Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[John_Pascendi]

First Jesus did not lean down and after forgiving the so called good thief…order the roman guards to release the thief…He just kept quiet and let the execution continue!.The last pope did many contradictery things that are troublesome…celebrating mass in cuba with the tyrant on the same stage…silence during the worst sex scandal in rcc history etc etc…but as one who was in law enforcement for years I can attest to the fact of lifers committing more and more crimes while in jail…also the cost to taxpayers to feed,house and clothe these monsters is enormous! Its really…capital punishment…the death penalty is the lefts way of somehow making we the decent citizens feel guilty…like we must remain silent about such nonsense as DaVinci code or Passover plot…but when we defend our church and attack the attackers we are called the haters etc…I have never heard of a murderer coming back from the dead to murder again…and if a mistake is made after years of court in and out…procedures…God will take care of that in the next world! tell me when a lifer kills a police guard who has a wife and children,what then…take away his teevee rights…then the aclu will attack you…Pas

 

[Ender]

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.

I disagree. Defending society is a valid objective of punishment but it is not part of justice nor do I believe that the Church anywhere makes that connection. I think she’s fairly clear on the four objectives of punishment - retribution (justice), defense of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation - and that the primary one, the only one that is necessary in every case, is justice. Defense is an aspect of punishment, not of retribution. In judging the propriety of any punishment we don’t ask “does it protect?” but we do ask “is it just?”

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

I have searched this thread for “restitution” and it doesn’t show up. Restitution is pretty close to never mentioned when it comes to civil crimes. Where does restitution come in as a necessary part of punishment for committing a civil crime?

 

[Charlie321]

When it comes to penalty itself, is not penalty used to remind the individual why he/she should or should not do something. In other words, the penalty is given to be used as a reminder to the person so as to not commit the “crime” again. Anything else would be a secondary benifit from the penalty, such as determent. I could be wrong, but that is how i see punishment. This is why I do not like the death penalty, while I think that it must be used in some cases for social protection, as a punishment in itself, i do not believe in. I feel that it stops being about punishment and leans more towards revenge (and I understand that there is a fine line there, i just choose not to ride that thin line). I see no good in killing the person (aside from social protection), and anything that seems good is revenge in disquise.

CCC: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, nonlethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT

 

[sedonaman]

When it comes to penalty itself, is not penalty used to remind the individual why he/she should or should not do something. In other words, the penalty is given to be used as a reminder to the person so as to not commit the “crime” again. Anything else would be a secondary benifit from the penalty, such as determent. I could be wrong, but that is how i see punishment.

Yes, but as you observe there are other purposes, two, in fact. In my first year of catechism [age 8], I was taught by the nun that punishment has three basic purposes:

1. to teach the person that what he did was wrong, and society will not tolerate it;
2. to serve as an example to others that #1 above is true;
3. to make restitution.
   Often, you hear on the news that this or that guilty person is no longer a threat to society and should be let out of prison. This clearly ignores all three and substitutes in their place the subjective criterion of “threat to society”.

This is why I do not like the death penalty, while I think that it must be used in some cases for social protection, as a punishment in itself, i do not believe in. I feel that it stops being about punishment and leans more towards revenge (and I understand that there is a fine line there, i just choose not to ride that thin line). I see no good in killing the person (aside from social protection), and anything that seems good is revenge in disquise.

How can it be “revenge” if the guilty party is given due process?

CCC: 2267 …
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.NT

I would agree with this if there were no parole boards.

 

[Charlie321]

How can it be “revenge” if the guilty party is given due process?

I am not sure I follow you here. It is revenge because no “good” can come from it whether there is due process or not and because of this, the death penalty is not a tool of justice.

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. So even in this instance, the death penalty is not a punishment, it is a necessary end for the reason of protection. If social protection is not the reason for using the death penalty, then the purpose has become outside the “good” and the death penalty becomes killing someone without justification. And since it is being used as a form of punishment for the crime, revenge can be the only reason for it.

 

[Ender]

I have searched this thread for “restitution” and it doesn’t show up. Restitution is pretty close to never mentioned when it comes to civil crimes. Where does restitution come in as a necessary part of punishment for committing a civil crime?

Restitution is required both for civil and criminal offenses.

“To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” (CCC 2302)

Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. "Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly. (Aquinas, ST II/II 62,2)

Ender

 

[Ender]

When it comes to penalty itself, is not penalty used to remind the individual why he/she should or should not do something.

Not really. Punishment is the only currency that can pay the debt one incurs from sinning.

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

This is why I do not like the death penalty, while I think that it must be used in some cases for social protection, as a punishment in itself, i do not believe in.

Protection is a secondary objective, the primary objective is retribution.

I feel that it stops being about punishment and leans more towards revenge (and I understand that there is a fine line there, i just choose not to ride that thin line). I see no good in killing the person (aside from social protection), and anything that seems good is revenge in disquise.

This is to misunderstand the nature of punishment.

 *It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God's work, since he who has power to punish "is God's minister," as stated in Romans 13:4. *(Aquinas ST II/II 158 1 ad 3)

Ender

 

[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?

As usual, Aquinas has addressed the question; it is only a problem of finding his analysis. It is also necessary to understand his definition of vengeance: "Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned."

*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Prov. 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(ST II/II 108 2 ad 3)

Ender

 

[Charlie321]

Protection is a secondary objective, the primary objective is retribution.

I disagree, 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, if anything, you could argue that there are two primary objectives and together, they constitute the death penalty. The Catechism makes that clear:

CCC: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

In other words, with out what I underlined…without the protection clause, it is excluded.

This is to misunderstand the nature of punishment.

It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4. (Aquinas ST II/II 158 1 ad 3)

As far as the death penalty is concerned, how is it a corrective of vice or the good of justice? what good does it serve? I understand what Aquinas is saying, that vengeance and punishment can go hand in hand with the “order of judgment”. But I think they only goes as far as a “good” may come of it, such as correcting a vice. When we speak of the death penalty (aside from protection), we have erased the “good” or good of justice or correcting a vice and therefore it becomes solely revenge.

CCC 2302: By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"94 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."95 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."96

 

[sedonaman]

Restitution is required both for civil and criminal offenses.
…

So why is it never discussed? It’s like the discussions of greed that never mention envy.

 

[Spirithound]

So why is it never discussed? It’s like the discussions of greed that never mention envy.

Because for the majority of crimes, when a non-tangible is taken, material restitution is impossible. Thus retribution is the metaphysical restitution.

 

[Spirithound]

I disagree. Defending society is a valid objective of punishment but it is not part of justice nor do I believe that the Church anywhere makes that connection. I think she’s fairly clear on the four objectives of punishment - retribution (justice), defense of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation - and that the primary one, the only one that is necessary in every case, is justice. Defense is an aspect of punishment, not of retribution. In judging the propriety of any punishment we don’t ask “does it protect?” but we do ask “is it just?”

What specific premise of my argument do you disagree with?

1. One of the effects of crime is to make society feel less safe.
2. Justice demands that all negative effects of a crime be reversed.
3. Therefore, justice demands that society be allowed to feel the same level of safety as before the crime.

 

[Magobe_T]

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.

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.

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.

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.

When we read the Bible, we have to see what is behind the narrative we are reading - the theology behind it or the intention of the author. If we are agree that the author of the Bible is God and that Jesus Christ is sent to redeem/save the world and not condemn it, then we have to interpret everyword in light of God’s saving justice. The Biblical “justice” is not simply ‘justice’ in the sense we use it in our daily life but the Bible talks about “saving justice”; not simply ‘love’ but faithful love etc.

In any case, if we want to engage in the right interpretation of the word, then we have to conceive that, the yardstick is Jesus himself. In the case of capital punishment, then we should ask: What Jesus Christ - a just or reasonable person - would have done in this case? It follows that, Jesus would have said forgive even 7X70 (= as many times as possible). As courts of law interpret laws in light of the Parliament (ie. what a reasonable person intends/would intend in this particular case, we do it in light of what Jesus himself - (the way, the life, the truth).

 

[pnewton]

First Jesus did not lean down and after forgiving the so called good thief…order the roman guards to release the thief…He just kept quiet and let the execution continue

Jesus was on the cross. Dying. Suffering. How in the world could he have ordered the guards to do anything?

The last pope did many contradictery things that are troublesome…celebrating mass in cuba with the tyrant on the same stage…silence during the worst sex scandal in rcc history etc etc…but as one who was in law enforcement for years I can attest to the fact of lifers committing more and more crimes while in jail…also the cost to taxpayers to feed,house and clothe these monsters is enormous! Its really…capital punishment.

Despite your ad hominem against the Venerable John Paul, you hit on the one legitimate use of the death penalty, in accord to Catholic teaching. It is one that I too have argued applies. Namely, that we are not, contrary to the popular assumption, able to safely incarcerate all violent murderer.

 

[sedonaman]

Because for the majority of crimes, when a non-tangible is taken, material restitution is impossible. Thus retribution is the metaphysical restitution.

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

 

[o_mlly]

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

…

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."

…
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?

No conflict in his teaching. In general, the death penalty is reserved to the state. In particular, the state’s use of that specific penalty must be judicious.

If you can make the argument that killing the perp adjudicated guilty the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt” as opposed to a “moral certainty” is the only and certain way “to redress the disorder caused by the offense,” then you have an argument that JPII could not muster. If you have no such argument, then a Catholic yields to the teaching of his Magisterium.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

As usual, Aquinas has addressed the question; it is only a problem of finding his analysis. It is also necessary to understand his definition of vengeance: "Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned."

*Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing, wherefore it is written (Prov. 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(ST II/II 108 2 ad 3)

Ender,

Do you read Aquinas as saying here that one may not legitimately punish a lesser crime with a more severe punishment?

Thanks,
VC

 

[The_Bucket]

Namely, that we are not, contrary to the popular assumption, able to safely incarcerate all violent murderer.

This is very true, simply because of the sheer volume of violent offenders in our country. We can hold the worst of the worst in Supermax type prisons and there’s no problem. But facilities like those are insanely expensive and hold such a limited number of people because of their very nature; if you put more people in those prisons, the control system in place would not be possible.

It’s a quandary, but to me I’d limit capital punishment in this country to terrorist leaders, mafia heads, gang leaders, etc. People who can shot call even from high security facilities and endanger the lives of people on the outside no matter what. I think the idea that some in the Vatican have that our country is so rich and advanced that we can safely hold all offenders who have committed capital crimes is not reality-based, but then again I can’t expect them to do in-depth studies on our prison system either.

 

[pnewton]

We can hold the worst of the worst in Supermax type prisons and there’s no problem.

Unfortunately, that is the myth I was referring to. Even in what is called a supermax prison, criminal organizations can be run. Nortenos was run from inside Pelican Bay for a time and several people were murderered by inmates inside that supermax. They finally broke the leadership up and split them off to various federal prisons under maximum security conditions. Now the federal prisons have Nortenos branches developing inside them.