Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

1. Dudley added an ellipsis to his quotation of the Catechism’s quotation of Genesis 9. Methinks this ellipsis is less than innocent.

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 (CCC 2260) Ellipsis in the original. If you were familiar with the passages you would recognize that the first part is from Gen 9:5 while the second part is 9:6.

1. It does not make sense to invoke the authority of the Catechism to call into question the authority of the Catechism. And N.B.: That is what you are doing here. You are not merely pointing to perceived inconsistencies in the Catechism.

Section 2267 is a prudential opinion; the rest of the Catechism is not.

[the Catechism] *has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating, 2004)

*“In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church.” *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

The Catechism cites Genesis 9 and goes on to interpret it. Don’t pretend it’s something else.

Actually the current Catechism simply cites it; it does not go on to interpret it. If you want to know how the Church interprets it then read the Catechism of Trent, which interprets it as dudleysharp explained.

Ender

 

[verum_peto_1]

Retributive justice seems very “Old Testament” to me. I don’t believe in stoning adulterers. I don’t believe that a rape victim should be required to marry her rapist, etc…

I have served in combat, and I have felt the urge to take vengeance, after witnessing horrific acts of violence and destruction, and also the death of friends and comrades. I won’t deny that. I also don’t think that the world is any worse off with the death of some miscreants.

I also know from my own experience that I was a pretty bad kid. My dad was raised in an emotionally abusive household, and was probably also gay. He was also a devout catholic, and was unable to reconcile his own nature with the Church. He was a troubled, violent alcoholic who died at the age of 42. I carried a lot of anger and pain into my adolescence, and acted out criminally.

At one point, I ended up detained in a juvenile facility, in a room by myself for about a month. This is probably the best thing that could have happened to me. It gave me the time to reflect on myself and where my life was. It was a penitentiary experience in the sense of the way the Quakers would probably use the word.

I turned my life around, and I never looked back. My peers at the time, were not so fortunate as I.

Based on my own experience, I do believe that people can change. Removing them from society for a time of reflection may be instrumental to that process. However, our society has steadily moved away from the philosophy of rehabilitation. I think that there is a sad cynicism that many have submitted to. I see this as a deadening of the soul.

The death penalty precludes all possibility of rehabilitation. Personally, I could not stand in judgment of another person in that way. When I have felt self righteous, or in great pain and anger, I have felt that I could. But this is not the ideal that I aspire to.

 

[Ender]

the racial bias in death penalty application has long been known and accepted.

Whether one accepts or rejects the existence of bias, it is not relevant to the moral question regarding the use of capital punishment.

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.

Both the execution and the non-execution of murderers may lead to innocent deaths. It seems fairly clear that, if innocent people have been executed, the number is quite small and is surely a fraction of a percent. What you ignore are the innocents who are killed by those who have not been executed, which is surely the larger number (roughly on the order of 40 per year). There is no free lunch here and if we are to choose based on the number of innocent people killed then clearly we should execute more, not fewer. Besides, no one argues that it is “OK” to kill the innocent; the argument is whether it is moral to execute the guilty.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty precludes all possibility of rehabilitation. Personally, I could not stand in judgment of another person in that way. When I have felt self righteous, or in great pain and anger, I have felt that I could. But this is not the ideal that I aspire to.

While I do not buy the retribution and vengence argument given in this thread, I would not that the death penalty does not preclude rehabilitation any more than life in prison. One just has a short time for a decision. Yet we know that some, probably most, will not rehabilitate. This is why the Catholic Church in its moral teaching bases the decision of using the death penalty on the protection of society.

 

[Ender]

Retributive justice seems very “Old Testament” to me. I don’t believe in stoning adulterers. I don’t believe that a rape victim should be required to marry her rapist, etc…

Don’t be so quick to dismiss the Old Testament; the Church holds it in rather higher regard. This is what she teaches: *"*the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment" as well as “Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments.” (Aquinas) This is why the Catechism teaches that retribution is the primary objective of punishment an that the State has the duty to apply a penalty whose severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime.

The death penalty precludes all possibility of rehabilitation.

This is inaccurate as the murderer has significantly more time to atone for his sins than his victim was allowed. Even Timothy McVeigh, who went from crime to execution faster than anyone I can think of, had six years to repent and be rehabilitated.

Personally, I could not stand in judgment of another person in that way.

We are required to judge the actions of others. What we are forbidden to judge are those things we cannot know, like what motivates them to take those actions.

• “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.” * (Augustine)

Ender

 

[Ender]

I do not buy the retribution and vengence argument given in this thread

“My” arguments about retribution are in fact not mine; they are the Church’s. I have cited several Popes and catechisms on this subject so it is their explanations that you do not accept, not mine. Sin incurs a debt and punishment is the only way the debt can be paid. This is why a criminal who is released after serving his time can legitimately claim to have “paid his debt to society.” That is what that phrase means.

*“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: *penalty and fault are action and reaction" (Pius XII)

We have a distorted conception of sin and personal responsibility when we come to believe that punishment for sin and not the sin itself is the more reprehensible.

"The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences." (Paul VI)

"For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment* they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin**" *(JPII)

Ender

 

[verum_peto_1]

Whether one accepts or rejects the existence of bias, it is not relevant to the moral question regarding the use of capital punishment.

Both the execution and the non-execution of murderers may lead to innocent deaths. It seems fairly clear that, if innocent people have been executed, the number is quite small and is surely a fraction of a percent. What you ignore are the innocents who are killed by those who have not been executed, which is surely the larger number (roughly on the order of 40 per year). There is no free lunch here and if we are to choose based on the number of innocent people killed then clearly we should execute more, not fewer. Besides, no one argues that it is “OK” to kill the innocent; the argument is whether it is moral to execute the guilty.

Ender

Ender -

You have no evidence that the number is a fraction of a percent. I have only been familiar with two murder cases. The first I have recounted. The second, my friend was defending. It was clearly a case of accidental death. A guy hired a prostitute in a bar. They were having rough sex in his van. He probably strangled her, unintentionally. At the time, the DA and police department had just been exposed in the newspaper for hiding the fact of a serial killer on the loose who was killing prostitutes. Because the guy in this case was nearly mentally retarded, the DA decided to try to pin all the murders on him.

A good friend of mine teaches criminal justice. He started in a major city as a beat cop. Rose to the level of asst chief of police. Retired when one of his academy peers made it to chief. The reason for his retirement was that he new his co-worker, now the chief, to be corrupt. My friend then went on to work with the CIA, and now teaches at a large university. He has a lot to say about the number of low income and disadvantaged people who are railroaded by unethical policemen. My dad was a cop, so I know how it works. I saw him use his influence more than once, and also saw markers pulled in to keep family members out of trouble.

But let’s forget all of that for a moment. To be logically consistent, then you would be willing to die if you were falsely accused of a capital crime. You would do this in order to serve a higher social purpose, which is the death penalty. Do you agree with me, or can you refute that? If you, as an innocent person falsely accused and convicted, would not willingly be put to death, then how can you expect anyone else to be executed in that manner, no matter what the percentage of such cases is?

 

[Betterave]

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 (CCC 2260) Ellipsis in the original. If you were familiar with the passages you would recognize that the first part is from Gen 9:5 while the second part is 9:6.

If you were familiar with the Catechism you would recognize that that is not the ellipsis I was referring to. Here is the paragraph in question with Dudley’s (and your) ellipsis in …]'s:

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
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.59
[The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60] This teaching remains necessary for all time.

Section 2267 is a prudential opinion; the rest of the Catechism is not.

[the Catechism] *has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating, 2004)

*“In coming to this prudential conclusion, *the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church.” (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Actually the current Catechism simply cites it; it does not go on to interpret it. If you want to know how the Church interprets it then read the Catechism of Trent, which interprets it as dudleysharp explained.

Ender

That this teaching is ‘prudential’ (perhaps even ‘prudent’) may be. St. Paul and the Coucil of Jerusalem also offer us ‘prudential opinions’ in sacred scripture. So what? It still doesn’t make sense for you to appeal to the Catechism against the Catechism. Your claim that the Catechism doesn’t interpret its own use of the passage in question is wishful thinking on your part. It is a baseless claim. If you knew anything about basic exegetical practice you would recognize this.

In any case, why does the Catechism of Trent supercede the CCC? If you would like to propose a DP position solely based on the Catechism of Trent do so. But don’t mix and match citations from different Catechisms just to promote your agenda.

 

[Betterave]

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

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

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

 

[Betterave]

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). (Cardinal Dulles)

A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty** (Pius XII)

For* the fundamental demand of justice***, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; (Pius XII)

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of **penal compensation, **which restores him to the equality of justice (Aquinas, ST)

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.” (Ibid)

Do you recognize the connection between retribution and vengeance (which, as Aquinas defines it “consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned”?

Yes, I do. Do you recognize that none of these citations provide support for your specific position on the issue in question here?

Two things are necessary for the full remission of the sin, both the punishment and the acceptance of the punishment. The fact that the criminal may not accept the punishment as penance makes no difference to the responsibility of the State in assigning it in the first place.

Ender

Correct. But the fact remains that “the punishment” need not refer to execution.

 

[pnewton]

“My” arguments about retribution are in fact not mine;

I did not attribute them all to you. But I do see the simpler solution is following the teaching of the Catechism. In there Catholics can see that the exception given for the death penalty is the protection of society. We can go back to Trent and Aquinas and apply what they said to a time that they never knew. But if we do that, why not go all the way back to Jesus and let the one without sin be the one administrates Capital punishment. That is why I say the simpler solution is to be the student of the Catechism and not the editor.

 

[Ender]

To be logically consistent, then you would be willing to die if you were falsely accused of a capital crime.

There is nothing either logical or consistent about this. I wouldn’t be willing to die as a soldier in combat. As a soldier I would, however, be willing to risk death, a risk I am also willing to take about being unfairly executed.

If you, as an innocent person falsely accused and convicted, would not willingly be put to death, then how can you expect anyone else to be executed in that manner, no matter what the percentage of such cases is?

I would not be willingly imprisoned for a crime I didn’t commit, nor would you nor anyone else but that doesn’t mean that everyone is opposed to prison sentences. I’m also pretty sure you would not willingly be murdered by someone who should have been executed but wasn’t, but that will surely happen to others. As I said before, innocent people will die no matter which choice we make but it seems clear to me that a lot more will die from too few executions rather than too many.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

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?

Isn’t there the commandment, “Thou shall not kill” from the old testament? Jesus had evil all around Him on the road to Calvary and He did not kill a single person. How can we do anything different? And what about the person that performs the execution of the criminal. The criminal is in chains and does not pose any immediate danger, so how can it be moral to perform the execution? The executioner then lives with the knowledge that he executed another human being for the rest of his life.

I would say that life in prison, with no outside contact, and possibly no contact with other inmates, and some sort of incentive to be productive would be a more Christian approach to punishment.

 

[o_mlly]

…
I would not be willingly imprisoned for a crime I didn’t commit, nor would you nor anyone else …
Ender

Aren’t you forgetting the Lord. He taught us the way to live and lived as He taught. St. Paul got the message; it continues to elude others.

 

[centurionguard]

I did not attribute them all to you. But I do see the simpler solution is following the teaching of the Catechism. In there Catholics can see that the exception given for the death penalty is the protection of society. We can go back to Trent and Aquinas and apply what they said to a time that they never knew. But if we do that, why not go all the way back to Jesus and let the one without sin be the one administrates Capital punishment. That is why I say the simpler solution is to be the student of the Catechism and not the editor.

why not go all the way back to Jesus and let the one without sin be the one administrates Capital punishment. That is why I say the simpler solution is to be the student of the Catechism and not the editor.

Excellent point.

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?

The woman taken in adultery. Christ justifies his doctrine.

1 And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?
11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

I sometimes wonder today if the state of a country put out a public request to hire executioners to put murderers to death. Perhaps like the days of the old Roman Coliseum droves of citizens would be applying for the jobs.

 

[verum_peto_1]

There is nothing either logical or consistent about this. I wouldn’t be willing to die as a soldier in combat. As a soldier I would, however, be willing to risk death, a risk I am also willing to take about being unfairly executed.
I would not be willingly imprisoned for a crime I didn’t commit, nor would you nor anyone else but that doesn’t mean that everyone is opposed to prison sentences. I’m also pretty sure you would not willingly be murdered by someone who should have been executed but wasn’t, but that will surely happen to others. As I said before, innocent people will die no matter which choice we make but it seems clear to me that a lot more will die from too few executions rather than too many.

Ender

Ah… so your position is that you support the killing of innocent people because the apparent risk that you would be one of those people is slight?

Let me rephrase the proposition to make it a bit clearer. Do you concede that while you would not be happy about being falsely convicted and sentenced to die, that your position would be that your death would serve a higher moral purpose, and therefore be justified for the end it served, right?

My point is that it really doesn’t matter whether the percentage is 0.03% or 17%. The number itself is unprovable, for obvious reasons. It does matter that the cost of a social policy which include the death penalty is that innocent people must die. For that reason, I am opposed to it.

 

[Ender]

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.59
[The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60] This teaching remains necessary for all time.

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

It still doesn’t make sense for you to appeal to the Catechism against the Catechism.

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

Your claim that the Catechism doesn’t interpret its own use of the passage in question is wishful thinking on your part. It is a baseless claim.

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

In any case, why does the Catechism of Trent supercede the CCC? If you would like to propose a DP position solely based on the Catechism of Trent do so. But don’t mix and match citations from different Catechisms just to promote your agenda.

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

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ah… so your position is that you support the killing of innocent people because the apparent risk that you would be one of those people is slight?

Don’t you find this argument even a little bit silly? Can you seriously believe that I “support the killing of innocent people”? I don’t support it any more than you do even though innocent people will die as a result of the approach you support.

Do you concede that while you would not be happy about being falsely convicted and sentenced to die, that your position would be that your death would serve a higher moral purpose, and therefore be justified for the end it served, right?

Of course not. I find this line of thinking just bizarre.

My point is that it really doesn’t matter whether the percentage is 0.03% or 17%. The number itself is unprovable, for obvious reasons. It does matter that the cost of a social policy which include the death penalty is that innocent people must die. For that reason, I am opposed to it.

The cost of a social policy which does not include the death penalty is also that innocent people will die, and in fact it seems fairly certain that even more innocents will die without it than with it. Your indignation is very selective.

Ender

 

[Ender]

St. Paul got the message; it continues to elude others.

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

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

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

Ender

 

[centurionguard]

It is hard to take this argument seriously. The idea that the teaching being referred to here as “necessary for all time” is the explanation of how the term “blood” is used in the OT is ludicrous.
Surely it is reasonable to identify internal inconsistencies. The Catechism contains statements in 2260 and 2266 that are not consistent with 2267. Pointing this out is not an appeal to the Catechism but to reason.
“You’re wrong” is not a very compelling argument.
The Catechism of Trent is only one of the many documents that expresses the Church’s position on capital punishment. Section 2267, and that part of Evangelium Vitae on which it is based, are not supported by anything the Church had ever taught about capital punishment. My agenda is nothing more than presenting what the Church teaches, which does not include 2267 as that is opinion, not doctrine.

Ender

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

Of particular emphasis is:

**Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
Quote:
405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”. Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”. The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness. **