Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[StevEdward]

Which begs the question, are our public officials in this day and age, vested with authority from God? The same public officials who support abortion and other immoral actions?

I found a very unusual response to this very question on another website - Catholic Apologetics Information - catholicapologetics.info/

Interestingly enough, the argument presented there has served to persuade a great many of my friends and family that a decline in the death penalty is indeed linked to secularism, and God’s plan on Earth does include the Death Penalty, in the justice meted out by propperly held governments in response to criminals.

Now it begins with St. Paul: “For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and you shall have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he bears not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.” - Romans 13

“Today the death penalty is imposed ever more rarely, even in cases of proven premeditated murder. Despite the fact that it was instituted by God Himself, growing numbers of Catholics actually consider it immoral. John Paul II, stopping just short of declaring it wrong in principle, has declared that it should be imposed very seldom, if ever. But doesn’t admitting the penalty in principle demand that it be put into practice? In the U.S., following the lead of the late Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago and like minded prelates won to the new man-centered conciliar religion, the faithful are beginning to equate abortion, nuclear war and capital punishment as common “threats to the sacredness of human life” without any reference whatever to the innocence or guilt involved. If they are aware that the Church has upheld from Apostolic times the right to use force in self-defense, to kill in a just war and to inflict the death penalty on those duly judged guilty of serious crime, they now apparently subscribe to the notion propagated by Dei Verbum at the Second Vatican Council that the unchanging Catholic “tradition which comes from the Apostles” actually “develops in the Church” and keeps pace with changing times (II,8).”

So in my mind, the idea that expiation in a metaphysical sense is becoming less paramount, then capital punishment will naturally be seen increasingly from a temporal view only. That may be exactly where this argument is leading - to a secular view as opposed to the will of God.

 

[centurionguard]

Deterrence, like the protection of society, is only a secondary objective of punishment, therefore there is no obligation that the punishment deter others for it to be justly used. Ironically, given that executions are newly based on a “protect society” standard, should it turn out that executions in fact deter crimes then this same standard would argue for an even greater use than ever before. It is a poor moral standard that depends on the studies of social scientists to determine what is right or wrong.

Ender

Deterrence, like the protection of society, is only a secondary objective of punishment

Please elaborate.

therefore there is no obligation that the punishment deter others for it to be justly used.

So in the end after the convicted criminal is put to death, what really is gained?
Whose conscious is appeased? Society as a whole? I have a difficult time believing that.

The immediate family and loved ones of the victim might gain a sense of being appeased feeling some remote sense of closure of peace seeing the assailant put to death.

But it still wouldn’t bring closure to the pain in their heart missing their loved one, thinking about the savage trauma their loved one went through before the moment they were killed.

Over the centuries particularly in the last 500 years more humane ways of putting a criminal to death for murder, rape and much lesser crimes in some countries has never stopped such crimes in society. Many such crimes committed even today are just as sadistic, heinous, and barbaric as they were thousands of years ago when criminals were put to death in a manner much the same way they carried out their crimes. Such crimes up to present day have never relented and often as we see today globally has gotten worse. I’m not here to argue the use of Capital Punishment by the state. But I do adamantly fail to see where it serves a gainful purpose unto itself as a deterrent.

Peace
Chris

 

[RWMorris]

Deterrence, like the protection of society, is only a secondary objective of punishment, therefore there is no obligation that the punishment deter others for it to be justly used. Ironically, given that executions are newly based on a “protect society” standard, should it turn out that executions in fact deter crimes then this same standard would argue for an even greater use than ever before. It is a poor moral standard that depends on the studies of social scientists to determine what is right or wrong.

Ender

You are correct Ender. Murder is a crime of passion and has one of the lowest recidivism rates of any violent crime. The fact is murderers are rarely a threat to society. Because of the nature of the crime the DP will not deter future murderers.

 

[Ender]

I would say that while justice is formally the primary goal of punishment, defending society is actually a necessary part of that.

Justice is not “formally” the primary goal of of punishment, it is the single indispensable obligation that must be satisfied. None of the secondary objectives, including defending society, rises to that level or is even necessary, that’s why they are considered secondary.

In the first line I quoted above, an adequate punishment redresses societal rights, as well as personal rights. Well, society’s right are violated when a person is allowed to not pay their debt to society. By this, I have in mind a person sentenced to life in prison without parole, but who escapes. Does that happen in your state or country? If yes, you need the death penalty. If no, you should not use itj, according to Pope John Paul II.

The death penalty is needed solely if it is required to fulfill the demands of justice, and that has to do with the nature of the crime and not anything to do with the nature of the society in which it is committed. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. If no crime ever merited death then executions would be intrinsically evil. Since, however, executions are in fact not intrinsically evil it can only mean that certain crimes merit this form of punishment for it is the only one of commensurate severity.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Please elaborate.

*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)

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. (Cardinal Avery Dulles, 2001)

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas, ST I/I 87,6)

The Catechism clearly states the primary objective of punishment: redressing the disorder caused by the sin, or, as Dulles shows, retribution, which, as Aquinas explains, is the demand of justice.

So in the end after the convicted criminal is put to death, what really is gained?

Justice.

God does not delight in punishments for their own sake; but He does delight in the order of His justice, which requires them. (Ibid)

I’m not here to argue the use of Capital Punishment by the state. But I do adamantly fail to see where it serves a gainful purpose unto itself as a deterrent.

Deterrence is not an obligation that all punishment must meet; the only obligation punishment must meet is that it is just, not that it deter.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You are correct Ender. Murder is a crime of passion and has one of the lowest recidivism rates of any violent crime. The fact is murderers are rarely a threat to society. Because of the nature of the crime the DP will not deter future murderers.

I did not concede that executions do not deter murderers; I simply said that it is irrelevant to whether its use is appropriate. A great many murders are not crimes of passion but are committed from cold calculation or indifference, which would seem to make them imminently deterable. I think the belief that execution does not deter is a recent invention that would have been rejected out of hand prior to the last half century. It is certainly not the perception held by our predecessors.

Homicide is rare among slaves because of their dread and fear of capital punishment, whereas among the rich it is constantly committed because of their confident hope of immunity (Salvian, On the Government of God, Bk IV, Ch 5 - c 400)

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

Justice is not “formally” the primary goal of of punishment, it is the single indispensable obligation that must be satisfied. None of the secondary objectives, including defending society, rises to that level or is even necessary, that’s why they are considered secondary.
The death penalty is needed solely if it is required to fulfill the demands of justice, and that has to do with the nature of the crime and not anything to do with the nature of the society in which it is committed. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. If no crime ever merited death then executions would be intrinsically evil. Since, however, executions are in fact not intrinsically evil it can only mean that certain crimes merit this form of punishment for it is the only one of commensurate severity.

Ender

Justice is not “formally” the primary goal of of punishment, it is the single indispensable obligation that must be satisfied.

Satisfied by who? The victims family or society? Somehow I find your statement here contradictory and leaning toward being callous.

How can you say that Capital Punishment by the state is anything but Justice.

If Justice as you say is Not the primary goal, it seems that a criminal being put to death for his crime of murder is retaliatory in nature by the state to be satisfied as if taking an eye for an eye.

There’s no Christian message of taking an eye for an eye. Justice for Justice sake perhaps.

Peace
Chris

 

[Ender]

Satisfied by who? The victims family or society? Somehow I find your statement here contradictory and leaning toward being callous.

Apparently I wasn’t clear in my previous post. I was objecting to the use of “formally” applied to justice, which implied to me that the author meant that something else was actually more important.

How can you say that Capital Punishment by the state is anything but Justice.

I don’t - that is exactly what it is, and regardless of what secondary objectives are or are not satisfied, it is justice that must be dispensed.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

A related question would be, then, can there ever be a time when one may legitimately seek the secondary purpose of something while avoiding the primary purpose?

VC

 

[centurionguard]

A related question would be, then, can there ever be a time when one may legitimately seek the secondary purpose of something while avoiding the primary purpose?

VC

Perhaps the immediate removal of the criminal from society would seem to be the only secondary purpose to the justice of Capital Punishment.

Take note of the word immediate after a criminal has been tried and convicted.
What purpose is served to make a criminal sentenced on Death Row to wait 15, 20, and 25 years and then on a whimsical decision of the state justice system to put such criminal to death after a long prison term served. What is gained by the state justice system in these cases?

 

[Ender]

My question is, can a lesser punishment be given to a crime that, in itself, deserves a greater punishment?

                             Yes.

No.

If so, why?

Circumstances. If a man threatens my family, has the means, the reputation, the opportunity, and I sincerely believe he intends to carry out his threat, and I preemptively kill him while he is asleep and defenseless, should I be sentenced to death?

Circumstances can certainly change the degree of severity the crime deserves but that is not the same as saying that the punishment may be less than the crime deserves, whatever that is. Justice demands (and the Church teaches) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime but the severity of the crime may itself be mitigated by circumstances. The person in the situation you describe would in all likelihood deserve a less severe punishment than the killer who threatens and then carries out the execution of someone’s family. However, once the severity of the crime has been determined it would not be appropriate to levy a less severe punishment for a more severe crime.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

once the severity of the crime has been determined it would not be appropriate to levy a less severe punishment for a more severe crime.

Ender,

That touches upon my earlier question, but in the opposite direction. Can a lesser crime be punished with a greater punishment?

If so, why? If not, why not?

VC

 

[Ender]

That touches upon my earlier question, but in the opposite direction. Can a lesser crime be punished with a greater punishment?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Allowing for all the necessary caveats, it seems that a requirement for a just punishment is that it be neither too much nor too little; I think this is what is meant by a punishment of “commensurate” severity.

*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas ST I/II 21,3)

*Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. (Ibid I/II 87, 3 ad 1)

*Recognizing for the possibility of mercy - which would apply a lesser punishment to a greater crime - or of generosity - which would be a greater reward for a lesser achievement - there seems to be no place at all for a greater punishment for a lesser crime.

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

… The person in the situation you describe would in all likelihood deserve a less severe punishment than the killer who threatens and then carries out the execution of someone’s family. However, once the severity of the crime has been determined it would not be appropriate to levy a less severe punishment for a more severe crime.

Ender

But wouldn’t either scenario result in premeditated murder? Are not the crimes equal? I’m sure the prosecution would attempt to portray either as premeditated murder.

 

[Ender]

But wouldn’t either scenario result in premeditated murder? Are not the crimes equal? I’m sure the prosecution would attempt to portray either as premeditated murder.

Both scenarios are - legally - premeditated murder but I don’t think that makes them equal. I really don’t think it is particularly useful to argue the point, however; I think the real issues lie elsewhere. That there may be exceptions to the rules does not invalidate the rules; it just means they have to be applied judiciously. Justice requires commensurate punishment … but mercy allows for reduced punishment. This doesn’t mean that mercy trumps justice, just that there is a place for both. Not all instances of murder require the death penalty … but it seems clear to me that in some cases it is the only just punishment.

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

… but it seems clear to me that in some cases it is the only just punishment.

I agree. I support the death penalty, but only in cases of extreme brutality or evil. I believe the DP to be the last resort, the final answer to evil. But what bothers me is not the death of the guilty, it’s the possiblilty of the death of an innocent. The use of the DP should require a much greater burden of proof by the State.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

*Recognizing for the possibility of mercy - which would apply a lesser punishment to a greater crime - or of generosity - which would be a greater reward for a lesser achievement - there seems to be no place at all for a greater punishment for a lesser crime.

Thanks Ender.

For now, I’m interested in what you said about mercy. Perhaps the second part (greater punishment) can be discussed in a bit, since it must be related.

Why do you think it is possible to apply a lesser punishment to a greater crime? How do you integrate this with the concept of proportionate retribution?

VC

 

[Ender]

Why do you think it is possible to apply a lesser punishment to a greater crime? How do you integrate this with the concept of proportionate retribution?

I struggle with this question but it seems to me that mercy is contingent on repentance:

The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent (JPII, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia)

nor do I believe that mercy is always appropriate:

*Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded *(Aquinas ST, II/II 30,3)

Justice and mercy are not opposite virtues struggling against one another; the necessity - and often the difficulty - is in satisfying both.

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

Ender

 

[Spirithound]

Can a lesser punishment be given to a crime that, in itself, deserves a greater punishment?
RWMorris;6786794:

Yes.

If so, why?

Circumstances. If a man threatens my family, has the means, the reputation, the opportunity, and I sincerely believe he intends to carry out his threat, and I preemptively kill him while he is asleep and defenseless, should I be sentenced to death?

I’m still working through whether I support the death penalty, so I’m sorry I can’t answer your question as asked.

St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that the act itself, the intent behind the act, and the circumstances al must be examined in determining the morality of an action. However, each of these must be GOOD for an act to be good. You can’t commit murder just if you have a good intention. A preemptive strike must certainly be punished.

 

[Spirithound]

Justice is not “formally” the primary goal of of punishment, it is the single indispensable obligation that must be satisfied. None of the secondary objectives, including defending society, rises to that level or is even necessary, that’s why they are considered secondary.

By using “formally”, I did not mean to say that another goal was more important. I said that to indicate that there are necessary components of justice. Murder is a crime against God, but it is also a crime against society. It is a crime against society because it violates the community’s sense of security. The most effective way to restore the sense of security (notwithstanding human psychology, which will allow fear to reign even after the murderer is caught and executed; also ignoring the fact that murder has a low recidivism rate, since the model murderer I am viewing is a mob hitman) is to remove the threat. Therefore, defending society is a necessary part of justice.

The death penalty is needed solely if it is required to fulfill the demands of justice, and that has to do with the nature of the crime and not anything to do with the nature of the society in which it is committed.

I think my bit above indicates that the nature of the society does need to be taken into account, since the crime is against a particular society, and that society needs to be defended in a particular way.