Capital Punishment

[Blue_Horizon]

Don’t confuse redress with restitution. What is redressed is “the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” (USCCB) That is, it is justice itself that is restored.
*God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful **justice ***that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good… (JPII, General Audience, 1999)
It is hard to imagine a more intended death than from an execution, where the entire object of all the people involved is to bring about the death of the condemned. As I asked someone else, what distinguishes a mob execution from a State execution as far as intent is concerned?
It is a historical fact that the church for nearly 2000 years has recognized the right of a State to employ capital punishment for murder. Either death is a just punishment for that crime or the church has been unjust throughout her entire existence.
That we cannot be perfect is not an excuse to do less than we think is right simply because we cannot ever act with certainty.
Killing in self defense is a reaction to an immediate threat. Killing in an execution is not. There is no immediate threat. There is a presumed future threat. The situations are vastly different.

Ender

There is no strong argument that the State’s intention in CP is intrinsically direct.
If it were I suggest the current Magisterium would bann CP not only in practice but in principle.

It’s fairly clear that the ambiguity on this point debated in medieval times has been crystallising in favour of indirection and PODE even for State killings.
I am well aware you disagree…as you likely would have when the Church evolved in its understanding of usury and, even more currently, Communion for some irregulars.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The State has not just the right but the obligation to punish the wicked, a right that extends to the use of capital punishment…

Yes this is the attitude I described as more indicative of a cold mild hate than a regretful loving compassion.
Yes, it is also clear you cannot see this, nor how far at odds your above statement is with the last 3 generations of the Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

The Church’s Shepherds have said otherwise…and it is to them that docility and submission is owed.

It would help if you would try to explain this instead of simply asserting it. Are you saying that the death penalty is no longer a just punishment for the crime of murder, or that it was never a just punishment for the twenty centuries the church allowed it? If it was a just punishment in the past how can it have become unjust in the present given that for any punishment to be just it must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime? Is the severity of the crime of murder less now than in the past?

Finally, if capital punishment has become unjust, how can the catechism allow it under any circumstances, which it clearly does? Why would it not be inherently evil if it inherently unjust?

Ender

 

[LaSalle]

I’m from Singapore, we hanged a man last Friday for possession of 72.5g of diamorphine, or pure heroin. This is equivalent to about 6,004 straws, which is sufficient to feed the addiction of about 864 abusers for a week.

Let me weigh in on the topic.

I see 2 basic factors when dealing with the death penalty: 1) Is it a moral act? 2) Is it effective in dealing with what the punishment aims to correct?

Moral Act

If the act itself is immoral, then it’s a non-starter, and it should be avoided no matter how effective it may be in ‘addressing’ a given problem. The ends do not justify the means. Good example, abortion.

So is it morally right to impose the death penalty? Assuming that the person is indeed guilty, yes.

There are numerous tracts at Catholic Answers that will provide documentation for this. All you have to do is search 'Death penalty" in its search bar.

So now that we’ve established that it is not morally wrong, we look to its effectiveness as a punishment.

Effectiveness

I say effectiveness not whether it is prudent, or whether there are other methods, or as the CC puts it in 2267, if there are non-lethal means.

Is the DP effective in tackling a problem? In Singapore, most of the people who have been hanged are usually drug traffickers, not murderers (although some murderers do get hanged depending on the facts of each case.)

I feel that the CCC, and most of what I’ve read regarding this topic so far, seems only to focus on how the DP affects the particular guilty person. It is silent on how the death penalty is used as a deterrence to other would-be murderers and traffickers.

And let me tell you that it certainly is! For a population of about 5.5 million in Singapore, we get an average of about 20 murders a year. We don’t have a major drug problem, which is amazing considering we’re so near the golden triangle and all the countries around us seem to have a bigger problem.

However, the DP alone is not effective. To control the drug problem, we have special programs for addicts. They don’t get thrown in normal jail, they are sent to special jails called Drug Rehab Centres, and upon coming out they are put on probation and must report for urine tests weekly. So although the DP in itself may not solve the problem, it is a vital element in a bigger strategy. The strategy won’t work if one of the elements is removed. In reality, the DP has saved more lives than it has taken.

The discussion so far has neglected the DP’s vital position in a grander strategy, and I think when placed in this context, it becomes more apparent that we should not do away with it because of misplaced sentimentalities.

I’m not sure if I’m allowed to link youtube videos here, but if it doesn’t work, search “Shanmugam UN”. He’s our Minister for law and home affairs, who recently gave a speech at the UN. youtube.com/watch?v=M5x1edMjbGA

 

[Ender]

Finally, there have been pull quotes used in this thread which have not presented the mind of those who are being quoted, most notably His Eminence Avery Cardinal Dulles. That is intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

I have no need to “present the mind” of the person I am citing. It is enough to fairly present the particular thought I am referencing. If the citation I use fully expresses the meaning of that particular thought, that is sufficient. This is an entirely unwarranted insult.

Therefore, to clarify both the thoughts of Cardinal Dulles as well as the role of the Magisterium on precisely this issue, Archbishop Wilton Gregory who was president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, declared in a 5,000+ word address on this topic
*Avery Dulles finds no rupture in the development of Catholic teaching on the death penalty. The Jesuit cardinal distinguishes between theological affirmations, which allow for the death penalty in certain instances, and their practical application to contemporary contexts. By virtue of their office, the church’s pastors receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit to apply the principles of justice to public policy on matters like the death penalty.*The entire address deserves thoughtful reading, for it is profoundly and unequivocally against the death penalty and its application. It may be found at

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8506

Just as you have done, it is common practice to extract particular statements from others to support the points we choose to make.

Since you have publicly insulted me you should be able to cite at least one statement you feel I have distorted. Explain how the section I cited actually means something other than was implied by the way I used it. It’s not like there aren’t a bucketload to choose from.

And just in case you haven’t read the Dulles article, let’s be clear about what Gregory meant by saying “*Avery Dulles finds no rupture in the development of Catholic teaching on the death penalty.” *Here is what Dulles said:*Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *
As a conclusion to his own argument, I think that pretty fairly represents his mind on the topic, even though he personally agrees with the idea that capital punishment ought not be used because it causes more harm than good. To me, the fact that he said what he did even though he agrees with the (prudential) opposition of the pope reinforces the validity of his opinion…and of my justification in citing it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

The State has not just the right but the obligation to punish the wicked, a right that extends to the use of capital punishment…

Yes this is the attitude I described as more indicative of a cold mild hate than a regretful loving compassion.

Ender: “The State has not just the right but the obligation to punish the wicked…”
CCC 2266: *“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

Ender: “…a right that extends to the use of capital punishment.”
CCC 2267: "…*the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when…"

Yes, it is also clear you cannot see this, nor how far at odds your above statement is with the last 3 generations of the Magisterium.

Given that I have done nothing more than paraphrase what the catechism itself says it isn’t clear how my comments can be considered wrong, let alone indicative of “cold mild hate.”

I said once before that one of the issues the discussion of capital punishment reveals is a faulty understanding of the nature of punishment itself. Your comments have illustrated that concern.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So is it morally right to impose the death penalty? Assuming that the person is indeed guilty, yes.

What makes a punishment just is whether its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. If it is either too harsh or too lenient (under the circumstances) then it is unjust. Inasmuch as the church has always recognized a State’s right to use it, it must be because she has always seen it as just, that is, a punishment that fit the crime.

Is the DP effective in tackling a problem?..I feel that the CCC, and most of what I’ve read regarding this topic so far, seems only to focus on how the DP affects the particular guilty person. It is silent on how the death penalty is used as a deterrence to other would-be murderers and traffickers.

Deterrence is a valid objective of punishment, but, like protection, it is only a secondary end. Your observation, however, brings up an interesting point. The catechism in section 2267 recognizes the validity of capital punishment “*when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” *Given the effectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent (at least as you perceive its effect in Singapore), what would it mean if it were found to have a truly significant deterrent effect? Wouldn’t that suggest the death penalty ought to be used more often? If protection justifies capital punishment, and there is a significant deterrent effect - which by its nature provides protection - then it would seem that the same arguments against its use today would be arguments favoring it tomorrow.

But as deterrence is only secondary, the argument favoring more capital punishment because of its (presumed) positive effect is no stronger than the argument opposing its use as (presumably) unnecessary for protection.

The use of capital punishment should be determined (absent specific circumstances) by the primary objective of punishment, which is retribution - retributive justice. We don’t execute people specifically to deter others from committing that crime, but because that punishment is just, because the criminal deserves that particular punishment for that particular crime.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

…
Finally, if capital punishment has become unjust, how can the catechism allow it under any circumstances, which it clearly does? Why would it not be inherently evil if it inherently unjust?

Ender

No, capital punishment has always had the potential in intent or circumstance to be unjust.

The catechism does not allow capital punishment under any circumstance. This line of thought presumes that capital punishment when and wherever licit is moral. That is not true. The Nazis executions of “undesireables” was licit but immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

OK, fair enough. I’ll provide citations for all of my assertions. …

Selectively citing the Catechism, the Bishops’ Statement on Capital Punishment - 1980, and Avery Dulles to support claims that capital punishment is the primary and preferred means for redress to crime will just not do. Heresy takes its meaning from the Greek haresis, to pick and choose (and ignore the totality).

 

[LaSalle]

But as deterrence is only secondary, the argument favoring more capital punishment because of its (presumed) positive effect is no stronger than the argument opposing its use as (presumably) unnecessary for protection.

No, I didn’t say it was secondary. I said it was a vital element in a bigger strategy. There’s a huge difference.

The use of capital punishment should be determined (absent specific circumstances) by the primary objective of punishment, which is retribution - retributive justice. We don’t execute people specifically to deter others from committing that crime, but because that punishment is just, because the criminal deserves that particular punishment for that particular crime.

Of course it is proportion first. And Singapore being the pragmatic country that it is, will stop using it the moment we either find a better way or we find that it doesn’t achieve its goal. As of now, there is no better way and it is achieving its goal.

 

[Rau]

No, I didn’t say it was secondary. I said it was a vital element in a bigger strategy. There’s a huge difference…

Ender is asserting that deterrence is a secondary objective (he is not claiming you said it), and has provided citations previously to support that position

 

[Rau]

Selectively citing the Catechism, the Bishops’ Statement on Capital Punishment - 1980, and Avery Dulles to support claims that capital punishment is the primary and preferred means for redress to crime will just not do.

And here you go right past selectively citing, even beyond omitting the citations, and wind up verballing the poster!

 

[Rau]

My own position is clear.
The 5thC is an absolute prohibition against all direct killing be it of the guilty or the innocent.
It is a counsel never to indirectly kill also.

That is why, it seems, the Magisterium strongly favours the kill translation.

As you say, this is your position, though not one for which you have provided references to magisterial or theological sources.

If you hold that CP is only permitted (by the commandment) because the killing is indirect, which is to say that the killing (death) is not means, but purely consequence, does this open the door to concluding that other apparently forbidden means can be accepted by the same reasoning? Does the couple, desiring to avoid a Tay Sachs afflicted child, who chooses to take the pill in anticipation of marital relations, with that end in mind, directly or indirectly “contracept”?

 

[o_mlly]

And here you go right past selectively citing, even beyond omitting the citations, and wind up verballing the poster!

And there you go. Another pointless post unless simply increasing your post count is the point.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

CCC 2266: "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

Given that I have done nothing more than paraphrase what the catechism itself says it isn’t clear how my comments can be considered wrong…
Suggesting that the State even has an obligation to impose the death penalty for certain crimes would not be a clear “paraphrase” of this CCC article nor of the NT nor of the mind of Christ I suggest.

Simply because death may be a proportionate response that does not make it by that fact alone a necessary response let alone a moral response.

To think in that glass half empty sort of way and to moralise in that way is indicative of the very interior misanthropy that Jesus warns against re calling one’s brother renegade.

A point comes when raw justice, administered without consideration of equally proportionate but more difficult alternatives that better instantiate reformative intent, is not justice at all.

This comes into particularly sharp focus with CP where there are no second chances.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As you say, this is your position, though not one for which you have provided references to magisterial or theological sources.

If you hold that CP is only permitted (by the commandment) because the killing is indirect, which is to say that the killing (death) is not means, but purely consequence, does this open the door to concluding that other apparently forbidden means can be accepted by the same reasoning? Does the couple, desiring to avoid a Tay Sachs afflicted child, who chooses to take the pill in anticipation of marital relations, with that end in mind, directly or indirectly “contracept”?

It is fully consistent with the CCC. I would go further and say that significant articles seem repeatedly worded in such a way as to make my view not only possible but implicitly intended.
I have already alluded to the unusual new preference for kill over murder in the CCC re the 5thC.

Sounds like a parallel to Zika which Pope Francis has already provided pastoral guidance on - though without explicitating the moral analysis that led to this conclusion .

We have had this debate before…at least you seem to better understand where I was coming from now. If Pope Francis is in any way correct a prudentially justifying analysis should be possible. Given you disagree with this conclusion, and have been doing unlikely interpretative back flips to avoid calling Pope Francis a material heretic (which loyalty I admire because others here wouldnt) I took the trouble and risk of presenting my own long coming personal analysis. It is either very advanced or very inaccurate…you decide .

But it cannot in my mind be doubted Pope Francis and the Congo Nuns are using proportionality arguments. Once that is admitted then indirect intention arguments are also necessitated which turn intended objects into only intended circumstances regardless of how much it may look to be the reverse.
As Pope Francis said, there is no comparison between contracepting and aborting re the material evil involved. That is indicative of a proportionality argument to me.
It appears that contracepting can anchor an indirect intention…just as killing can.
The wisdom comes in knowing when such is possible and when it is not. Pope Francis has already made a prudential judgement on that even if it seems to contradict prior lay understanding of the moral principles involved. Which is exactly his charism…I don’t see why that charism cannot be assumed by default and possibly at work even in informal statements…until formally clarified by himself of course.

And yes all this necessarily returns us to conscience decisions…for it is obviously impossible to distinguish direct from indirect intent when objective details look very much the same and only intent distinguishes between what is assigned to circumstance and what is assigned to the object. Just as it has always been.

The Church retains full freedom to decide what outward behaviour is to be labelled grave matter and when engaged in publicly and obstinantly may be a reason for barring from Communion.

Yet that has nothing directly to do with determining the relationship and grace of a soul re God. Just as AL also makes clear.

 

[o_mlly]

And here you go right past selectively citing, even beyond omitting the citations, and wind up verballing the poster!

Another pointless post or just another kibitz adding nothing to the thread. Or is maintaining an incredible post-count/day the only point? In either event, time is short; the posts are many. I must filter the pointless posts directly to my dustbin.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

It would help if you would try to explain this instead of simply asserting it. Are you saying that the death penalty is no longer a just punishment for the crime of murder, or that it was never a just punishment for the twenty centuries the church allowed it? If it was a just punishment in the past how can it have become unjust in the present given that for any punishment to be just it must be commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime? Is the severity of the crime of murder less now than in the past?

Finally, if capital punishment has become unjust, how can the catechism allow it under any circumstances, which it clearly does? Why would it not be inherently evil if it inherently unjust?

Ender

This has been answered numerous times in numerous threads.

I have come to the conclusion, derived from decades in the lecture hall, that you are either incapable of understanding or refuse.

 

[Rau]

Another… kibitz…

That you don’t welcome my remark is of no note. Misrepresent others and expect to be pulled up.

 

[Ender]

No, capital punishment has always had the potential in intent or circumstance to be unjust.

Of course it has. Pretty much everything can be used unjustly, but the question is whether its use can be just. Since the catechism allows it (regardless of how constrained the circumstances) it would seem that it can in fact be justly used. That said: doesn’t this mean that capital punishment is a just punishment for the crime of murder? That is, the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime, which is pretty much the definition of a just penalty.

Ender