capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

Who decides whether or not the common good warrants capital punishment? ISIS for example has sharia law which helps them decide whether the common good requires that certain people be beheaded for treason.

The Church has always emphasised that the authority is valid only when legitimate. ISIS doesn’t value a ‘common good’ which espouses equality and freedom as a due right of all citizens.

The common good is achieved most efficiently through a democratically elected authority who consider a number of factors generally held to promote and safeguard the ideal of justice and fairness for all citizens equally. That will always be position of flux but will naturally move in a civilising direction in the long run.

 

[Tomdstone]

The common good is achieved most efficiently through a democratically elected authority who consider a number of factors generally held to promote and safeguard the ideal of justice and fairness for all citizens equally.

You mean someone like Barack Obama?

 

[Rau]

You mean someone like Barack Obama?

She means what she wrote!

 

[Rau]

So the moral law has changed with the changes in society?

Not the law, but the results one gets in the course of evaluating the morality of a specific human act (so long as it is not intrinsically evil) can change with the circumstances.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[LongingSoul]

In America the death penalty comes under the jurisdiction of the State so the state government would enact whatever decision was arrived at through a democratic process. In Nebraska the elected Republican is required to enact the result of a house vote (or whatever you call it in the States). It looks like the legislation required a two thirds majority and that passed 30 to 19 for abolition. It’s all part of a democratic process as to the final decision.

 

[Tomdstone]

She means what she wrote!

The criteria for common good are vague and subjective which is illustrated by my example. Some say this man is working to promote and safeguard the ideal of justice and fairness for all citizens equally, while others will strongly disagree.
IOW, there really is no such thing as whether or not it is intrinsically right or wrong to burn someone at the stake.

 

[billcu1]

In America the death penalty comes under the jurisdiction of the State so the state government would enact whatever decision was arrived at through a democratic process. In Nebraska the elected Republican is required to enact the result of a house vote (or whatever you call it in the States). It looks like the legislation required a two thirds majority and that passed 30 to 19 for abolition. It’s all part of a democratic process as to the final decision.

The federal government here has the death penalty. As for the states, some do some don’t.

 

[adrift]

The Catechism says we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all.

*If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”*

That is not what the Catechism says. It does not say “we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all” It says IF that is a strong word. And don’t cherry pick you left out
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Then we have that If again. The question than is who decides the “if”? So the Church’s position is not as you stated but that execution is the traditional teaching that the Church does not exclude.

 

[adrift]

Natural and divine law permit a death sentence as punishment if the common good warrants such an extreme measure. If the common good is harmed by resorting to a death sentence, it is forbidden by natural and divine law as unjust and immoral.

Where is this in the catechism?

 

[Rau]

…IOW, there really is no such thing as whether or not it is intrinsically right or wrong to burn someone at the stake.

There is no notion of “intrinsic right” when applied to a human act. For example, even a good thing such as giving money to charity can be stained by a bad Intention, thus making the human act immoral.

CP itself we know is not intrinsically evil - there are Intentions and Circumstances in which the act is moral. But some circumstances pertaining to an instance of CP can make that human act immoral. Assessing those circumstances is sometimes straightforward on moral principles, but in other cases it relies on human judgement exercised with due regard to moral principles as they are understood.

 

[Rau]

Where is this in the catechism?

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

The consequences of a human act must be on balance good for the act to be moral.

 

[Rau]

That is not what the Catechism says. It does not say “we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all” It says IF that is a strong word. And don’t cherry pick you left out
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Then we have that If again. The question than is who decides the “if”? So the Church’s position is not as you stated but that execution is the traditional teaching that the Church does not exclude.

You do understand that not excluding something opens perhaps a very narrow door? It merely says circumstances can exist where the act would be moral. The Church is telling us that these days, that crack is exceedingly narrow.

 

[Tomdstone]

I think a few people have already pointed out that all of the questions you bring up are answered in The Catechism. It would be very beneficial for you to educate yourself on these clearly established moral principals.

The Catechism says we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all.

That is not what the Catechism says. It does not say “we shouldn’t be executing anyone at all” .

When two different people go to the catechism, they come out with two different answers.
Is burning at the stake or beheading an allowed form of execution if the people in charge think it is necessary for the common good?

 

[Tomdstone]

You do understand that not excluding something opens perhaps a very narrow door? It merely says circumstances can exist where the act would be moral. The Church is telling us that these days, that crack is exceedingly narrow.

The narrowness of the opening is a vague and ill-defined concept. Is morality supposed to be vague and subjective or is it supposed to be clearcut at to what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Ender]

I think it is wise to point this one out due to the potential, in this case, to forget that earthly authority to punish is limited.

The State’s authority to punish is no different now than it was in the past. Again, there is the doctrine - States have the right to use capital punishment - and there are prudential considerations - is it a good idea to use it in this circumstance? These are two very different considerations.

The Popes argue that s death, if not offset by the likelihood of saving lives, is worse than the good that the punishment of death brings over and above an alternative punishment. Is that a moral or prudential assessment?

It is a judgment, as you said - an assessment. But I disagree with your assertion of what the popes were saying. There is no possibility that a secondary objective of punishment can override the primary objective.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

The State’s authority to punish is no different now than it was in the past.

So the Islamic Caliphate state does have the moral authority to behead those it has judged guilty of treason to the state? Just as for example was done in England in previous years.

 

[Ender]

The criteria for common good are vague and subjective which is illustrated by my example.

This is true, and it is why the decision to use capital punishment is not a moral one but a practical one. That is a different question than whether capital punishment is a just punishment for a particular crime. It can be a just punishment as well as a bad idea to use it; what it cannot be is an unjust punishment and a good idea to use it.

Ender

 

[Rau]

The narrowness of the opening is a vague and ill-defined concept. Is morality supposed to be vague and subjective or is it supposed to be clearcut at to what is right and what is wrong?

Tom, do you live in the real world? Are all moral judgements easy, and answerable with certainty by reference to a book? Of course not. Intrinsic evil is definitive, prudential judgement is not.

 

[Ender]

So the Islamic Caliphate state does have the moral authority to behead those it has judged guilty of treason to the state? Just as for example was done in England in previous years.

Their authority depends on whether or not they are a legitimate government, not on whether they are a good form of government. If the Caliphate was legitimate it would have the moral authority to use capital punishment. They don’t lose that right because they are evil, although their use of the death penalty could certainly be evil depending on the circumstances.

Ender

 

[Rau]

This is true, and it is why the decision to use capital punishment is not a moral one but a practical one. That is a different question than whether capital punishment is a just punishment for a particular crime. It can be a just punishment as well as a bad idea to use it; what it cannot be is an unjust punishment and a good idea to use it.

Ender

And it’s use can be absolutely be immoral. Even when the punishment, per se, is just. To go ahead and deploy it if one knows it is a “bad idea” (adverse consequences outweigh the good) is an immoral act. Of course, it may be difficult to weigh the consequences, though recent Pope’s have done that.