Death Penalty, Am I wrong?

[Ender]

Yes, the primary purpose of punishment seems to be retributive, or else punishment (and its other purposes) don’t seem to make sense.

Here’s a quote from Pius XII’s address to Italian Catholic Jurists on 5/12/54 that goes to this point. I think this understanding of punishment has been lost and it makes comprehensible the observation that the death penalty is most strongly opposed in secular societies.

•  "A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium .

. . . A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty .

. . . In the metaphysical order, penalty is a consequence of dependence on the supreme will, dependence which exists in the deepest recesses of created being. If it is ever necessary to hold back the revolt of the free being and re-establish the violated law, it is when that is required by the supreme Judge and supreme Justice."

Ender
*

 

[SoCalRC]

Yes there is; the state has not just the right to punish but the obligation as well.

2266 “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties …”

But 2267, the very next paragraph, places the death penalty into a seperate catagory. It does not delegate final moral determination to local authority (as does 2266, 2309, etc.), but quotes Papal Authoity, which no Catholic can licitly question (to do so is “anathema”, per the first and second Vatican Councils.

I was responding to your argument, and the seeming agreement, that the death penalty is simply an extension of the state’s obligation under 2266. But that is heretical, since the Church expressly clears the matter up in the Catachism in the very next paragraph. Death is not a licit ‘punishment’ in Church Dogma. The right to life is inalienable, since it comes directly from God.

So, as Pope John Paul II explained, and Pope Pius XII explained, and the Second Vatican Council explained, and the Council of Trent explained (500 years ago in a fairly bloodthirsty time), the death penalty is only licit when it best serves the protection and promotion of life.

 

[SoCalRC]

this obviously does not apply to prisoners, but only to “armed aggressors”. A prisoner in custody is not an “armed aggressor”.

You have to understand the difference between following and rationalizing.

Ultimately, the Church has spoken. I have quoted the local catechism, the universal catechism, papal statements, declarations from multiple bodies of the local princes of the Church…

Grabbing every possible fragment that can be twisted to support what the Church declares is a causal factor in a culture of death is rationalizing a fixed position. But it highlights the problem with dissent. It is one thing if one’s own moral conscience is at odds with the Church. But when one not only does not follow our instructions to humbly seek understanding and communion with the Church, but attempts to argue in the “court of public opinion” alternate interpretations of Church dogma are superior, then one is directly undermining the apostolic authority of the Church.

Although I find it grating when Ender argues that something is outside the Pope’s authority, I try to remind myself that I am fortunate. I do not carry whatever emotional demons he does to be so adamently attached to death and vengence.

Peace

 

[SoCalRC]

Could you elaborate on what you mean regarding the statement “there is no right to punish”?
Thank you!

Thanks again for the conversation, I’ve enjoyed discussing these things with you, and it has been profitable for me.
VC

No right to use death as a punishment. The right to life is inalienable, and no authority has a right to take it. That is dogmatic, hence infallible.

The death penalty is only licit, per the Church, when there is no other way to meet a higher moral purpose. So, there must be a principle of competing moral perogatives.

We know it is not proportionate reasons, because we are talking about a “fundemental and inalianble ethical demand”. So some applicaiton of the principles of double effect seem logical.

Please do not read too much personal criticism into my posts. That is not my intent, this is a less than perfect communication medium. My giving you the link was simply for your information. I think that far too few Catholics give theology seroius study, but for Catholics, the study of theology has some vocational responsibilities.

Likewise, the comment on emotion was not that you, yourself, have any problem. Simply a comment that emotion and theology cannot be decoupled.

Look at Ender, better yet, search for some of his other postings. He is attempting to make a theological argument. But when we notice things like his quoting snippets from a First Things article where, ultimately, the Cardinal writing it argues that he is utterly wrong about “changing Church teaching”, it seems clear that it is as much, if not more so, an emotional endeavor for him as a academic one.

That is why I quoted 1790 above. He, himself, must follow that certainty. But, as the same paragraph points out, we cannot lose sight of our all to human, hence fallible, nature. Likewise, we cannot lose sight of the Church’s Holy Nature.

If you would like to continue the discussion privately, that is fine. It is not my intent to offend you, only challenge your thinking.

Peace

 

[Ray_Scheel]

My biggest disagreement with the late John Paul the Great is not whether we should show mercy, but whether practically the most wicked and hardcore among us can really be safely incarcerated. I have never found any documentation for this conclusion in any official Catholic document, Vatican or USCCB.

Considering the deliberate misrepresentation consistently directed at those who raise this question - but never a provision of documentation addressing the actual problems raised with the claim - it appears that there is a consensus (though unwilling) as to whether there is any documentation to support the claim factually (that is, the idea that “modern prisons” are sufficient are wishful thinking, not actual fact).

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Could you explain your position more? Since capital punishment doesn’t seem to be justified under the principle of double effect (or self-defense/defense of another which is an application of the principle), then under what principle is it justified? And how does imminence of harm factor into that principle?

Historically the Catholic Church has consistently taught that several different reasons were independently sufficient to justify use of capital punishment: imposing just punishment, preventing moral outrage, and defending society (c.f. Trent and multiple other citations previously given).

However, an approach many of the anti-DP regulars here use is to declare that on the subject of capital punishment (and only for capital punishment) that any reasons found within the deposit of faith but not explicitly reiterated either in the CCC or by JP II are to be presumed void - even thogh nothing in the CCC or JP II’s own writings indicates those convoluted conditions should be presumed when evaluation the appropriate use of capital punishment.

So, from there it is clear that JP II’s only comments regarding capital punishment focused on its use in the defense of society. Even then, its glossed over that he didn’t invalidate that as a reason but rather specified the only allowable conclusion if his prudential judgment of the technical capacities of “modern prisons” was correct. However, in regards to that judgment, pnewton has pointed out that there is no factual basis other than circular references back to JP II’s claims (since JP II’s remarks are what the USCCB use as their sole citation for echoing his analysis).

What we are left with is the opponents of capital punishment not wanting to admit that the Church has made no statement to rescind or limit the ways in which the other reasons the Church has always held as sufficient for a government to legitimately impose capital punishment. On top of that, the same individuals trying to edit out any teach of the Church on capital punishment not explicitly reiterated by a sitting pope after 1995 also refuse to engage regarding the factual challenges to JP II’s depiction of the technological capabilities of “modern prisons” - especially when dealing with particular types of criminals and the teaching of the Church regarding the treatment of prisoners that would prevent the application of certain techniques required to truly incapacitate certain types of criminals form imposing future harm.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

For example, Pope Pius XII argued that no state or person has the right to deprive the God given right to life:

Actually, lets use a bit larger version of that quote, since the second sentence contradicts the conclusion you attributed to the first:

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.

(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)​

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So how come you don’t apply THIS conclusion when it comes to U.S. Catholics voting and publicly supporting pro abortion candidates?

My impression is that he thinks directing accusations of being “cafeteria Catholics” towards those who continue to consider consistent and explicit Church teaching (from the time of Moses though at least 1952) in forming their consciences serves to grant him an immunity to being question regarding the places he is clearly picking and choosing.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

No right to use death as a punishment.

Ok, that is what I thought. I think you are right that the death penalty isn’t used as A punishment (i.e. in order to punish). But, it is impossible to logically hold that the death penalty does not incorporate a retributive aspect to it – all the ends of punishment must be referred to the retributive aspect or else it doesn’t make sense. Why? Because we only rehabilitate, protect against, or use as an example for deterrence those who are actually guilty of some crime, hence all three of these purposes hinge upon the retributive purpose.

The right to life is inalienable, and no authority has a right to take it. That is dogmatic, hence infallible.

I don’t follow you here. You must be using “right to life” in a unique way. The Church has upheld the intentional taking of a guilty party’s life in order to protect society.

For instance, the local catechism (which you reference in one of your earliest posts on this thread) says:

Following the lead of Pope John Paul II’s The Gospel of Life, the Catechism teaches that governmental authority has the right and duty to assure the safety of society, and to punish criminals by means of suitable penalties. This includes imposition of the death penalty if there is no other way to protect society.

The death penalty is only licit, per the Church, when there is no other way to meet a higher moral purpose. So, there must be a principle of competing moral perogatives.

Yep, you are restating what the Catechism(s) say. I follow that. Also, you are right, there are competing moral imperatives.

We know it is not proportionate reasons, because we are talking about a “fundemental and inalianble ethical demand”. So some applicaiton of the principles of double effect seem logical.

SoCal, I really can’t follow you here. Could you please describe to me what you think the principle of double effect is? You state that there are not proportionate reasons, so that is why some application of PDE seems logical. But PDE incorporates a proportionality calculus, insofar as the evil unintended effect is permitted for proportionately grave reasons (i.e. destruction of property permitted to save a life).

I still am at a loss as to why you can’t see the PDE is not applied when the Church teaches on the death penalty. Just because the death penalty is used when there is no other way to protect society does NOT mean that the Church is employing PDE. And just because you state that “some application of the principles (sic) of double effect seem logical” doesn’t make it so.

The correct understanding of PDE will help you to articulate your argument better. Appealing to PDE in death penalty discussions clouds the issues.

It is not my intent to offend you, only challenge your thinking.

Same here! Thanks,
VC

 

[pnewton]

Considering the deliberate misrepresentation consistently directed at those who raise this question - but never a provision of documentation addressing the actual problems raised with the claim - it appears that there is a consensus (though unwilling) as to whether there is any documentation to support the claim factually (that is, the idea that “modern prisons” are sufficient are wishful thinking, not actual fact).

Well, this is but one more thread that I have mentioned this fly in the ointment without anything being answered. Philosophical and theoretical arguments will surely hold no value to me if a basic axiom on which they are built goes unsupported.

 

[Ender]

No right to use death as a punishment. The right to life is inalienable, and no authority has a right to take it. That is dogmatic, hence infallible.

I see we are beyond the part where words have fixed meanings: you are undeterred by the fact that the section of the Catechism you constantly quote directly contradicts this statement. Infallible is not the word that comes to mind here … we’ve moved on to incomprehensible.

The death penalty is only licit, per the Church, when there is no other way to meet a higher moral purpose.

As explained in 2267 the higher moral purpose would be the protection of society. The problem is that protection is not the primary purpose of punishment, nor is punishment justifiable solely on that basis. The principle goal of punishment - the highest higher purpose, as it were - is the expiation of the sin, and the restoration of the equilibrium disturbed by the crime can only be accomplished by the punishment of the lawbreaker.

Look at Ender, better yet, search for some of his other postings. He is attempting to make a theological argument. But when we notice things like his quoting snippets from a First Things article …

This is disingenuous … which is a word you should be familiar with. The “First Things article” you airily dismiss was not created by the magazine’s second assistant copy boy but was written by Avery Cardinal Dulles who, because of his brilliance, was elevated to Cardinal without ever becoming a bishop. Second, I used his article to press the point that JPII’s comments in Evangelium Vitae were prudential, a point you have conceded. Other than Dulles, the only non-papal writings I have cited have been from the USCCB and saints Augustine and Aquinas.

Although I find it grating when Ender argues that something is outside the Pope’s authority …

Not nearly as grating as I find your continual repetition of this canard. How about this: if you can reference any post where I claim that something is outside of the pope’s authority I will abandon all discussions of the death penalty. If not, how about you at least abandon this false assertion? How can you pass up such an opportunity … unless of course you can’t prove your claim because I’ve never made the statement?

Ender

 

[RachelsAlumni]

if you can reference any post where I claim that something is outside of the pope’s authority I will abandon all discussions of the death penalty.
Ender

I know this comment wasn’t directed to me, but I’ve seen you repeat the caveat about prudential opinion quite a bit since I’ve been reading these forums. In fact, you did it earlier in this very thread!

…section 2267 was pretty much lifted from JPII’s Evangelium vitae (#56). My response is that this restriction is the prudential opinion of JPII, which therefore does not require our assent.

 

[Ender]

I know this comment wasn’t directed to me, but I’ve seen you repeat the caveat about prudential opinion quite a bit since I’ve been reading these forums. In fact, you did it earlier in this very thread!

I have very often made the point that 2267 is based on JPII’s prudential opinion. I have just never held that pope’s were not authorized to have opinions. Given that SoCalRC agrees that the statements are prudential he surely means something entirely different, otherwise he would be making the same charge against the pope that he accuses me of making.

I don’t mind your trying to prove SoCal’s point, in fact I encourage it. I’ll gladly extend the offer to anyone who finds a statement from me saying that JPII went outside of his authority in making the comments he did about the death penalty. I have annoyed a number of people with my persistent support of capital punishment and I expect there are a number of them who would like me to just go away. Well, here’s their chance. Anyone who thinks SoCalRC’s charge against me is true is encouraged to spend some time trying to prove it. I think I’ve offered a pretty enticing reward.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I don’t follow you here. You must be using “right to life” in a unique way. The Church has upheld the intentional taking of a guilty party’s life in order to protect society.

Two thoughts here:

First, be careful not to fall into the artificial limitation SoCal and others have built regarding restricting the legitimate use of capital punishment only to protect society, as the Church has made no comment restricting the right or authority of a state intentionally “depriving the good of life in expiation” of a party who has “deprived himself of his own right to life” through his guilt. JP II was stone cold silent regarding justification for the death penalty other than defining what constituted justification under the “protection of society” criteria, so there is no way what he did say can be used to arbitrarily exclude those other justifications from consideration.

Second, it is not a matter of using that phrase in a “unique” way, but rather in a way that was deliberately deceptive. SoCal has long been familiar with the part of the quote by Pius XII that I provided after he left it out, so there is no excuse for attempting to use the first part of that quote to try to build an argument in direct contradiction to the following sentence. Since that justification was explicitly restated by a pope as recently as 1952, the position of the Church on that justification isn’t ancient history that can be dismissed in the way SoCal and others have treated the quotes provided by earlier sources (e.g. Trent, Augustine, & Aquinas).

 

[whatevergirl]

I have read so many of these same topic threads on here, and I can see similiar arguments that I recall vaguely from those other threads.

I am against the DP, and follow Pope JP2’s opinions of it, I think it could be necessary in rare circumstances. I will submit though, that talking broadly about a subject is far different than actually having a man/woman’s life held in the balance of a decision we would have to make.

I served on a jury several years ago, and remember that a sentence was never offered to us, to consider in deliberation. (it was a rape case, and death would not have been a sentence) If the DP is a potential option for a case…is that brought up to the jury before it deliberates?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I don’t mind your trying to prove SoCal’s point, in fact I encourage it. I’ll gladly extend the offer to anyone who finds a statement from me saying that JPII went outside of his authority in making the comments he did about the death penalty.

I think a lot of people are having trouble grasping some separate issues that come together here:

1. The Church has stated in several different realms that its role is not to declare what is (or is not) possibly scientifically, and especially not with “belief” in some scientific fact being required with a moral penalty attached mandating acceptance of “fact” that does not withstand scrutiny. Instead, the Church defines what applications of such possibilities would be moral/ethical when (or if) those technological capabilities come to fruition.
2. From 1., knowing that the pope has an opinion on a matter of that sort (e.g. what is possible technically - that is, something in the prudential realm) does not become morally binding on all "good Catholics"TM just because some individuals agree with that opinion, whether or not an application of that prudential opinion intersects with moral issues within the competence of the Church to regulate.

JP II never declared that his assessment of the technological capabilities of modern prisons should be taken to be morally binding. that is a claim made only by proponents of capital punishment, a claim they have yet to defend beyond directing accusations of being "bad Catholics"TM towards anyone questioning the moral weight they have chose to apply to that assessment

Further, that assessment still would not become a morally binding point requiring belief simply because it was used as to identify the threshold for what constituted a moral application of the death penalty for the purpose of defending society if that assessment were true. The conclusion as applied to moral questions must be accepted, but then that isn’t actually a point of disagreement, no matter how much certain individuals try to use false equivalences to create the appearance of disagreement.

Ender, I believe I can speak for you that even you have agreed previously that the death penalty should not be used SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING SOCIETY AGAINST A FUTURE THREAT if there are other options truly capable of keeping society safe from that criminal. You are instead pointing out that there are legitimate reason a state might exercise capital punishment (e.g. punishment) which would be ***independently ***sufficient (e.g. punishment/retribution/expiation) even if the guilty party did not pose a equivalent future threat. Correct?

 

[Ender]

Ender, I believe I can speak for you that even you have agreed previously that the death penalty should not be used SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFENDING SOCIETY AGAINST A FUTURE THREAT if there are other options truly capable of keeping society safe from that criminal.

I’ve not actually considered this before but, considered solely from the perspective of protecting society, if the death penalty was not necessary I could see no justification for using it. What hasn’t been recognized, however, is the flip side of the question: suppose society could be protected best by executing more people, including those we do not execute now. Considered sole from the perspective of protecting society how would you argue against the expanded use of executions?

You are instead pointing out that there are legitimate reason a state might exercise capital punishment (e.g. punishment) which would be ***independently ***sufficient (e.g. punishment/retribution/expiation) even if the guilty party did not pose a equivalent future threat. Correct?

Yes. The issue is not to prevent what a criminal might do in the future but to redress what he has done in the past. This is the significance of the fact that retribution is the primary objective of punishment; that the criminal must endure a just punishment, one commensurate with the gravity of his crime. This is the perspective that protects those guilty of lesser crimes from enduring harsher punishments. Regardless of the beneficial effect such harsh treatment might provide, justice would forbid it. That is, the protection of society is less important than justice.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’ve not actually considered this before but, considered solely from the perspective of protecting society, if the death penalty was not necessary I could see no justification for using it.

Thanks. I thought it would be beneficial for those reading along to have solid clarification of what was not being argued for by any participant in this discussion.

What hasn’t been recognized, however, is the flip side of the question: suppose society could be protected best by executing more people, including those we do not execute now. Considered sole from the perspective of protecting society how would you argue against the expanded use of executions?

Provided the “protection” granted was a against equivalent future harm by the would-be executed, failing to execute under those conditions certainly would open the possibility of arguing the state had failed substantially in its own moral responsibility to protect the members of its society as a whole. Still, I’d like to see a general reduction in the frequency of applying the death penalty for a while to try to reset the level of blood lust on the part of some prosecutor’s offices, and especially before expanding its use in other areas.

 

[Ender]

Provided the “protection” granted was a against equivalent future harm by the would-be executed, failing to execute under those conditions certainly would open the possibility of arguing the state had failed substantially in its own moral responsibility to protect the members of its society as a whole.

One of the things that bothers me about this discussion is the conception we have formed regarding punishment in general. What is the one condition allowed by 2267 for the execution of a prisoner? It is the likelihood that he will kill again and if the risk is high enough he may be executed to prevent a future event. What this means is that we may execute someone to prevent a harm that we cannot execute him for actually committing.

It seems to me that this perspective on punishment places no value on redressing the wrong that has been done and in fact appears to reject the notion that this can actually be done. I can understand this view from a secular society but not from a Christian one.

Still, I’d like to see a general reduction in the frequency of applying the death penalty for a while to try to reset the level of blood lust on the part of some prosecutor’s offices, and especially before expanding its use in other areas.

I would like to see someone use the occasion of an execution to talk about the expiation of sin.

Ender

 

[goofyjim]

I’m getting tired of these ongoing debates on the death penalty. Both sides can be morally correct, whether they are opposed or supportive of it. For either side to claim the other is wrong is denying that this is one of those issues we are just free to form our own conscience on.