Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[dudleysharp]

It is not a question of whether 2267 is fallible or infallible but whether or not it is opinion. There is clearly opinion in that section - not doctrine - and therefore there is no moral obligation for us to accept it.Ender

It is an admitted prudential judgement and is never claimed to be infallible. I think it fails the prudence description, as well.

The Church has rightly stated that the death penalty issue is a matter of prudential judgement and therefore Catholics can remain in good standing even if they find that many more executions would be the proper course.

 

[dudleysharp]

my understanding is that it is much more expensive to execute than to lock up for life. It seems counter to what you might expect, but I think it is true.

Please review:

“Death Penalty Cost Studies: Saving Costs over LWOP”
homicidesurvivors.com/2010/03/21/death-penalty-cost-studies-saving-costs-over-lwop.aspx

 

[dudleysharp]

Since no “good” can come from the death penalty, the motives for doing so must be from a different position than justice because the end purpose of justice is the “common good” (which is where the justification of the death penalty through social protection comes in). The death penalty is used in social protection, not as a punishment, but as a means to protect society.

You are only speaking of the errors of PJPII and 2267, as opposed to nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, rational and tradtional teachings, which oddly enough is verified through sections 2258-2266 of the Catechism.

Review of: 2258-2267, ARTICLE 5, THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”: PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST, SECTION TWO: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, CHAPTER TWO: “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”, The Roman Catholic Church. Most recent amendments, 2005
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM​

All Catechism text begins with the paragraph number. All else are my comments.​

The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon “shedding blood”.

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

2265: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.”

Both secular and religious governments are responsible for defending the lives of their citizens. “The common good” “requires” that an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”.

The definitions of “require” and “unable” are clear in meaning and in context.

It is a rational truism that only dead murderers are “unable to inflict harm”. Unable to inflict harm is the same as impossible to inflict harm, only possible by the absolute incapacitation of the aggressor - by definition, the death penalty.

2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

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

Biblically, theologically, traditionally and rationally, the death penalty is “commensurate with the gravity of the crime” of murder. There are numerous passages within the New and Old Testaments where the imposition of the death penalty, in the Words of God, Jesus, or in the context of the Holy Spirit, are mandatory, proportional and/or commensurate and to be imposed by the civil authorities. In addition, the works of biblical scholars and theologians through 2010 provide a foundation of death penalty support which, in breadth and depth, overwhelms the writings which might conflict with that support (Reference 2, below).

2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”

The Catechism states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” 2266 This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

Some have complained that this newest version of the Catechism has removed retribution, justice and the like from sanction. I don’t think that has occurred. Genesis 9:5-6 deals specifically with retribution, as well as balance, and how they are both integral to justice, just as redress does. Both 2260 and 2266 also have texts specifically inclusive of retributive justice. The problem is with 2267, which does away with balance, redress, retribution and justice and is in conflict with 2258-2266.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime of the aggressor and hold them accountable for that crime/sin/disorder by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice, retributive justice, just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

To “redress the disorder” has various relevant meanings – to make amends, to correct the balance, to set right, to remedy or to rectify, even reform, all of which may be used in the context of justice, just retribution or just deserts (and similar concepts), all of which have relevance in the context of the religious.

 

[dudleysharp]

When it comes to reform, the second sentence is important: “When (the offender’s) punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” We see that reformation and correction of the offender is a hoped for, even expected, component of justice or just deserts.

However, unlike the imposition of justice/balance/redress/retribution, which is mandatory, the reformation and/or moral correction of the offender will be voluntarily accepted or rejected by the offender, as a consequence of free will.

Justice/balance/redress/retribution and the like must be imposed. The correction or reform of the offender will be accepted or rejected by the offender.

The Catechism agrees, with 2266 ending " . . . Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender." " . . . as far as possible . . . " concedes that this is a sometimes proposition.

It is the same with God and his flock, as it is with parent and child. When a parent sanctions or punishes their child, they hope and often expect that such will bring about reflection, reform and correction and, often, it does. It is a foundation in sanction.

Therefore, the foundation must be that we impose sanction based upon the evidence that the offender is guilty of the wrongdoing and because of that wrongdoing, we impose sanction, based upon justice (and its many similar considerations) and because of that justice, we reap the benefits of that justice, which include the protection of society and many other benefits, inclusive of the hope and expectation that some offenders will seek reform/redemption/correction, as a reflection in sanction and a product of grace.

A crucial element of that justice, which is reformation/correction of the offender, will always remain, a hoped for, but voluntary expression of free will by the offender, which may also provide, the immense value of expiation, when the punishment is “voluntarily accepted” by the offender.

Voluntary acceptance appears to have four components. The offender/aggressor is guilty of the offense, the aggressor pleads guilty to the offense, the aggressor accepts the sanction imposed and the aggressor does not appeal the sanction imposed. Anything short of that appears to negate voluntary acceptance.

Expiation, a product of God’s grace, will be seized upon or rejected by the offender, based upon their own free will. It is arguable, as per Aquinas and Augustine, that the death penalty is better apt to provide that correction and is, therefore, more in tune with the eternal aspects of the wrongdoers salvation (see paragraphs/references 3 and 4 within Reference 2 and also 5, below).

Romano Amerio: "The most irreligious aspect of this argument against capital punishment is that it denies its expiatory value which, from a religious point of view, is of the highest importance because it can include a final consent to give up the greatest of all worldly goods. This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ " (Paragraph 3, Reference 2)

All we can do is hope and, in some cases, expect, that beneficial reformation will be sought by the wrongdoer, although we cannot force it upon them. And, in this religious context, such reformation may result in expiation and redemption, through the grace of God.

 

[dudleysharp]

i don’t believe there is retribution because there isn’t a punishment…it is done for the sole purpose of protection and if it were not for protection, it wouldn’t be justified. I can see that

The basis of sanction cannot be protection, because we cannot punish those who do not deserve their sanction, solely for the purprose of protecting others.

First, we must establish guilty and then punish the guilty we the aim of justice, redress, correction and balance.

Secondly, the protection of society is the result imposing sanction, not the reason for it.

 

[Ender]

Justice is not served when innocent people are killed.

True, nor would anyone claim otherwise.

You and I fundamentally disagree that killing another person is necessary to achieve justice.

Yes we do, and this really should be what the debate is about: whether the only punishment of commensurate severity with murder is execution. Does in fact justice demand such punishment?

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.

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

Do you find acceptable the murder of innocent people by those who, having killed before and suffered only imprisonment, kill again? That is the consequence of your position. You may not like the consequences of my position but the consequences of yours are even worse. You need to face this choice fairly.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

You are only speaking of the errors of PJPII and 2267, as opposed to nearly 2000 years of Catholic biblical, theological, rational and tradtional teachings, which oddly enough is verified through sections 2258-2266 of the Catechism.

Would that we all were so “error-ridden” as the Venerable John Paul II. I note that you and Ender point out the part of Catholic teaching that is prudential judgement. Yet you also call it “error” which is a label that can not be properly applied to prudential judgement. So which is it? Doctrine or judgement? If judgement, why do you keep calling it error? If doctrine, what are your credentials that elevate you above the Venerable John Paul?

 

[dudleysharp]

Restitution can be his acceptance of his removal from society, either temporary or permanent.

at, as well

The catechism says that, as well.

2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”

Although expiation and restituion are different. It seems clear that some form of restitution must exist prior to expiation.

 

[Ender]

My memory doesn’t serve me well at the moment as I haven’t done an exhaustive search in Canon Law where it states that Capital Punishment newadvent.org/cathen/12565a.htm stated by the Church “is” an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church. Could someone quote the infallible doctrine aside from the Church Teaching on Capital Punishment. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134752

Well, these comments from Cardinal Dulles and Archbishop Chaput certainly imply as much:

*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) *(Dulles)

• Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.* (Chaput)

Ender

 

[Ender]

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 you want to make the argument that mercy obliges us to apply a less severe punishment in every murder case then do so. Is that your position?

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Read 2266 again. “Redressing the disorder” is clearly not referring to retribution. How can you say this?

Actually, in the context that is exactly what it does. It is the only thing which can, as hard to undertand as that might be.

 

[pnewton]

If you want to make the argument that mercy obliges us to apply a less severe punishment in every murder case then do so. Is that your position?

Ender

You are wrong again about what I believe. I brought this incident up initial in response to the idea that “morality doesn’t change”. I only want to show that moral law has changed (in practice) in the past. I could have also used the example of Ai, which God put under the ban, or Achan, who was punished by death in that incident along with every member of his family. These deaths were ordered directly by God. They represent data, showing both the justification of Capital Punishment, along with collateral damage,** and **that such punishment can be discontinued, as the Catholic Church has never endorsed killing men for their crimes, along with their wives and children.

That is my only point. It is why I do not accept Aquinas and Trent as showing that Capital Punishment must still be executed (pun) in the same manner. Such change is not a change in what is moral and what is immoral, but rather the proper response to immoralilty.

 

[dudleysharp]

the racial bias in death penalty application has long been known and accepted. This is not subject to dispute. When you compare criminal conviction rates with race, you see that sentencing is disproportionate according to race and income. This is true in all areas, and also with capital sentencing. Once of my best friends defended death penalty cases for years. She knows a lot more about it than any biased web site you can find. I don’t buy any statistical argument that it is OK to kill innocent people, because they are only 0.03 percent of the population. I know from my experience with juries that decisions are not made based on evidence. Anyone who believes that a fraction of a percent of convictions are wrong is simply naive.

Happy to have your friend stop by this forum.

My opinion is that prejudice or improper bias will always exist.

I hope you will read this.

“Death Penalty Sentencing: No Systemic Bias”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-sentencing-no-systemic.html

The 0.3% is based upon the actual innocents sent to death row since 1973. None were executed. All were released. The 0.3% (not 0.03%) is not a belief, but an analysis. If you think it is in error, please present it your contradiciton.

 

[Ender]

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.

Genesis 9:5-6 are some of the most significant passages in the Bible and one would expect that they would be “true for all time.” We are all familiar with the statement that “….man is made in the image of God” (the second part of 9:6) but what most people overlook is the first part: “Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, because…” It is because of man’s sacred nature - that he is made in the image of God - that the penalty for murder is so severe. This point is explicitly made in the Catechism of Trent and there is no reason whatever to believe that this is not the meaning in the new Catechism as well.

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

2260 quotes Gen 9:5-6, passages that have been consistently cited not just at Trent but today as well, including BXVI (Address to the Brazilian Bishops, 2009), JPII (Regina Caeli, Evangelium Vitae, Veritatis Splendor), the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Cardinal Dulles, … These are not random passages I’ve chosen from a bloody minded Old Testament who’s meaning has been eviscerated by the Christ of love in the New Testament. That passage is central to what the Church teaches: man’s dignity comes from the fact that he is made in the image of God. And - according to God himself - whoever murders a man, his life is forfeit specifically *because *he is God’s image.

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.

If they are opinion *then *they are not doctrine. Would you agree with that? Nor am I talking generically about “the Catechism” or “Evangelium Vitae”. My comments apply solely to 2267 and part of EV 56.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Can one use John Chapter 8: 1-11 as an argument against Capital Punishment with the exception of keeping the murderers in solitary confinement for the remainder of his/her life?

Yes, but it would be improper.

John 8 and the death penalty: The Woman Caught in Adultery
Compiled by Dudley Sharp

1. Anti-death penalty activist Sister Helen Prejean, often inaccurate, get this right: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) – the Mosaic Law prescribed death – should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to how Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.
2. What about the woman caught in adultery? From “Why I Support Capital Punishment”, by Andrew Tallman, sections 7-11 biblical review, sections 1-6 secular review
   See Part 11
   andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/2008/05/why-i-support-capital-punishment-part_07.html

Brief review: " . . . this passage is textually dubious. The best manuscripts don’t include it, and both its placement and style controvert its authenticity."

Even so, " . . . most people wildly misunderstand this story. The Pharisees’ only reason for bringing this woman to Jesus was to put Him in a dilemma. On the one hand, He couldn’t call for her execution since Roman law prohibited anyone other than a Roman court from doing this. The Pharisees proved they knew this when they later brought Jesus to Pilate rather than killing Him themselves. On the other hand, He couldn’t oppose her execution because this would have proven He was a false prophet for contradicting God’s Law. "

"The passage even explains this in verse 6, “they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”

“So, the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, two thousand years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as.”

“If Jesus was in fact repudiating capital punishment in this story, then He was neither the Divine Son of God nor even a true prophet. As I’m apparently more reluctant than others to embrace this conclusion, I can’t interpret Jesus as rejecting the Old Testament here. Had He been, His enemies would have left jubilant rather than ashamed. There are many theories on the meaning of this story, but the one thing we must not do is use it to say Jesus overturned God’s Word as His enemies intended.”

1. Sanctity of Life & the Death Penalty: Flip sides of the same “Divine” coin
   Author: Richard Eric Gunby, Quodlibet Journal: Volume 5 Number 2-3, July 2003
   ISSN: 1526-6575
   John 8:2-11 (NRSV)

What anti-death penalty advocates will say is, Jesus superseded the death penalty and taught that mercy and exhortation to sin no more should be employed as the replacement “sentence” to the previously law demanded death.

Does that square with the text (John 8:2-11)? I think not.

In Jesus’ time, adultery was rather rampant among the leaders, including the scribes and Pharisees. So, our first observation on this passage is that we have hypocrites (as Jesus himself labeled them elsewhere) trying to test our Lord so that they could charge Him and do away with Him! Secondly, though citing Moses, they really didn’t follow in general or in particular what the law said. The law demanded that both offending parties be put to death, they only presented the woman for punishment. (Perhaps one of them was whom she was sleeping with!) Next, the reality of that day was that this law was rarely if ever enforced as they could not stomach it and only pursued this case to test Jesus, to try and trip him up in front of the crowd he was teaching.

Therefore their motives were nothing but evil. They were not seeking to follow God’s Law-Word in godly fashion; rather, they were attempting to employ surreptitiously what Moses said, towards their own evil ends of trying to trip Jesus up. What a foul thing.

When Jesus said, “anyone among you who is without sin” he meant any without the sin of adultery. He knew their sins, which is why He wrote them out --literally convicting them! None stayed; they all left. They knew that if they accused her and opened the door to execution, their guilty-selves would be next! With all of them gone and only Jesus left, she could not be stoned, because the law requires a minimum of two witnesses against her for the sentence to be carried forth. [Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22] Thus, what we see in this passage is Jesus clearly up holding the law, not setting it aside!

This cannot be read as an example of Jesus doing away with the law. Far from it! This is an example of Jesus, again, going by the clear unen-cumbered dictates of the law and not allowing it to be used towards evil ends in His presence. It is Jesus together with the Law triumphant over His enemies and their tradition. This is clearly an upholding of the law.

quodlibet.net/articles/gunby-sanctity.shtml as of 4/24/10

1. John 8: The Woman Caught in Adultery – Dealing with Capital Offenses Lawfully
   reocities.com/CapitolHill/lobby/3562/adultry.html
2. Also see – Misuse and misunderstanding of John 8:7 is quite common. See Forgery in the Gospel of John www.religioustolerance.org/john_8.htm
3. Do a GOOGLE search for — entrapment “John 8:7" — and read the results

 

[Betterave]

Originally Posted by verum peto
Justice is not served when innocent people are killed.

True, nor would anyone claim otherwise.
Ender

I’ll get back to this later when I’ve had time to read Dudley’s ueber-long posts mad, but I’ll just point out, Ender, that I DID claim otherwise upthread (and so did you and so should we all - and thanks to pnewton for explicating my point).

 

[dudleysharp]

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. QUOTE]

VP:

Apparently, you don’t understand deterrence.

Read these in their entirety.

“Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html

25 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm

“Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx

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

 

[pnewton]

• and thanks to pnewton for explicating my point).

Always happy to explicate. For the record, I am not against the Death Penalty. I just limit myself what the Church teaches on the necessity of the death penalty for protection of society. I have known three people to that have been executed.

 

[Ender]

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.

• “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 I/II 64,8)

Ender

 

[Ender]

That is my only point. It is why I do not accept Aquinas and Trent as showing that Capital Punishment must still be executed (pun) in the same manner. Such change is not a change in what is moral and what is immoral, but rather the proper response to immorality.

If executions for murder were just punishments in the past then they are just punishments now. Whether they protect, deter, or rehabilitate has nothing to do with whether they are just, the justness of the punishment is determined solely by whether its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime. That will not change with time or place. Whether it is just determines whether it is proper and the Church has always taught, and does so today, that executions are just punishments for certain crimes.

Ender