Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

But I do see the simpler solution is following the teaching of the Catechism.

Which teaching? The opinion expressed in 2267 or the doctrines explained in 2260 and 2266?

In there Catholics can see that the exception given for the death penalty is the protection of society.

Protection is a secondary objective. What about the need to satisfy the primary objective?

We can go back to Trent and Aquinas and apply what they said to a time that they never knew.

Morality does not change with time and place.

But if we do that, why not go all the way back to Jesus and let the one without sin be the one administrates Capital punishment.

This is not what the Church teaches. This is not what she has ever taught. How do you dismiss my “going back” to Trent and Aquinas when you wish to go back to nothing at all? What you believe is your own personal interpretation of Scripture; it has nothing to do with what the Church believes.

That is why I say the simpler solution is to be the student of the Catechism and not the editor.

The Catechism is (for the most part) a fine document but it does not contain everything of importance the Church believes and teaches, nor does it simply supersede everything that came before it. There is a serious problem with 2267 that is not resolved by closing your eyes to it and ignoring the deficiencies. That may be the simple approach but it cannot be the right one.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Read 2266 again (again). “Redressing the disorder” is clearly not referring to retribution. How can you say this? It is the plain sense, you say??

No. The plain sense is to connect punishment’s “primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” with its having “a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.”

I realize you are a bit handicapped in understanding what the Catechism means given that you appear unfamiliar with what other Popes and Catechisms have said on the subject. Well, not completely unfamiliar as I did provide you a list of relevant comments, but ignoring them is not the same as dealing with them. I’ll try one last time:*

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. … When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society.*(Aquinas ST, I/II 21,3)

*Even the **punishment *that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, (Ibid I/II 87, 3 ad 2)

Obviously if the medicinal purpose is not always necessary it cannot be said to be the primary objective. I’m pretty sure that’s what the phrase “as far as possible” means in the section you quoted.

Ender

 

[verum_peto_1]

Don’t you find this argument even a little bit silly? Can you seriously believe that I “support the killing of innocent people”? I don’t support it any more than you do even though innocent people will die as a result of the approach you support.
Of course not. I find this line of thinking just bizarre.
The cost of a social policy which does not include the death penalty is also that innocent people will die, and in fact it seems fairly certain that even more innocents will die without it than with it. Your indignation is very selective.

Ender

I am not indignant at all, and there is no well accepted evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

I find your failure to be consistent in your logic both amusing and sad.

If you are going to take a moral stand, then your should beware of its implications, lest you be seen as a hypocrite.

 

[pnewton]

Morality does not change with time and place.

Yes, it does in at least in a sense. Namely, the application of moral law does change. If one takes the example of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, we see that he does not follow the moral application taught at Mt. Sinai, but rather expanded on the moral principle prohibiting adutlery, by including forgiveness and the command to sin no more. Christ told the people that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fullfil the law. This is a change, not a contradiction, but a change.

So I have no problem that we no longer torure heretics, of burn witches. By the same principle that the Church has changed response to these things and that Jesus trancends the Mosaic Law, the Church can grow beyond Aquinas and Trent to the Catechism of today, as there is not contradiction, just a different application of the same morality.

 

[verum_peto_1]

Ender -

Forgive me for being so blunt, with the use of the word hypocrisy.

But, here is what has happened, which you call silly. I took your general argument, which was that there will be deaths of innocent people, as we all know since our legal system is imperfect, in a general sense - and I made it personal.

This is a perfectly valid way of analyzing any moral position. The failure to accept a general moral principle for one’s self, while claiming it to be applicable to everyone else, means that the principle is flawed - or that the person holds a different standard for himself (herself) than for others.

So, my argument is not silly at all, but rather a way to focus more clearly on the question.

We know that states in the US which implement the death penalty the most aggressively have no lower crime rates than those which don’t. We know that countries without the death penalty often have lower crime rates than many countries which do have the death penalty. We know that crime rates have never been shown to increase any more over the same time period in states where the death penalty is abolished or overturned, than in neighboring states where it continues to be enforced.

In short, there is no obvious benefit to the death penalty, but there are plenty of drawbacks. In addition to the logistical ones, such as its incredible cost to the taxpayer, is the moral issue. Why would you advocate a policy which has no clearly demonstrable benefit, yet has clearly demonstrable moral shortcomings - only one of those is the necessary killing of innocent people?

 

[Ender]

there is no well accepted evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

I don’t argue for the death penalty based on its deterrent value as deterrence, like protection, is a secondary consideration. I argue for it based on the need for justice - which is the primary objective and is a positive obligation of the State.

Ender

 

[Ender]

So I have no problem that we no longer torture heretics, of burn witches. By the same principle that the Church has changed response to these things and that Jesus transcends the Mosaic Law, the Church can grow beyond Aquinas and Trent to the Catechism of today, as there is not contradiction, just a different application of the same morality.

The Church has never interpreted the incident of the woman caught in adultery as you do, nor did JPII (nor the Catechism) cite this incident to support their new position on capital punishment. Nor do I expect that the Church will ever change her understanding of those passages, which have always formed the basis of her teaching on the subject.

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). (Archbishop Chaput, 2002)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I took your general argument, which was that there will be deaths of innocent people, as we all know since our legal system is imperfect, in a general sense - and I made it personal. This is a perfectly valid way of analyzing any moral position.

I have no problem with the approach, only with the assumptions you made.

The failure to accept a general moral principle for one’s self, while claiming it to be applicable to everyone else, means that the principle is flawed - or that the person holds a different standard for himself (herself) than for others.

As I said, your assumption as to what my position implied was invalid. Do I accept the possibility that harm and perhaps even innocent deaths may occur? Yes, but there is no avoidance of that possibility whether I maintain my position or change to yours. Innocents **may **die if the “guilty” are executed but innocents will **surely **die if they are not, so how is your position (by your standard) morally superior to mine?

In short, there is no obvious benefit to the death penalty, but there are plenty of drawbacks.

The obvious benefit of the death penalty is the one you ignore, and that is justice. That is the only valid reason for executing someone: that it is a just penalty for his crime.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

The Church has never interpreted the incident of the woman caught in adultery as you do, nor did JPII (nor the Catechism) cite this incident to support their new position on capital punishment. Nor do I expect that the Church will ever change her understanding of those passages, which have always formed the basis of her teaching on the subject.

I do not apply this incident to Capital Punishment. I apply it to show what Christ called the fulfillment of the Law. In this incident, he added a different element to what Moses received on Sinai: mercy.
*

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). (Archbishop Chaput, 2002)
*
Absolutely. That does not contradict the Catechism. The death penatly can be an exercise of retributive justice. I never said otherwise. ]

 

[verum_peto_1]

I don’t argue for the death penalty based on its deterrent value as deterrence, like protection, is a secondary consideration. I argue for it based on the need for justice - which is the primary objective and is a positive obligation of the State.

Ender

Justice is not served when innocent people are killed. You and I fundamentally disagree that killing another person is necessary to achieve justice. In the end, I leave that up to God, and choose not to be the arbiter of who gets to live and who doesn’t. I did that already in combat, which taught me that no decision is perfect, and when the cost is a human life, then the decision is irreversible.

I disagree that killing innocent people is simply the acceptable collateral damage of this justice which you envision.

 

[Betterave]

It is hard to take this argument seriously. The idea that the teaching being referred to here as “necessary for all time” is the explanation of how the term “blood” is used in the OT is ludicrous.

I’ll grant that it’s an odd passage. But remember: “You’re wrong” is not a very compelling argument (see below). Your suggestion is more ludicrous: that the Catechism is simply contradicting itself. And remember: “You’re wrong” is not a very compelling argument.

Surely it is reasonable to identify internal inconsistencies. The Catechism contains statements in 2260 and 2266 that are not consistent with 2267. Pointing this out is not an appeal to the Catechism but to reason.

No; “pointing this out” is begging the question.

“You’re wrong” is not a very compelling argument.

I wish you practised what you preach! That is exactly the kind of argument that my argument responded to! In such a case it is compelling enough.

The Catechism of Trent is only one of the many documents that expresses the Church’s position on capital punishment. Section 2267, and that part of Evangelium Vitae on which it is based, are not supported by anything the Church had ever taught about capital punishment. My agenda is nothing more than presenting what the Church teaches, which does not include 2267 as that is opinion, not doctrine.

Ender

Okay, maybe we’ll see about that as far as the Catechism of Trent and “many other documents” goes. But please stop begging questions about “the” Church’s position, as if EV and the CCC are not valid sources just because you want to insist that they are opinion and not doctrine.

 

[Betterave]

I realize you are a bit handicapped in understanding what the Catechism means given that you appear unfamiliar with what other Popes and Catechisms have said on the subject. Well, not completely unfamiliar as I did provide you a list of relevant comments, but ignoring them is not the same as dealing with them. I’ll try one last time:*

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. … When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society.(Aquinas ST, I/II 21,3)

*Even the **punishment ***that is inflicted according to human laws, is not always intended as a medicine for the one who is punished, but sometimes only for others: thus when a thief is hanged, this is not for his own amendment, but for the sake of others, that at least they may be deterred from crime through fear of the punishment, (Ibid I/II 87, 3 ad 2)

Obviously if the medicinal purpose is not always necessary it cannot be said to be the primary objective. I’m pretty sure that’s what the phrase “as far as possible” means in the section you quoted.

Ender

Ender,

I appreciate your providing these quotations. I do read them and they are interesting. Exegesis, however, is clearly not your strong point. These citations do not support your case. Unless you’re saying that you want to execute thieves (and why not adulterers, liars, etc., too)??

You point out that the medicinal purpose is not always necessary - uh, yeah; I’m well aware! I never claimed otherwise, so why are you telling me this? In any case, look at the colon preceding the phrase “as far as possible”; your reading is clearly mistaken, since a new independent phrase begins at the colon (that just how colons work!).

(It might be worth noting, Ender, that I’m not the only one who is having to say to you “I never said otherwise…”)

 

[Betterave]

Justice is not served when innocent people are killed. You and I fundamentally disagree that killing another person is necessary to achieve justice. In the end, I leave that up to God, and choose not to be the arbiter of who gets to live and who doesn’t. I did that already in combat, which taught me that no decision is perfect, and when the cost is a human life, then the decision is irreversible.

I disagree that killing innocent people is simply the acceptable collateral damage of this justice which you envision.

One point on this: Justice MAY still be served when innocent people are killed. It is never served when innocent people are intentionally killed. Collateral damage is sometimes inevitable, so we have to make a moral distinction between accepting and intending collateral damage.

 

[dudleysharp]

So, instead of the death penalty being a suitable punishment because it is a just punishment commensurate to the crime, it is a suitable punishment and should be used only when it is necessary to defend society. Thus, in this case of the death penalty, JPII replaces the primary purpose of punishment (justice) with a secondary purpose (defense of society).So, how can one reconcile these conflicting ideas?

JPII was simply wrong and the Church, somehow, put this obvious error into the Catechism.

 

[o_mlly]

St. Paul did indeed get the message, and here is part of that message from his letter to the Romans:*

He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God.* For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” (Aquinas, ST, II/II 108 1 ad 1)

I quoted from Aquinas to indicate that this is not my personal interpretation but is in fact the way the Church has always interpreted that passage. The State has not just the right but the obligation to punish the guilty, and, even today, the Church recognizes that that right extends to the use of capital punishment.

Ender

You are confusing Paul’s expression to “execute wrath” to include some inordinate frequency of capital punishment. The words are not in the text; only in your interpretation. No one disputes the Church teaches the state possesses the right to resort to capital punishment but she teaches the state is limited to the judicious use of that right and that that occurs rarely.

 

[pnewton]

JPII was simply wrong and the Church, somehow, put this obvious error into the Catechism.

Given the you are right, you are correct.

 

[o_mlly]

One point on this: Justice MAY still be served when innocent people are killed. It is never served when innocent people are intentionally killed. Collateral damage is sometimes inevitable, so we have to make a moral distinction between accepting and intending collateral damage.

This statement is nonsense and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the virtue of justice. The Church has always taught that the killing of the innocent and collateral damage are evil events.

 

[o_mlly]

JPII was simply wrong and the Church, somehow, put this obvious error into the Catechism.

Is the cafeterial still open?

 

[pnewton]

This statement is nonsense and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the virtue of justice. The Church has always taught that the killing of the innocent and collateral damage are evil events.

Actually he is dead on, if you read the post carefully, even though it is an evil event. It is the principle of double effect. If the good accomplished is great enough, then the evil of the killing of innocents is still allowable. It is the *intentional *killing of the innocent that is never good.

This is from the Church’s doctrine on Just War:
*the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. *

The Church has allowed a more generous use of the death penalty to be necessary in the past. This despite the fact that it was harder to prevent innocent people from being falsely convicted.

 

[dudleysharp]

The Church has always taught that the killing of the innocent and collateral damage are evil events.

mlly:

The Church has always taught that the nature of man is sin. Man’s imperfections are well known. The Church and God have both made the well known distinctions between knowingly taking innocent lives and the unknowing and inintented taking of innocent life. All taking of innocent life is wrong and sinful and have sanction applied or implied, but they are morally different, with varying sanction.

God and the Church both agree that the governments of men have the obligation and the authority to rule over men and to invoke criminal sacntions inclusive of the death penalty. Both God and men know that man’s governments will committ error. Yet, neither Church nor God has stated that such error should ever stop the governments of men, in this specific regard.

Some secular context, as well.

“The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

“A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

“The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception–death-penalty-opponents–draft.aspx

The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx

Sister Helen Prejean & the death penalty: A Critical Review"
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/05/04/sister-helen-prejean–the-death-penalty-a-critical-review.aspx

“At the Death House Door” Can Rev. Carroll Pickett be trusted?"
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/01/30/fact-checking-is-very-welcome.aspx