Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

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…

You’re reading the wrong part of the Catechism - it is 2266 that defines the primary objective:* “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* As Cardinal Dulles explained:

Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.

It is clear that “redressing the disorder” refers to retribution and the Church teaches that " *the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment" *and “punishment is the effect of justice.” (Aquinas) It seems more than a bit strained to contend that capital punishment is not punishment. Whatever benefit it may have for society, from the perspective of the individual it is surely a punishment.

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?

Justice demands a punishment that is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime. Such a punishment is not optional, it is an obligation and justice is not served by the imposition of an inadequate punishment.

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.

Vengeance is forbidden to the individual but is the obligation of the State.

*“It would be incorrect to reject completely, and as a matter of principle the function of vindictive punishment. While man is on earth, such punishment both can and should help toward his eternal salvation, provided he himself raises no obstacles to its salutary efficacy” *(Pius XII)

That we have become so uncomfortable with the concept of vindictive punishment just shows how badly we have come to misunderstand the nature of sin and punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

Justice does not demand that all negative effects of a crime be reversed as that is quite clearly impossible as obviously some of the negative effects of a murder are never erased. Justice demands that crimes be punished because* “the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment.”* Safeguarding society is an objective of punishment, not of justice, and is it not the primary objective at that.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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

Yes, that is exactly how I understand his comment.

Ender

 

[Charlie321]

You’re reading the wrong part of the Catechism - it is 2266 that defines the primary objective:

Then why does it make a different explanation in reference to the death penalty in CCC 2267? If the death penalty was fine, then why offer “rare” reasons for using it. My point is that you are correct, except when it comes to capital punishment because it is an exception. The exception is explained in CCC 2267.

If you do not believe this, then what do you make of CCC 2267?

 

[Ender]

Then why does it make a different explanation in reference to the death penalty in CCC 2267? If the death penalty was fine, then why offer “rare” reasons for using it. My point is that you are correct, except when it comes to capital punishment because it is an exception. The exception is explained in CCC 2267.

If you do not believe this, then what do you make of CCC 2267?

I believe that 2267 is in conflict with other parts of the Catechism, cannot be supported based on what the Church consistently taught for nearly two millennia (and teaches today), and will eventually have to be changed. Given that it represents the prudential opinion of JPII and not Church doctrine however, that change should not be too difficult to make.

Ender

 

[sedonaman]

… 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.

…

So God extracts vengeance when He sends people to hell?

 

[centurionguard]

I believe that 2267 is in conflict with other parts of the Catechism, cannot be supported based on what the Church consistently taught for nearly two millennia (and teaches today), and will eventually have to be changed. Given that it represents the prudential opinion of JPII and not Church doctrine however, that change should not be too difficult to make.

Ender

No disrespect Ender; but I fail to see how your opinionated statement stating fallacy in Pope John Paul II’s views on Capital Punishment is correct in your views. Perhaps it is you who are misinterpreting what Pope John Paul II was trying to express.

**The Church’s teaching has not changed, nor did Pope John II said that it had. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. Nations have the right to just war and individuals have the right to self-defense. Does that means that any and all uses of force to defend oneself against a criminal, or a criminal nation, are justified? No, and most people understand that.
To be good every moral act must satisfy three elements

1. The act itself must be good.
2. The intention of the one doing it must be good.
3. The circumstances must be appropriate.

1. Capital punishment is the right of the state. This is the principle taught by the Church. The Pope does not deny it, but neither St. Thomas or any Magisterial text presumes this gives the state an unlimited right to make capital laws and carry them out. It is inherent in a just capital punishment law that there be proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good. A law, for example, that takes no account of factors such as repentance, mental age and so on is unjust. States have executed the mentally retarded, who could be of no conceivable future threat to society, and in one case a woman whose evident conversion even the state admitted. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
   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 an unjust aggressor.
2. Intention. The motive of the state is good when it follows a just law, that is, its decision is motivated by the requirements of the common good and not by motives of vengeance. This is probably not usually a problem of the state, though some officials evidence it, but it is clearly the mind of many in the public, a fact every execution seems to bring out.
3. Circumstances. There are, of course, individual circumstances related to the particular capital case which, as I noted, a just law takes into account. Here I want to consider, however, certain general circumstances. The Pope has noted that in the developed countries the possibility exists to incarcerate criminals for life, removing definitively any threat to society. Thus, the Catechism continues in paragraph 2267,
   If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority should limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
   Another circumstance, and one related to “the concrete conditions of the common good,” is the nature of our society. We have become a culture of death. The question really arises as to whether we have just laws, and whether we can execute those we do have justly. Abortion has worked a truly horrible corruption of our country, for which we are beginning to pay the price, not just in demonic violence but in the “corruptio mentis” (corruption of mind and heart) of people in general.
   This is manifested in the malfeasance of justice, by police, juries, prosecutors and judges at all levels of the justice system. In the early Church a similar situation existed. During the time of pagan Rome, Catholics could not hold civil or military office if they could be obliged to judge capital crimes or execute capital punishment. Only after the Church was legalized and the state influenced by its teaching would Catholics be allowed such offices. As the state becomes less influenced by the truth the Catholic finds himself returning to the quandary of the early Christians. Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,
   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 definitively 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 non-existent.” **

 

[centurionguard]

continued from my last post.

So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances. Ultimately, the laity who are responsible for these judgments in political society must make them in the individual cases. In doing so, however, they have a grave obligation to apply all the principles taught by the Church to the cases before them, as taking a human life is always grave matter if done unjustly.

 

[Brendan]

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

Because He was God.

He also inspired St. Dismus to recognize three things,

1 that it was a bad thing to mock Christ,
2 that Christ’s punishment was unjust since Christ was guilty of no crime,
and finally,
3 that their punishment WAS just because they WERE guilty.

If number 3 was in error, why did Christ not correct Dismus’s understanding when He spoke to him?

Or why were the Evangelists not inspired to correct Dismus’ error, if the Death Penalty was unjust?

 

[pnewton]

Because He was God.

He also inspired St. Dismus to recognize three things,

Or why were the Evangelists not inspired to correct Dismus’ error, if the Death Penalty was unjust?

As to the last question first, maybe because they were just reporting what was said, not writing a commentary about it. However, I do not think it is a part of Catholic moral thinking now or ever that stealing merits crucifixion. Or even that torture should be part of capital punishment.

As to why Jesus did not call on legions of angels to rescue them, that is a no brainer and only a basic understanding of the role of suffering lets us know that not all suffering is punishment. Besides, it makes no sense that God would excercise divine power to save one person at the expense of paying the price of salvation for all. After all, he did not spare His own Son.

 

[pnewton]

I believe that 2267 is in conflict with other parts of the Catechism, cannot be supported based on what the Church consistently taught for nearly two millennia (and teaches today), and will eventually have to be changed. Given that it represents the prudential opinion of JPII and not Church doctrine however, that change should not be too difficult to make.

Ender

It is not infallible, true. But then neither is Aquinas. He too was limited, as great as his mind was, to the experience he knew at the time.

 

[phoenixrrt62]

I have a real problem supporting the death penality, b/c it seems too many people are being placed on death row that were found innocent later…in some cases years later.
One innocent person placed on death row is too many, IMHO, but I’ve run across a few in Philly alone…for different reasons. One I was reading about apparently was b/c a so called witness gave false information…along with a corrupt police officer…pfft. That poor soul lost years of his life.

I wouldn’t know all the catholic laws, etc…I just think it’s wrong. Our government’s making too many mistakes…

 

[Charlie321]

So God extracts vengeance when He sends people to hell?

I like your question Yes he does! We must accept that we do not understand the whole of morality and that the whole of morality is only known to God. Why should we ask God to adhere to the morality that he gave us, when it is he who created it? Because God is who Am he may do as he wishes and it is still moral, regardless of what he has commanded us to do. While I am not saying that he does this, what I am saying is that if he so chooses, he may. In regards to sending people to hell, this is a different type of “revenge”, since it is done on the soul (ie going to hell) which we do not have the ability to administer. God is not taking vengeance on the flesh (in this case), he is taking vengeance on the soul.

Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

If God feels that vengeance is needed, he will administer it himself. What criteria does he have? I don’t know, ask him

 

[Ender]

I fail to see how your opinionated statement stating fallacy in Pope John Paul II’s views on Capital Punishment is correct in your views. Perhaps it is you who are misinterpreting what Pope John Paul II was trying to express.

JPII based his restriction on the use of capital punishment on the protection of society. Protection, however, is only a secondary objective; the primary objective, which was just defined in the previous paragraph, is ignored. 2267 has three parts and there are problems with all three.

*2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *

This statement is factually incorrect. The Church never had such a restriction and there is no justification for claiming it.

*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *

It is because of the dignity of the human person that capital punishment becomes obligatory for someone who takes a human life. It is precisely because man is made in the image of God that his life is so sacred and his murder so heinous, which is why God himself demands a life for a life. Sparing the life of the murderer does not heighten our sense of the dignity of human life, it reduces it by ignoring the value of the life that was taken. It is exactly backwards.
*
"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.’*

This is pure speculation and is clearly an opinion, and based on available statistics seems unsupportable. In any event, as opinion it places no obligation on us to agree with it.

No part of 2267, either separately or collectively, stands up to analysis based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act).

If protection was the primary objective of punishment it might be possible to make this argument, but since retribution (justice) is the primary goal the argument is simply wrong. What makes capital punishment “circumstantially necessary” is the obligation of the State to impose a punishment of commensurate severity with the crime, and, since that is based on the nature of the crime, it cannot change with time and place and is utterly independent on the modernity of the society in which the crime occurs.

To be even more specific, God defined it as circumstantially necessary in Genesis 9:6, a verse the Church understands literally, taught in the past, and declared valid for all time.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

Finally, the third component of a moral act does not require that the act be circumstantially necessary but that the circumstances be appropriate. That is a very different standard and the author’s argument is disingenuous.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is not infallible, true. But then neither is Aquinas. He too was limited, as great as his mind was, to the experience he knew at the time.

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

 

[Charlie321]

JPII based his restriction on the use of capital punishment on the protection of society. Protection, however, is only a secondary objective; the primary objective, which was just defined in the previous paragraph, is ignored. 2267 has three parts and there are problems with all three.

*2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *

This statement is factually incorrect. The Church never had such a restriction and there is no justification for claiming it.

*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *

It is because of the dignity of the human person that capital punishment becomes obligatory for someone who takes a human life. It is precisely because man is made in the image of God that his life is so sacred and his murder so heinous, which is why God himself demands a life for a life. Sparing the life of the murderer does not heighten our sense of the dignity of human life, it reduces it by ignoring the value of the life that was taken. It is exactly backwards.
*
"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.’*

This is pure speculation and is clearly an opinion, and based on available statistics seems unsupportable. In any event, as opinion it places no obligation on us to agree with it.

No part of 2267, either separately or collectively, stands up to analysis based on what the Church teaches.

Ender

If you pick and choose what you follow in the Catechism, then why use it? I do not understand why you are so bent on the death penalty, ignoring even the Catechism. Open your mind to the Church’s understanding because ultimately She, with Christ, makes the “rules”. Whether we like them or can justify them or can understand them, they are Her rules and we have an obligation to abide in them, to do anything less is to become protestant. If you cannot understand a teaching or find it to be false, do not ignore it, ask God for understanding and accept it. A good answer that I use is this, “While i do not understand or I find it to be in error, in regards to the Church’s teaching, I accept it and pray that God will give me understanding so that one day it may not be so difficult to understand or adhere to.”

 

[Ender]

If you pick and choose what you follow in the Catechism, then why use it?

If one part of the Catechism does not accord with another part, what am I to do? How am I guilty of “picking and choosing” when I point out that 2267 ignores 2266 and contains opinions and errors? If we are not to pick and choose how are you free to pick 2267 as the controlling section and ignore everything else the Church has ever said on the subject?

I do not understand why you are so bent on the death penalty, ignoring even the Catechism.

I have not ignored the Catechism; I have addressed it. Nor, I should point out, have I ignored the Catechism of Trent which plainly contradicts it.

Open your mind to the Church’s understanding because ultimately She, with Christ, makes the “rules”.

If all you know of the Church’s position on capital punishment is 2267 then you know virtually nothing at all about what she has taught for 2000 years - none of which supports 2267. And I will say this again: 2267 does not appear to be “Church teaching” despite its presence in the Catechism. It is the prudential opinion of JPII; it is not doctrine.

Ender

 

[verum_peto_1]

The Church was once a principal proponent of capital punishment, for a variety of offenses - even for being a scientist how honestly reported the results of his experiments, if they disagreed with Church doctrine.

Fortunately, those times are past.

My personal belief is that JPII was correct in his opinion, opposing capital punishment.

We also know that when DNA tests are performed, that about 17% of convictions have been proved to be wrongful, and also that racial discrimination appears to play a role on who receives a death sentence, and who doesn’t. For me, these are just two more reasons to oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.

 

[Lutheranteach]

I do believe there are people in this world who are so corrupt, so evil, so cruel, so dangerous that we do society, the species, and the person in question a favor by executing them.