Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[iluvburpees]

I’d just like to comment on JPII’s words on the death penalty. There seems to be a contradiction.

As has been taught by the Church, the primary purpose of punishment is to redress the order that the crime messed up. Thus, the criminal must accept a punishment for the crime to redress the order, and this is the most important thing in punishment. Everything else, then, is secondary. Correct?

JPII says: The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” He then says:

“Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.”

The non-bolded part is obviously the most important part of the punishment, because he next says the the punishment “also” does these other things. It seems obvious that he is mentioning these other things as secondary to the primary purpose he mentioned first: to redress the order by an adequate punishment.

This makes sense, but it gets odd in the next paragraph. He says:

“It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”

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?

 

[vera_dicere]

From my view of the situation, I suppose it depends on what one classes as “justice”. Is it just to execute a murderer? I don’t think so. And Jesus often spoke of showing mercy, not to mention He saved a woman from being stoned - which according to the Jewish people at the time was “just” for the act of adulterly. We have moved passed the “eye for an eye” business.

Its 2010, theres’ no need for the death penalty, we are more than capable of keeping prisioners who pose a real danger to society locked up while providing them the opportunity to repent.

So, I don’t see a contradiction in JPII’s words.

 

[white_sheep]

Its 2010, theres’ no need for the death penalty, we are more than capable of keeping prisioners who pose a real danger to society locked up while providing them the opportunity to repent.

Physically harming someone with your own hands is not the only way a person may be a danger to society. People in prison can order hits, run an organized crime outfit like the mafia or a gang, conduct illegal activity, write books, have websites, have fan clubs, give interviews, inspire movies, sire children in 6 states, harm and influence other inmates, harass state legislators, call people on their cell phone, post on message boards from their phone, etc, etc. They are hardly out of society.

 

[iluvburpees]

From my view of the situation, I suppose it depends on what one classes as “justice”. Is it just to execute a murderer? I don’t think so.

It must be just, because it has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, The Council of Trent, and many popes, including Pius XII, Innocent I, and Innocent III. Not to mention Genesis 9:6

Whether it is the most just and appropriate punishment is another question. However, since the above taught capital punishment, it is likely that it is the best punishment. I have never heard one of them make “life imprisonment without payrole” a possible punishment for murderers.

And Jesus often spoke of showing mercy, not to mention He saved a woman from being stoned - which according to the Jewish people at the time was “just” for the act of adulterly. We have moved passed the “eye for an eye” business.

The case of the woman cannot be used as a reason to end the death penalty; if it were linked with capital punishment, then the Church would never have allowed it through all these centuries.

The “eye for eye” does not mean that public officials vested with authority from God are not allowed and obliged to punish the guilty. When Christ talked about forgiveness, he was talking about forgiving enemies; he was not, however, dumping the need for punishment and retribution. Again, if that were the case, the Church wouldn’t excommunicate people because that would be “unmerciful.”

It must be remembered that just punishment is in reality an act of mercy. It is for the criminal’s own good that he is punished, so that he can try to make up for what he did and thus make himself worthy before God. The so-called “love” that never condemns and never punishes wrongs committed is not true love, since, by withholding just punishment, one is not so concerned of the punishment the person may have to endure in the next life as a result of his actions being unchecked.

Its 2010, theres’ no need for the death penalty, we are more than capable of keeping prisioners who pose a real danger to society locked up while providing them the opportunity to repent.

Justice is the primary purpose of punishment; safeguarding society is secondary. Thus, even if prisoners are 100% unable to do any harm, it does not change the fact that they must make full retribution for their crime(s). As far as repenting, the greatest chance for repentence comes when a man knows that he will be put to death and meet his Maker within a short period. This may fill him with a fear of hell, and thus a remorse for his sins.

So, I don’t see a contradiction in JPII’s words.

The contradiction I see is that he first talks about justice being the primary purpose of punishment, and then says the death penalty should only be used when it would be necessary for safeguarding society, a secondary purpose. Thus he makes a secondary purpose the primary purpose.

The only way I see that there is no contradiction is if JPII believes that the death penalty is not necessarily the most just punishment for murder. But then another question arises: what, then, could substitute for the death penalty and make equal retribution? I don’t see anything else being equal.

 

[CMatt25]

Jesus often spoke of showing mercy, not to mention He saved a woman from being stoned - which according to the Jewish people at the time was “just” for the act of adulterly. We have moved passed the “eye for an eye” business.

Its 2010, theres’ no need for the death penalty, we are more than capable of keeping prisioners who pose a real danger to society locked up while providing them the opportunity to repent.

No need indeed.

CCC 2267 ends with "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

Indeed time for the “very rare” and “practically” parts to be removed and simply say cases for killing someone who is an obvious human being by virtue of birth, are simply non-existent.

Peace.

 

[Ender]

I agree with most of your analysis, but not with this:

Thus, the criminal must accept a punishment for the crime to redress the order

It is the punishment itself that redresses the disorder whether the criminal accepts it or not. His acceptance of it is required for it to serve as expiation on his part.

So, how can one reconcile these conflicting ideas?

The conflicts you identify cannot be reconciled. The primary objective of all punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the sin, that is - retribution - and this is the demand of justice. The protection of society, along with rehabilitation and deterrence, are all secondary objectives and there is no way for a secondary objective to be given precedence over that which is primary.

Beyond this, we know that executions are just or they would never have been acceptable by the Church. Even with the restrictions JPII created he still considers execution a just punishment or it wouldn’t be allowed even theoretically. So, given that execution is the just punishment (for certain crimes) and that justice is the primary objective of all punishment, what is the argument against its use? I’m not convinced that there is one.

Ender

 

[RWMorris]

Our Western sense of punishment evolved from Saint Anselm’s Doctrine of Atonement, the idea that a violation of law was an offense against justice and against the moral order of natural law. A violation of that law required punishment that fit the nature and extent of the violation so that moral order was repaired. This was required if justice was to be achieved and restored. This depersonalized punishment and made it almost an abstract action, regardless the damage done the victim.

From this concept, it seems that capital punishment must remain an option, at least for perpetrators of severe and dispicable crimes, such as serial murderers, serial child rapists, crimes against humanity, etc., and only in those cases where the evidence of guilt is so strong as to leave NO doubt of the perps guilt. I think that standard would rule out about 95% of the death sentences now carried out in this country.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Here’s an interesting question that may possibly generate some light for us:

Can a lesser crime be punished with a greater punishment?

If so, why?

VC

 

[vera_dicere]

Physically harming someone with your own hands is not the only way a person may be a danger to society. People in prison can order hits, run an organized crime outfit like the mafia or a gang, conduct illegal activity, write books, have websites, have fan clubs, give interviews, inspire movies, sire children in 6 states, harm and influence other inmates, harass state legislators, call people on their cell phone, post on message boards from their phone, etc, etc. They are hardly out of society.

That is very true. But the problems here is not the person, rather giving prisoners too much leeway.

Executing someone seems a bit excessive when you can give safety to society by removing the right of an individual in prision to phones, contact with the outside world, et al.

 

[vera_dicere]

It must be just, because it has been taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, The Council of Trent, and many popes, including Pius XII, Innocent I, and Innocent III. Not to mention Genesis 9:6

Would they say the same today? We’re talking about a time when maxium security prisons were non-existant.

The “eye for eye” does not mean that public officials vested with authority from God are not allowed and obliged to punish the guilty.

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?

Of course, I’m sure, you will refer to the above mentioned saints and teachers. There is a quaint irony in that it tends to be the pro-aborts who are anti-death penalty.

When Christ talked about forgiveness, he was talking about forgiving enemies; he was not, however, dumping the need for punishment and retribution.

I’m not saying we should dump the need for punishment. I am rather harsh in how I think prisoners should be treated, I just don’t think they should be killed. God is the only one who is ownership of life, to end life, whether it be the life of an unborn child, your neighbour, an adulterous wife, or a murderer, is to steal from God.

We are under a new covenant from God. We no longer have to have the good ole fashioned public stonnings.

It must be remembered that just punishment is in reality an act of mercy. It is for the criminal’s own good that he is punished, so that he can try to make up for what he did and thus make himself worthy before God. The so-called “love” that never condemns and never punishes wrongs committed is not true love, since, by withholding just punishment, one is not so concerned of the punishment the person may have to endure in the next life as a result of his actions being unchecked.

And what of innocent men and women who have gone to their deaths at the hands of a “justice system”.

There was a case in NZL recently where a man who was accused of murdering five members of his family in the 1990s was finally found not-guilty after a re-trial which proved police incompetence, a prosecution that didn’t release all the evidence they had to the defence, witnesses who could say they saw the accussed somewhere else other than at his home where the murders took place. He spent over a decade in prison.

At the time of this crime, every man and his dog thought him guilty, there were cries for the death penalty to be made legal again. He was sent to jail for life. Yet, he was an innocent man. If the DP existed in this country he would have gone to his “just punishment”.

Another case of a man who spent 12 years in prison for a rape he didn’t commit.

The DP is forever. There are plenty of cases every year in America, and else where, where innocent men and women are removed from death row due to new evidence or old evidence being addressed with new science.

So how many innocent people have been murdered by the state? What of their salvation? How many of them were not Christian, not saved?

As far as repenting, the greatest chance for repentence comes when a man knows that he will be put to death and meet his Maker within a short period.

A lot of those going to their deaths dont’ seem to be repenting. The DP is a sin against hope.

Timothy McVeigh certainly didn’t look sorry. Of course, only the Lord knows their souls.

what, then, could substitute for the death penalty and make equal retribution? I don’t see anything else being equal.

Prisions of the days of old. Bread and water, with some cheap vegetables and meat. Manual labour. No gyms. No broadband internet. No connection with the outside world. Give them whatever religious material they desire.

Make prison a real hell hole, so much so people don’t want to go there. To prevent a complete breakdown in these places, treat them like dogs, you know, give them a “treat” when they behave. Positive reinforcement, I beleive its called. If they behave, give them a movie each week, if they dont’ behave, take away butter for their bread.

I don’t know how prisons are in America, but down here the govt. spend a lot of money for underfloor heating and millions of dollars on “landscapping”. -_-

 

[centurionguard]

I agree with most of your analysis, but not with this:

It is the punishment itself that redresses the disorder whether the criminal accepts it or not. His acceptance of it is required for it to serve as expiation on his part.

The conflicts you identify cannot be reconciled. The primary objective of all punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the sin, that is - retribution - and this is the demand of justice. The protection of society, along with rehabilitation and deterrence, are all secondary objectives and there is no way for a secondary objective to be given precedence over that which is primary.

Beyond this, we know that executions are just or they would never have been acceptable by the Church. Even with the restrictions JPII created he still considers execution a just punishment or it wouldn’t be allowed even theoretically. So, given that execution is the just punishment (for certain crimes) and that justice is the primary objective of all punishment, what is the argument against its use? I’m not convinced that there is one.

Ender

So, given that execution is the just punishment (for certain crimes) and that justice is the primary objective of all punishment, what is the argument against its use? I’m not convinced that there is one.

Personally; I’m not an advocate of capital punishment. I not here to make argument for argument sake. And yes; there are some gruesome spiteful Satanic crimes that could easily make one believe that Capital Punishment is justified due to the gravity of the crime against victims and their loved ones left behind with the stigmatized burden to morn all their lives.

Can capital punishment be proven to be a deterrent so as to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again? There’s no hard evidence in human history to support capital punishment as a deterrent statistically.

However; one of the best articles on Capital Punishment I’ve read lately.
Read here: ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

Peace
Chris

 

[RWMorris]

Here’s an interesting question that may possibly generate some light for us:

Can a lesser crime be punished with a greater punishment?

If so, why?

VC

You’d have to define what crimes are lesser or greater. For instance you would get few arguments that killing 50 million people is a greater crime than reckless driving. But does the crime of a man beating his pregnant wife to death because he fears she might be having an affair equal the crime of a man kidnapping an 18 yo woman, raping her repeatedly, and then selling her into sexual slavery. If one of the above, and only one, must get the death penalty, which one would it be?

 

[RWMorris]

Would they say the same today? We’re talking about a time when maxium security prisons were non-existant.

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? …

Your argument is good, but I have to disagree with a couple of your premises.

First, today’s maximum security prisons are still subject to the same political whims and natural disasters that prisons have always faced.

Second, when Paul talked about governments having authority from God, he was living under Rome, one of the most powerful and brutal governments that have ever existed. So, Yes, all government is vested with authority from God, but that doesn’t mean they use that authority morally. But they still have it.

 

[Spirithound]

"Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated."

The non-bolded part is obviously the most important part of the punishment, because he next says the the punishment “also” does these other things. It seems obvious that he is mentioning these other things as secondary to the primary purpose he mentioned first: to redress the order by an adequate punishment.

This makes sense, but it gets odd in the next paragraph. He says:

"It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society."

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).

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

 

[Spirithound]

You’d have to define what crimes are lesser or greater. For instance you would get few arguments that killing 50 million people is a greater crime than reckless driving. But does the crime of a man beating his pregnant wife to death because he fears she might be having an affair equal the crime of a man kidnapping an 18 yo woman, raping her repeatedly, and then selling her into sexual slavery. If one of the above, and only one, must get the death penalty, which one would it be?

I don’t think this poster meant greater/lesser in that way. Crimes do not need to be graded against each other, but only against the proposed punishment.

 

[pnewton]

So, how can one reconcile these conflicting ideas?

There is not conflict because the paragraphs are not referring to the same thing. A conflict only exist when two mutually exclusive statements are made about the exact same thing. The death penalty is a punishment, but not all punishment is the death penalty. One is a subset of the other.

For example one can make a general statement about prayer and what is most important in prayer. Yet if one focused on a particular prayer, like the Eucharistic prayer, or Jesus’s High Priestly prayer, then a different focus would become most important.

You made one statement that is not mentioned in the document that is implicit in the contradiction you see.

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.

The document you quote does not say that the death penalty is a suitable and just punishment. The contradiction you see is because you impose this belief into the words of John Paul II. I am not intending to argue this one way or another in this post. I am just address the idea that their is an **internal **contradiction in this document.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t think this poster meant greater/lesser in that way. Crimes do not need to be graded against each other, but only against the proposed punishment.

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

If so, why?

VC

 

[RWMorris]

My response is directed to Spirithound.

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

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?

 

[Ender]

Would they say the same today?

Yes, they would, inasmuch as morality does not change over time. If executions were just punishments in the past then they are just punishments in the present.

We’re talking about a time when maxium security prisons were non-existant.

The protection of society does not justify punishment that is itself unjust. The lack of maximum security prisons would not have justified executions if the executions were not justified by the crimes.

God is the only one who is ownership of life, to end life, whether it be the life of an unborn child, your neighbour, an adulterous wife, or a murderer, is to steal from God.

The Church has always taught that the State has the (God given) right to execute criminals.

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime (Catechism of Pius X)

And what of innocent men and women who have gone to their deaths at the hands of a “justice system”.

This is a practical consideration that does not go to the morality of capital punishment.

A lot of those going to their deaths dont’ seem to be repenting. The DP is a sin against hope.

Given that the Church had, at least until 1995, supported the death penalty I’m guessing she never saw it as a sin against hope.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Can capital punishment be proven to be a deterrent so as to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again? There’s no hard evidence in human history to support capital punishment as a deterrent statistically.

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