redeem the man not just punish him.

I believe that if a criminal is just locked up and ignored than there is an issue with it. Even the worst of criminals have human dignity and deserve justice.

You are putting your focus on 2266 I’m just making sure that people realize that the Church also speaks of a restorative aspect of justice.

When I first read your statement It seemed that you could justify using the death penalty even when its not need to protect society. That threw up a red flag because its not the understanding of the Church.

We are in agreement because this is what the Church teaches I’m just making sure people understand the restorative part of justice. The way you phrased it makes it sound like you put too much emphasis on punishment and ignore what the church says on restorative justice.

 

[catholictiger]

just to make sure this is a part of this discussion

please read this part of evangelium vitae

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.** The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.** 47

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.48

Bolding is mine

 

[catholictiger]

to make some comment on EV

from my reading of it it appears that the pope while he does show importance of punishment for crimes and how this is primary. I don’t think he is saying that rehabilitation/restoring the person/protecting society, is secondary. From the way I read it and maybe I’m reading it wrong it appears that he gives these requirements for determining what the punishment is. It’s not punishment comes first then you can worry about protecting society and restoring this person. Instead what it appears the pope says in EV is that what the punishment is important and should look out for the protection of society, the rehabilitation of the criminal, and punishing him for what he did.

Again by wording things in this primary and secondary way and by saying that protecting society/ rehabilitating the criminal is secondary makes me think people will justify the death penalty only on an eye for an eye type of moral system. You killed my family and because the Church says punishment for what you did is primary you deserve the death penalty. That way of thinking is dangerous and not in line with the Church.

Why would the pope say that the need for the DP is non existence if protection of society is second. Why would a secondary factor make the need for the DP almost non existence.

I hope you see what I’m getting at I don’t disagree with the Church teaching I just think you are slightly mis interpreting it and putting to much emphasis on CCC2266 and diminishing what the Pope says and what CCC2267 says.

I guess for clarification sake are you for or against the Death Penalty? If yes what crime would warrant the use of the DP?