Christianity and the Death Penalty

[FightingFat]

Well, the Church has said retribution is the primary objective. As I pointed out, the USCCB did not order the objectives by priority, they simply listed them and retribution was the third one listed. It remains, however, primary. Cardinal Dulles made a similar observation in 2001:

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.

Again, he only lists them, he does not prioritize them, but it should be reasonably clear that retribution is the only one of the four purposes that could possibly be meant by “redressing the disorder”.

Ender

OK, but can you explain how that doesn’t contradict the Catechism when it teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party?

Also, from documents freely available on the website of the Holy See, such as this it would seem that the death penalty should never be used, despite the document’s assertion that “Criminal activity demands effective punishment” it also asserts that:

"The position of the Holy See, therefore, is that authorities, even for the most serious crimes, should limit themselves to non-lethal means of punishment, as these means “are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2267). States have at their disposal today new possibilities for “effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.» (Cf. John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 56).”

It also states that there is:

“no definitive evidence to support the belief that the death penalty reduces the likelihood of capital crimes being committed. Populist exploitation of feelings of fear or insecurity is no substitute for hard evidence. Crime will be overcome significantly by comprehensive policies of moral education, of effective police work and by addressing the root causes of criminality. Punishment should be secure and proportionate to the crime, but should also be directed at restoring the criminal, wherever possible, to being a constructive member of society.”

I’m all for a realist Catholicism which takes seriously the obligation to defend the weak, with, where unavoidable, violence, but, unless I don’t understand your position properly, what you’re advocating appears at odds with Catholic teaching?

 

[FightingFat]

I might add that it is notable that, on the foundation of the Vatican State in 1929, capital punishment has never been in use in the state.

 

[Edward_H]

Ender: “Simply put, the primary objective of all punishment is retribution, which justice requires to redress the disorder of the crime.”

And even if I accepted your point that retribution was really primary as the purpose for punishment (in pursuit of justice), it absolutely doesn’t follow that justice (and in your priorities, retribution) can’t still be accomplished with other forms of punishment (e.g., life imprisonment).

Justice, and even retribution, might demand punishment, but not necessarily capital punishment.

 

[FightingFat]

Just looking through some special morals books on this. Some things to think about:

1. The Gospel injunction to “turn the other cheek” Mt 5:39.
2. The Gospel acknowledges the role of the civil authorities to punish wrong-doers Mt 22:23-22; Rom 31:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-15
3. Although Capital Punishment is not discussed in the New Testament, it existed and neither it, nor its operation were challenged.
4. The right to self-defense is rooted in the natural inclination to self-preservation (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2). Here St. Thomas judged that it was the proper function of the public authorities to punish wrong-doers, not the right or responsibility of individuals. Thus offenders ought to be brought to justice according to a proper system of apprehension, investigation and trial. An individual does not have the right to kill an unjust aggressor normally.
5. The right to self defence is not an absolute duty for an individual where that individual is the only one at risk; he might forgo that right for reasons of pacifism. However it would seem to be different of the one at risk were frail and needed assistance in order to save his life or to avoid serious injury.
6. St. Thomas thinks that murderers lose their right to be treated as human beings and are worse than animals—thus they could be killed—although only by command of public authority and after judgement (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 64 a. 2-3).
7. Recent changes in attitude are because of the execution of people who have later been found to be innocent, and partly because the execution leaves no possibility for the criminal to reform. The major change however, is the existence in many more developed parts of the world of much more sophisticated means if controlling dangerous criminals. Notice that it is the common good which accounts for this teaching; the common good requires the effective protection of society and the effective restraint of criminals who are a threat to the lives of others.
8. As you have said, Ender, there is a strong emphasis on punishment. A little research reveals that the Catechism, in its original text of 1992 listed the functions of punishment with a hierarchy, putting retribution for injustice first. There is no doubt that this is a key and essential feature of punishment. It is the retribution for those judged guilty which distinguishes punishment from mere terror or manipulation. A deterrent effect upon those guilty and on others us another feature of punishment, but the reconciliatory function has been given more prominence of late. In the definitive (Latin) edition of the Catechism there is not a suggestion of hierarchy and subordination of functions.

Even the original there was a very strong discouragement from use of the death penalty, mainly because it precludes all possibility of a person reforming.

1. Notice the way Capital Punishment is discouraged in Evangelium Vitae:

It is an ‘extreme’ (Evangelium Vitae, n. 56) not to be used except “when it would be not possible otherwise to defend society”—something “very rare, if not practically non-existent” because of “steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system”. It quotes the Catechism saying that public authority “must limit itself to such (bloodless) means”, since “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good” and are “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

Full text of Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, the paragraph which particularly relates to the topic at hand is n. 56

Given the changes in the penal system, the Magisterium is stating very strongly that there is no longer a proportionate reason for capital punishment, that such punishment isno longer a proportionate means of dealing with dangerous criminals.

However, note that it stops short of excluding capital punishment altogether: this is because of the practice in past centuries, no doubt, but also because there could be ‘rare occasions’ when the ‘concrete conditions of the common good’ were not what they generally are in the developed world. Unusual circumstances such as civil disorder might render effective protection of the innocent from the danger from very violent criminals something which could not be ‘otherwise’ assured.

 

[RWMorris]

I voted for “I DONT think the death penalty should be abolished but DO think it should be more restricted/performed more rarely.” Having said that if an innocent person is ever put to death in our country (the US), and we all know that has happened, then we (all Americans) are guilty of murder. Capital punishment should be reserved for only the most violent and dangerous mass-murderers one can conceive of, and even then the evidence should be so overwhelming that there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt.

 

[Ender]

Letter, opinions and statements taken out of context aside…the Catechism says:

If you would like me to quote more of those documents I’m happy to do that - there is nothing out of context in my citations; they mean exactly what they say, and you shouldn’t be quite so dismissive of the “letter, opinions and statements” I quoted inasmuch as all of the authors have serious credentials.

2267 …if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. [emphasis mine, doesn’t mention retribution, does it?

No, it doesn’t, but given that retribution was just alluded to in 2266, it should have. What you don’t seem to realize is that the Church did not first address the issue of capital punishment only with the current catechism and that quite literally nothing she has said before supports what was said in 2267.

Ender
[/quote]

 

[Debora123]

I voted for “I DONT think the death penalty should be abolished but DO think it should be more restricted/performed more rarely.” Having said that if an innocent person is ever put to death in our country (the US), and we all know that has happened, then we (all Americans) are guilty of murder.

It has happened countless, countless times…

 

[sw85]

I voted for “I DONT think the death penalty should be abolished but DO think it should be more restricted/performed more rarely.” Having said that if an innocent person is ever put to death in our country (the US), and we all know that has happened, then we (all Americans) are guilty of murder. Capital punishment should be reserved for only the most violent and dangerous mass-murderers one can conceive of, and even then the evidence should be so overwhelming that there is absolutely no doubt of their guilt.

I hope you mean that figuratively.

I voted the same way, though. There are very limited circumstances in which execution is warranted, such as drug dealers or terrorists who continue to issue orders from prison (it happens). Whether or not public safety is the primary consideration in how to deal with prisoners, it is definitely a consideration. And if the only way to guarantee that public safety is to execute a person, then it ought to be done.

 

[Debora123]

Ender, the only time I ever see you is on posts about capital punishment… and I see you on ALL of them. It seems like you almost LOOK for them.

Why are you such a HUGE supporter of something as horrible and unpleasant as the Death Penalty?

If anything, to some Christians who believe in the death penalty, they believe it to be something that is very unfortunate but ultimately necessary. (though i don’t even agree to that). And yet the way you defend it so vehemently and passionately on a Catholic forum, it almost seems like you MARVEL at it… like you actually LIKE it.

 

[Ender]

OK, but can you explain how that doesn’t contradict the Catechism when it teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined” and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party?

No, I cannot. That has always been one of my arguments against 2267: I see no way to balance what it says with what was just said in 2266, and things get even worse if you read 2260 and try to balance its comments with 2267. The whole thing is just a muddle.

Also, from documents freely available on the website of the Holy See, such as this it would seem that the death penalty should never be used…

I do not question the desire of the Vatican and many bishops to put a moratorium on the use of capital punishment. What I question are the arguments supporting that position, which are not moral but prudential.

… “Criminal activity demands effective punishment”…

The Church demands that the punishment be just, not that it be effective.

as these means “are more in keeping with the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2267).

This is an assertion that seems invalid on its face and I have not seen an argument that supports it.

States have at their disposal today new possibilities for "effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself

Is there any question that this is a prudential opinion? No one can seriously believe there is a Church doctrine covering the capabilities of modern penal systems.

It also states that there is: "no definitive evidence to support the belief that the death penalty reduces the likelihood of capital crimes being committed.

Nor is there definitive evidence that capital punishment has no deterrent value and clearly one should err on the side of caution and assume that the death penalty - like every other form of punishment - deters at least some.

Punishment should be secure and proportionate to the crime, but should also be directed at restoring the criminal, wherever possible, to being a constructive member of society."

“Whenever possible” - absolutely, but since rehabilitation - like security - is only a secondary objective, this is not always possible. It is retributive justice alone (a punishment proportionate to the crime) that must be satisfied in every case.

unless I don’t understand your position properly, what you’re advocating appears at odds with Catholic teaching?

What I am advocating is indeed at odds with 2267. It is not, however, at odds with everything else the Church has said on the subject prior to 1995. Fortunately, as 2267 appears to be a prudential opinion, I am not bound to accept it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I might add that it is notable that, on the foundation of the Vatican State in 1929, capital punishment has never been in use in the state.

You might have been better off not appending this comment as the Vatican had the death penalty on her books until 1969.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And even if I accepted your point that retribution was really primary as the purpose for punishment (in pursuit of justice), it absolutely doesn’t follow that justice (and in your priorities, retribution) can’t still be accomplished with other forms of punishment (e.g., life imprisonment).

Justice, and even retribution, might demand punishment, but not necessarily capital punishment.

This comment is quite correct, and it is on this level that the discussion ought to be held.

Ender

 

[Debora123]

Just looking through some special morals books on this. Some things to think about:

1. The Gospel injunction to “turn the other cheek” Mt 5:39.
2. The Gospel acknowledges the role of the civil authorities to punish wrong-doers Mt 22:23-22; Rom 31:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-15
3. Although Capital Punishment is not discussed in the New Testament, it existed and neither it, nor its operation were challenged.
4. The right to self-defense is rooted in the natural inclination to self-preservation (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2). Here St. Thomas judged that it was the proper function of the public authorities to punish wrong-doers, not the right or responsibility of individuals. Thus offenders ought to be brought to justice according to a proper system of apprehension, investigation and trial. An individual does not have the right to kill an unjust aggressor normally.
5. The right to self defence is not an absolute duty for an individual where that individual is the only one at risk; he might forgo that right for reasons of pacifism. However it would seem to be different of the one at risk were frail and needed assistance in order to save his life or to avoid serious injury.
6. St. Thomas thinks that murderers lose their right to be treated as human beings and are worse than animals—thus they could be killed—although only by command of public authority and after judgement (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 64 a. 2-3).
7. Recent changes in attitude are because of the execution of people who have later been found to be innocent, and partly because the execution leaves no possibility for the criminal to reform. The major change however, is the existence in many more developed parts of the world of much more sophisticated means if controlling dangerous criminals. Notice that it is the common good which accounts for this teaching; the common good requires the effective protection of society and the effective restraint of criminals who are a threat to the lives of others.
8. As you have said, Ender, there is a strong emphasis on punishment. A little research reveals that the Catechism, in its original text of 1992 listed the functions of punishment with a hierarchy, putting retribution for injustice first. There is no doubt that this is a key and essential feature of punishment. It is the retribution for those judged guilty which distinguishes punishment from mere terror or manipulation. A deterrent effect upon those guilty and on others us another feature of punishment, but the reconciliatory function has been given more prominence of late. In the definitive (Latin) edition of the Catechism there is not a suggestion of hierarchy and subordination of functions.

Even the original there was a very strong discouragement from use of the death penalty, mainly because it precludes all possibility of a person reforming.

1. Notice the way Capital Punishment is discouraged in Evangelium Vitae:

It is an ‘extreme’ (Evangelium Vitae, n. 56) not to be used except “when it would be not possible otherwise to defend society”—something “very rare, if not practically non-existent” because of “steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system”. It quotes the Catechism saying that public authority “must limit itself to such (bloodless) means”, since “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good” and are “more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.

Full text of Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, the paragraph which particularly relates to the topic at hand is n. 56

Given the changes in the penal system, the Magisterium is stating very strongly that there is no longer a proportionate reason for capital punishment, that such punishment isno longer a proportionate means of dealing with dangerous criminals.

However, note that it stops short of excluding capital punishment altogether: this is because of the practice in past centuries, no doubt, but also because there could be ‘rare occasions’ when the ‘concrete conditions of the common good’ were not what they generally are in the developed world. Unusual circumstances such as civil disorder might render effective protection of the innocent from the danger from very violent criminals something which could not be ‘otherwise’ assured.

 

[Ender]

Ender, the only time I ever see you is on posts about capital punishment… and I see you on ALL of them. It seems like you almost LOOK for them.

I’m actually on a number of different threads, but - yes - I do look for ones about capital punishment and if one exists where I haven’t posted on it you can be sure I haven’t yet found it.

Why are you such a HUGE supporter of something as horrible and unpleasant as the Death Penalty?

Good question. What got me started were the number of comments deriding anyone who didn’t oppose the death penalty. I didn’t know anything about the subject but I know a bad argument when I see it so initially I just countered bad logic and bare faced insults. As the debates went on I needed to know more and more to keep up so I did more and more research … and the more I found the more I came to realize that, among all the Church has ever said on capital punishment (and related topics like, justice, mercy, retribution, restitution, expiation, forgiveness,…), the more I came to realize how unlike them all 2267 was. (Which of these things is not like the others…?)

If anything, to some Christians who believe in the death penalty, they believe it to be something that is very unfortunate but ultimately necessary. (though i don’t even agree to that). And yet the way you defend it so vehemently and passionately on a Catholic forum, it almost seems like you MARVEL at it… like you actually LIKE it.

It isn’t that I like it; it is that I believe I understand why it is necessary.

Ender

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Jesus willingly submitted himself to the Death Penalty.

If it was moral enough for God, then it is moral enough for me. God himself inflicted the “Death Penalty” on human beings over and over and over again. The flood, the Army of the Egyptians, and numerous other cases that are in the Bible.

If God can use it, and Jesus stated very clearly : "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, how can WE condemn it?

 

[Ender]

if an innocent person is ever put to death in our country (the US), and we all know that has happened, then we (all Americans) are guilty of murder.

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas, ST II-II 64,8)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Just looking through some special morals books on this. Some things to think about: 1. The Gospel injunction to “turn the other cheek” Mt 5:39.

This is a command for the individual; the State has a different obligation: it has the duty of punishing the guilty.

1. The Gospel acknowledges the role of the civil authorities to punish wrong-doers Mt 22:23-22; Rom 31:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-15

(That should be Rm 13:1-7) The Church has herself identified the most significant passages related to this issue:

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

1. … the common good requires the effective protection of society and the effective restraint of criminals who are a threat to the lives of others.

What part of the common good does justice hold and why, in all of these discussion, is the primary objective of punishment treated as if it was irrelevant instead of … primary?

1. A little research reveals that the Catechism, in its original text of 1992 listed the functions of punishment with a hierarchy, putting retribution for injustice first. … but the reconciliatory function has been given more prominence of late. In the definitive (Latin) edition of the Catechism there is not a suggestion of hierarchy and subordination of functions.

The catechism is not the only document the Church has written. Either retribution is primary or it isn’t but you seem unwilling to settle on one or the other.

1. Notice the way Capital Punishment is discouraged in Evangelium Vitae:

Evangelium Vitae 56 and CCC 2267 say basically the same thing. If you look carefully you will see that each references the other to justify its position.

Given the changes in the penal system, the Magisterium is stating very strongly that there is no longer a proportionate reason for capital punishment, that such punishment isno longer a proportionate means of dealing with dangerous criminals.

No. 2267 makes no statement whatever about that; it ignores that (primary) aspect of punishment altogether. Furthermore, it can never make such a claim as, since the severity of the crime can never change, neither can the form of punishment that is commensurate to it. If executions were just in the past they are equally just today.

However, note that it stops short of excluding capital punishment altogether: this is because of the practice in past centuries, no doubt,

This will never happen for the reasons Cardinal Dulles gives above.

Ender

 

[LemonAndLime]

Jesus willingly submitted himself to the Death Penalty.

If it was moral enough for God, then it is moral enough for me. God himself inflicted the “Death Penalty” on human beings over and over and over again. The flood, the Army of the Egyptians, and numerous other cases that are in the Bible.

If God can use it, and Jesus stated very clearly : "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s, how can WE condemn it?

Because it is God’s right alone.

 

[RWMorris]

On the contrary, Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): “When we do a thing for a good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty. (Aquinas, ST II-II 64,8)

Ender

I agree as long as we aren’t using the “if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us” clause as a “get out of jail free” card.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Because it is God’s right alone.

That isn’t what the Church teaches.

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.

(Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum,
20 February 405, PL 20,495)

It is God’s right, but He delegated it to the state.