Capital Punishment

[Rau]

CP (justly pursued) is not motivated (first font) by a desire to end a life (eg. It is not an act born of malice), but by a desire to punish the guilty and to safeguard society. The means (2nd font) is the execution (killing) of the criminal. That means is not morally evil (so long as the criminal is indeed the guilty party). The killing of the criminal is certainly the chosen mean.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To assert this is to claim one can simultaneously believe both A and not-A.
Ender

Correct, just as the Church does with self defence and PODE as the means by which this is actually possible.

Clearly, if we accept Church teaching, A-1 is only 99.9% the same as A .

Hence in just killings the material evil (the death) is in the circumstances but is not in the object matter (which in fact contains the greater proportionate material good such as reform or preservation).

Both are chosen, willed and even premeditated in many cases.
Yet only one, according to the Church, is said to be “directly intended.”

There is in fact a significant very small but important difference in the way each is “willed”.
That difference is what is described in contrasting direct intention with indirect intention.

So by insisting on “Thou shall not kill” it has become clear to me in recent years this is what the Magisterium is observing, even in CP.

One may never directly intend the death of any person, innocent or guilty.

 

[Rau]

Correct, just as the Church does with self defence and PODE as the means by which this is actually possible.

Clearly, if we accept Church teaching, A-1 is only 99.9% the same as A .

Hence in just killings the material evil (the death) is in the circumstances but is not in the object matter (which in fact contains the greater proportionate material good such as reform or preservation).

Both are chosen, willed and even premeditated in many cases.
Yet only one, according to the Church, is said to be “directly intended.”

One may never directly intend the death of any person, innocent or guilty.

Is the “non-innocence” of the person central at all to this reasoning? Could this reasoning be applied in other cases - say, when the one killed is innocent? Can I perform an act that “chooses, wills, even premeditated” the death, so long as I “do not directly intend it”?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is the “non-innocence” of the person central at all to this reasoning? Could this reasoning be applied in other cases - say, when the one killed is innocent? Can I perform an act that “chooses, wills, even premeditated” the death, so long as I “do not directly intend it”?

Possibly it makes some difference re proportionality judgements.
So it would be significant in bombing Nagasaki and just war discussions re non combatants.

Also may have bearing on those silly lesser of two evils scenarios where we choose to kill 3 innocents instead of nature killing 10.

Seems to come into play in ectopic procedures.

What are you thinking of concretely?

 

[Rau]

Possibly it makes some difference re proportionality judgements.
So it would be significant in bombing Nagasaki and just war discussions re non combatants.

Also may have bearing on those silly lesser of two evils scenarios where we choose to kill 3 innocents instead of nature killing 10.

Seems to come into play in ectopic procedures.

What are you thinking of concretely?

I will consider further, but initial thoughts:

Seems to me your thoughts here propose to remove “Innocence” from any direct relevance. Thus, would it follow that willing the death of an innocent - but not directly intending it - [not sure I know what that means just yet…] - can be a good act? Can we think of any examples?

You mention Ectopic pregnancy. Does your reasoning suggest that a methotrexate injection (which causes/accelerates death of child, leading to resolution of the problem for the woman) should be deemed allowable? Does your reasoning translate to: Yes, we do choose to kill this child, but it is an indirect choice because what we really want is to heal the woman, and we accept killing the child…but is sounds to be a means to that end . And means can’t be justified by ends. [Granted, the child would not have been killed in other circumstances - but I don’t think that helps much.] I don’t think this works. There is not a double-effect at work, because the killing of the child is the precedent which then leads to the healing of the woman.

It does seem that the reasoning you present would not be limited to application to the 5th commandment. Eg:

If a married couple are anxious about conceiving a child with a serious medical condition (eg. Spina bifida, Tay-sachs, microcephaly, etc.) they may consider choosing contraception. Can we say they have directly chosen to protect a child from these conditions, and only indirectly chosen to ‘contracept’? I don’t believe this works either. I don’t think there is a double-effect because one cannot but help choose contraception (the moral evil) as the means to achieve one’s end.

More thought required.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

…would it follow that willing the death of an innocent - but not directly intending it - [not sure I know what that means just yet…] - can be a good act?

We already accept that there are scenarios where innocents may be killed and the PODE is hard stressed to justify it. Ectopic pregnancies do look like removal of the embryo is the means to save in many cases.

That’s OK, even Aquinas never included the “not go thru the evil” condition to his formulation of the PODE. Even today there is strong controversy over that condition. The Magisterium to my knowledge has never defined what definition it means by the PODE…though we do know it is used to explain how willing something materially evil can be indirect and if weighed less than the material good achieved…then the act as a whole is morally good. The material evil willed thus becomes a willed circumstance but not a willed object.

So regardless of the efficacy of the 4 condition version we still accept indirect intention is the key to justifying killing of innocents.

It may be there are some material evils so contaminating that they could never be indirectly intended…but killing of innocents does not seem to be one of them.

 

[Rau]

Blue - which scenarios do you have in mind which involve willing the death of an innocent, but are moral acts? There are acts deemed moral to treat ectopic pregnancy (they do not involve willing death) and other treatments deemed immoral that do certainly will the death, and are deemed immoral.

Regarding PODE, keep in mind it is not an additional model for determining morality - it is an analysis tool but is not separate from the 3 fonts model. An evil moral object is fatal to the morality of any act, regardless of what PODE steps a person might choose as an aid to analysis. Choosing to directly end the life of an innocent (for any purpose) is an act with an evil moral object. Tube removal in ectopic pregnancy is indirectly attacking the life of the child. Methotrexate injection directly attacks the child. The former is regarded as moral, the latter immoral.

So…acts which cause innocents to die can be moral. But I know of none that will and directly pursue that result that are moral. Do you?

 

[Ender]

Hence in just killings the material evil (the death) is in the circumstances but is not in the object matter (which in fact contains the greater proportionate material good such as reform or preservation).

No, the object chosen is the death of the criminal. The end is the good expected to come from it. Given that we may never choose an evil object, or do evil that good may come of it, it should be clear that executions are allowed simply because killing is not always evil.

Both are chosen, willed and even premeditated in many cases.
Yet only one, according to the Church, is said to be “directly intended.”

According to you perhaps, but this is not an explanation the church has ever given. Words have lost their meaning when it is claimed that premeditated does not mean directly intended.

There is in fact a significant very small but important difference in the way each is “willed”. That difference is what is described in contrasting direct intention with indirect intention.

Explain the difference between an execution style killing by a mobster and an execution by the State.

One may never directly intend the death of any person, innocent or guilty.

Again, words become meaningless when the act of strapping a person to a table, injecting him with drugs, and having a doctor proclaim him dead - just in case another dose is necessary - is passed off as not intending his death.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Magisterium to my knowledge has never defined what definition it means by the PODE…though we do know it is used to explain how willing something materially evil can be indirect and if weighed less than the material good achieved…then the act as a whole is morally good. The material evil willed thus becomes a willed circumstance but not a willed object.

So regardless of the efficacy of the 4 condition version we still accept indirect intention is the key to justifying killing of innocents.

Explain what you mean by indirectly intended. The Principle of Double Effect has as one of its requirements that the evil outcome not be intended. This is one reason why PODE cannot apply to executions given that the death of the criminal is the intended outcome from the act of execution.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Explain what you mean by indirectly intended. The Principle of Double Effect has as one of its requirements that the evil outcome not be intended. This is one reason why PODE cannot apply to executions given that the death of the criminal is the intended outcome from the act of execution.

Ender

PODE applies when the harm is a side-effect. Eg. An innocent is collateral damage in a military action. You are correct that it is not the basis upon which the morality of CP rests. CP is direct killing, and yet the moral object is good.

 

[o_mlly]

Explain what you mean by indirectly intended. The Principle of Double Effect has as one of its requirements that the evil outcome not be intended. This is one reason why PODE cannot apply to executions given that the death of the criminal is the intended outcome from the act of execution.

Ender

Capital punishment is the act of the state that intends to defend innocent lives by killing an unjust aggressor.

Self-defense from lethal attack is the act of an individual that intends to defend innocent life by killing an unjust aggressor.

Both the state that executes and the individual acting in self-defense from lethal attack kill an unjust aggressor. The death of the unjust aggressor is foreseen, unintended and an acceptable effect. The intended effect in both cases is to end the unjust aggression.

The difference, it seems to me, is only the moment. The state acts in the absence of an imminent threat. The individual may only act morally when the threat is imminent.

The state, therefore, exercises its biblical license to kill unjust aggressors. The individual does not have such a license. JPII, I think properly and parallel to the individual’s situation, instructs the state to avoid executing if the prisoner’s threat to society is not imminent. Incarceration first; execution last.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment is the act of the state that intends to defend innocent lives by killing an unjust aggressor.

I don’t think so. Protection is a valid end of punishment, but it is not the primary end and by itself cannot determine the severity of the punishment. Beyond this, there is no imminent aggression that needs to be defended against. An individual wouldn’t get very far claiming he killed his sleeping neighbor to defend himself against an assault he believed his neighbor was about to commit.

Self-defense from lethal attack is the act of an individual that intends to defend innocent life by killing an unjust aggressor.

One of the key elements of righteous self defense is that death not be intended. Since death is very much intended by an execution it cannot meet that criterion.

Both the state that executes and the individual acting in self-defense from lethal attack kill an unjust aggressor. The death of the unjust aggressor is foreseen, unintended and an acceptable effect. The intended effect in both cases is to end the unjust aggression.

Except that the state clearly may intend the death, nor may the state merely kill someone preemptively and call it self defense. The state may execute someone only because he has committed an act for which the just penalty is death, that is, because he deserves to die because of the nature of his sin.

The difference, it seems to me, is only the moment. The state acts in the absence of an imminent threat. The individual may only act morally when the threat is imminent.

In all of this is there any consideration given to what is just? Not once has that subject been raised. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of an oversight?

The state, therefore, exercises its biblical license to kill unjust aggressors.

What biblical license do you refer to? I can find any number of passages that specify death as a response to the commission of a sin, but I am unaware of any that permits the State to kill an individual preemptively.

Ender

 

[Korbit]

I am an American, and I’m very frustrated with the our implementation of capital punishment for the following reasons:

1. The death penalty in no way deters a potential murderer from committing the crime.
2. The death penalty is administered by imperfect humans overseeing an imperfect judicial system that has made errors in the past and will do so in the future. We have released many prisoners from death row after DNA evidence comes to light proving their innocence. Unfortunately in some cases this evidence has become known too late to save an innocent person from being killed by the state.
3. A Life Sentence is punishment enough for even the most heinous crimes, and allows for the reversal of a verdict rendered in error. A death sentence can’t be reversed if the person has already had that sentence carried out.

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t think so. Protection is a valid end of punishment, but it is not the primary end and by itself cannot determine the severity of the punishment.

Protection, not punishment, is the valid end of banishment, imprisonment or execution. The intention of punishment is not protection in se but medicinal, that is, to change or end the behavior(s) of the evil doer.

Do you have an encyclical or apostolic father’s writing to reference support for the claim that protection of the community is not the primary intention of execution?
You are right, I think, protection does not determine punishment. Rather crime determines the punishment. Execution, banishment or imprisonment depending on the type of society (agrarian, nomadic, industrialized) and the resources available to that society determine the type of punishment suitable and possible.

Beyond this, there is no imminent aggression that needs to be defended against. An individual wouldn’t get very far claiming he killed his sleeping neighbor to defend himself against an assault he believed his neighbor was about to commit.

In general, I have no disagreement with this claim. However, those waging a just war against an unjust aggressor have the moral right to mitigate the unjust aggressor’s ability to do evil and that may involve the killing of a sleeping enemy.

One of the key elements of righteous self defense is that death not be intended. Since death is very much intended by an execution it cannot meet that criterion.

A death foreseen as an effect does not mean automatically that the death is intended.

Except that the state clearly may intend the death, nor may the state merely kill someone preemptively and call it self defense. The state may execute someone only because he has committed an act for which the just penalty is death, that is, because he deserves to die because of the nature of his sin.

What crimes justly merit the death penalty? What is the rationale that supports that those crimes and only those crimes justly deserve death?

In all of this is there any consideration given to what is just? Not once has that subject been raised. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of an oversight?

I do not believe we are capable of God’s justice as we lack the wheel base. We are capable of God’s charity. If individuals and the community act out of charity then punishment will always be medicinal and protection of the innocent the primary intention.

What biblical license do you refer to? I can find any number of passages that specify death as a response to the commission of a sin, but I am unaware of any that permits the State to kill an individual preemptively.

Ender

No one has claimed the state may kill preemptively (before the crime) but only remedially. See Romans 13:4.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Blue - which scenarios do you have in mind which involve willing the death of an innocent, but are moral acts? There are acts deemed moral to treat ectopic pregnancy (they do not involve willing death) and other treatments deemed immoral that do certainly will the death, and are deemed immoral.

Regarding PODE, keep in mind it is not an additional model for determining morality - it is an analysis tool but is not separate from the 3 fonts model. An evil moral object is fatal to the morality of any act, regardless of what PODE steps a person might choose as an aid to analysis. Choosing to directly end the life of an innocent (for any purpose) is an act with an evil moral object. Tube removal in ectopic pregnancy is indirectly attacking the life of the child. Methotrexate injection directly attacks the child. The former is regarded as moral, the latter immoral.

So…acts which cause innocents to die can be moral. But I know of none that will and directly pursue that result that are moral. Do you?

It would seem that choosing the death of an innocent sometimes is not the same as directly killing …though they sound the same and may even look the same and, emotionally, may feel much the same.

 

[Rau]

It would seem that choosing the death of an innocent sometimes is not the same as directly killing …though they sound the same and may even look the same and, emotionally, may feel much the same.

The answer is provided by determining what is the moral object - the morally-immediate end toward which the chosen act is intrinsically directed.

“Choosing the death of an innocent” is too vague and too focussed a description to analyse morally. The two variants of treatment of ectopic pregnancy I’ve mentioned exemplify this - they include enough information to be analysed morally. One act is directed at the care of the mother, the other at destruction of the child (despite the good purpose) and this latter is certainly direct killing.

 

[Rau]

To assist in understanding the meaning of the 5th commandment (references are to CCC):

First and foremost 2258 expresses an absolute requirement of the commandment: “no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being”. [Sourced from Donum Vitae].

In 2261 the CCC tells us that “Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the 5th commandment as: ‘Do not slay the innocent and the righteous’”.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The answer is provided by determining what is the moral object - the morally-immediate end toward which the chosen act is intrinsically directed.

“Choosing the death of an innocent” is too vague and too focussed a description to analyse morally. .

No more vague than opining we dont choose to kill in just self defence the same as we choose to defend. I suggest most of us have no problem suggesting that the proximate end in view, when realising it’s necessary, is to accomplish death by whatever means necessary.

It is clear that some actual scenarios cannot in practice (as opposed to armchair godlike knowledge) be justified convincingly on principled grounds…yet we know they can be just.
I don’t believe some ectopic assertions are convincing or the PODE actually applying well according to traditional understandings.

Yet the action may well be just regardless.
Moral theology doesn’t have to work if the Magisterium speaks.
One day a more convincing explanation may be found.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Choosing the death of an innocent” is too vague and too focussed a description to analyse morally. The two variants of treatment of ectopic pregnancy I’ve mentioned exemplify this - they include enough information to be analysed morally. One act is directed at the care of the mother, the other at destruction of the child (despite the good purpose) and this latter is certainly direct killing.

Seems quite apposite in how CP is to be approached.
It also leads into Jesus’s counsel that whoever hates another has already killed them in his heart.

Or should I say murdered them in their heart .

 

[Rau]

I don’t believe some ectopic assertions are convincing or the PODE actually applying well according to traditional understandings.

That’a an opinion I guess? BTW, the PODE is often mis-expressed, and is not a necessary tool for determining morality.