Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[pnewton]

If executions for murder were just punishments in the past then they are just punishments now.

Let me apply your statement to Achor.

If killing a man and his whole family for greed was just punishment in the past, then it is just punishment now.

So, was God unjust in the past, do you think killing a man’s whole family as punishment is just today, or can what constitutes just punishment change?

I know which I believe.

 

[dudleysharp]

• “On the contrary, * Augustine says to Publicola (Ep. xlvii): "When we do a thing for a* good and lawful purpose, if thereby we unintentionally cause harm to anyone, it should by no means be imputed to us.” Now it sometimes happens by chance that a person is killed as a result of something done for a good purpose. Therefore the person who did it is not accounted guilty."* (Aquinas ST I/II 64,8)

Ender

I recall some biblical passages regarding what we might call negligent and/or non negligant injuries and the sanctions for them.

In some cases it is unintended that injury was to occur, but there was some element of culpability, via negligence or lack of concentration, etc., that caused the injury and, thereore, it is just to sanction, but less than intentional harm.

 

[Ender]

Let me apply your statement to Achor.

I’m not sure this is any more valid than claiming executions are prohibited because God spared Cain. I don’t know anything about the incident with Achor and I am also unaware of anything the Church has said about it so I have no idea how to interpret the event, but also no reason to accept your interpretation.

If killing a man and his whole family for greed was just punishment in the past, then it is just punishment now.

If God did it, I would assume that - for him and in those circumstances - it was just.

So, was God unjust in the past, do you think killing a man’s whole family as punishment is just today, or can what constitutes just punishment change?

I know which I believe.

No, what constitutes just punishment cannot change because of the definition of “just”, that is, “commensurate with the severity of the crime.” The severity of the crime cannot change with time (albeit some crimes are mitigated by circumstances) therefore the punishment cannot change.

Ender

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please understand that contradicting the teaching a Pontiff on a matter of morals is not acceptable on a Catholic Forum. You may ask questions to better understand his teaching. You may provide other authoritative resources that represent your understanding.

However, remember that this is YOUR understanding and that no one on these threads has the authority nor the credentials to blatantly call the moral teachings of a pope an error.

Stick to the subject and avoid statements about people who are in legitimate positions of authority and who have legitimate authority to teach.

Thank You,

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Ender]

I recall some biblical passages regarding what we might call negligent and/or non negligent injuries and the sanctions for them.

In some cases it is unintended that injury was to occur, but there was some element of culpability, via negligence or lack of concentration, etc., that caused the injury and, therefore, it is just to sanction, but less than intentional harm.

I don’t question that accidental harm caused by negligence is sanctioned; my point, and the significance of the comment from Aquinas, is that not all accidental harm constitutes culpable negligence. If bad things happen even after one has done one’s best there is no fault. This is applicable to the criminal justice system where an innocent person is executed. This would not apply if the trial was unfair or evidence withheld, but it would apply if, despite taking all the reasonable precautions, an innocent man was convicted.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Please understand that contradicting the teaching a Pontiff on a matter of morals is not acceptable on a Catholic Forum. You may ask questions to better understand his teaching. You may provide other authoritative resources that represent your understanding.

However, remember that this is YOUR understanding and that no one on these threads has the authority nor the credentials to blatantly call the moral teachings of a pope an error.

Stick to the subject and avoid statements about people who are in legitimate positions of authority and who have legitimate authority to teach.

Thank You,

Thomas Casey
Moderator

The last thing I want to do is pick a fight with a moderator but there is a relevant point that I think needs to be addressed … but I will start by agreeing with your comment.

One of the issues I have raised is about the nature of JPII’s comments on capital punishment. I believe they are prudential and not doctrinal and cannot in fact be called “the moral teaching of a pope.” This is why I can agree with your comment but still believe that it is not applicable in this particular instance.

If JPII’s comments are an opinion then they are not doctrine and Catholics do not have an obligation to assent to them - and I believe that this is the position Karl Keating himself takes:

Beyond that, it 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. (2004)

I want to avoid contravening your instructions but I also want to continue the discussion, which for better or worse is based on the belief that the comments in 2267 are incorrect.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If JPII’s comments are an opinion then they are not doctrine and Catholics do not have an obligation to assent to them - and I believe that this is the position Karl Keating himself takes:

Beyond that, it 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. (2004)

I want to avoid contravening your instructions but I also want to continue the discussion, which for better or worse is based on the belief that the comments in 2267 are incorrect.

Ender

I think the problem lies in calling 2267 an error. Saying it is incorrect is not so bad, as long as it is admitted to be an opinion. As I said earlier, if we recognized this as including prudential judgement, then we have to acknowledge that in may be prudent or imprudent, but not a doctrinal error. I think that was where the line was being crossed.

 

[verum_peto_1]

verum peto;6809100:

We know that states in the US which implement the death penalty the most aggressively have no lower crime rates than those which don’t. We know that countries without the death penalty often have lower crime rates than many countries which do have the death penalty. We know that crime rates have never been shown to increase any more over the same time period in states where the death penalty is abolished or overturned, than in neighboring states where it continues to be enforced. QUOTE]

VP:

Apparently, you don’t understand deterrence.

Read these in their entirety.

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

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

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

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

Dudley - Apparently you don’t understand death penalty as a deterrent. Here, read these:

amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence/page.do?id=1101085

deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-about-deterrence-and-death-penalty

 

[verum_peto_1]

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Capital punishment has become a major issue in the Church, as this excellent discussion notes.

I’ve written on it in one published book, Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, available at Amazon, and in a recent paper published in the November/December 2009 issue of the Social Justice Review, Capital Punishment and the Constancy of Catholic Social Teaching.

Here is an excerpt from the paper:

While Catholic social teaching has always supported capital punishment, based on scripture, tradition, and teaching as expressed in the two universal catechisms (that of the Council of Trent and that post-Vatican II), the death penalty has been opposed by some in the Catholic hierarchy as unnecessary, with current criminal justice technology being judged adequate to the protection of the innocent against the aggressor, meeting the criteria established by the Holy See in 1997:

"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. . . " (*Catechism of the Catholic Church *#2267)

Capital punishment as a way of protecting the innocent from the aggressor has become one of the central issues in the social teaching of the Church, and the ambiguity about it during the past several decades, after two millennia of seeming certainty, places the credibility of the Church’s teaching itself in doubt. This impairs the Church’s social teaching as an effective tool for conversion, and causes further risk to the immortal souls of those who are lost and whose being found largely depends on the constancy of that social teaching.

My personal thinking on capital punishment has gone through three phases. A former professional criminal, I served twelve years in maximum security federal and state prisons, where I gained an intimate knowledge of unrepentant evil. At that time I supported capital punishment, especially for those crimes against innocent women and children that professional criminals associate with its just use. When I became a Catholic, I moved in opposition to it, because I was taught during the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults that the Church opposed it, and it was very important to me to think with the Church in all things. Later, continuing my studies on Church teaching, I returned to a position of support when I discovered that the Church’s teaching opposed only the improper use of capital punishment. My position has become more certain with my growing realization of how deeply support for capital punishment is woven into Church doctrine as an important aspect of the protection of the innocent against the murderer, “for all time” as the Catechism notes:

“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’ (Genesis 9:5-6). The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life (Leviticus 17:14). This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (#2260)

An important point was made by Avery Cardinal Dulles, in 2004, regarding the argument reversing the traditional support of the Church for capital punishment:

“The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines. . .”

(Avery Cardinal Dulles, “Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty”, in E. C. Owens, J. D. Carlson & E. P. Elshtain, Eds., *Religion and the Death Penalty *(Cambridge, England: Eerdmans Publ., 2004), p. 26.

 

[dudleysharp]

VP:

I have read those. That is why I told you to read my posts in their entirety. The links you provided are representative if not the exact errors that I corrected.

 

[dudleysharp]

A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate.

VP:

Again, That is precisely one of the reasons I asked you to read my links. Evidently, you did not.

Specific to your qoted comments, above, which are inaccurate, is a rebuttal of that article, as I posted, previously (I hope you read it, now):

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

 

[dudleysharp]

An important point was made by Avery Cardinal Dulles, in 2004, regarding the argument reversing the traditional support of the Church for capital punishment

David: Good to see you here.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Hello Dudley, glad to see you here also.

Avery Cardinal Dulles was such a prominent Catholic intellectual–even Pope Benedict came to visit him shortly before he passed on–that I have been somewhat surprised that his thinking around capital punishment hasn’t played a larger role in the deliberations of the US Bishops, but hope springs eternal, and I agree with him that we will eventually return to the traditional Catholic approach to capital punishment and just war.

 

[Lycorth]

From the Catechism of Saint Thomas Aquinas *:

The Execution of Criminals.–Some have held that the killing of man is prohibited altogether. They believe that judges in the civil courts are murderers, who condemn men to death according to the laws. Against this St. Augustine says that God by this Commandment does not take away from Himself the right to kill. Thus, we read: “I will kill and I will make to live.” * *It is, therefore, lawful for a judge to kill according to a mandate from God, since in this God operates, and every law is a command of God: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” And again: “For if thou dost that which is evil, fear; for he beareth not the sword in vain. Because he is God’s minister.” To Moses also it was said: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live.” And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority.

From the Catechism of the Council of Trent* *:

Execution of Criminals* *

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. * ***The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

** The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord. **

From the Catechism of Saint Pius X* *:

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; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:* *

**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, non-lethal 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 non-existent.”
*
And in order to clarify that the excerpt in red is a non-binding opinion of the late pontiff rather than a doctrinal statement: *

From Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion* * by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. * ***While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. **There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

*The Catholic Church does not oppose the death penalty and never has.Individual Catholics are free to personally oppose the death penalty or to support it, but it is erroneous to claim that the Church officially and absolutely opposes it. Abortion and euthanasia are opposed - the death penalty is not.

Catholics opposed to the death penalty can argue from a personal humanitarian perspective, but not from a universally binding doctrinal one.

 

[wheels10]

This is the way I see it. Yes, the death penalty is a “Just” punishment for one that has killed another person. After all we have the following verse from the bible:

Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

So the above Justice is good. However, as Christians, Jesus taught us the following:

Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. 41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, 42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. 43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 6:9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14** For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences. **

So while Justice is Good, Mercy is Better. Do not our sins require death for payment? And yet Jesus took our place and shows us Mercy. How can we do anything different? While I’m not saying that we should let criminals loose, I think life in prison, which will give the person a better chance to possibly become remorseful, and ask God for forgiveness prior to death is a more merciful sentence than death.

God Bless.

 

[Ender]

So while Justice is Good, Mercy is Better.

We cannot play one virtue off against another; it is necessary to accommodate both. Both are equally necessary.

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism, A. 177)

There is a place for mercy to be considered in any sentence handed down but there is no place for mercy to be handed out indiscriminately. Mercy is not something that is appropriate in every instance; justice must be considered as well.

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy)“obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Aquinas ST II/II 30,3)

Ender

 

[Lycorth]

Matthew 5:38 You have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other: 40 And if a man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him. 41 And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, 42 Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. 43 You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thy enemy. 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: 45 That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. 46 For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? 47 And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? 48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Yes, we read that in Scripture, but how do you know the sense in which that is to be understood by us today?

Christ was speaking to certain people at a certain time and place, not to all men at all times. Read literally, those verses would seem to justify pacifism and would be dangerous for Christians to follow.

CAF member *Sir Knight *had it explained to him by a monsignor once that Jesus was giving his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans. According to Roman law, a Roman citizen could slap a member of an occupied people or a slave if that person offended the Roman citizen, but only once. If the Roman did it twice, the person whom he slapped was justified in fighting back. Thus, when the offensive religion of Christianity was being preached, the disciples were to turn the other cheek and endure that single slap, as no sane Roman would offer a second and possibly start a fight for no reason.

Either way, that has nothing to do with criminal justice, and would be a more than insane way to approach civil law. Unless you are the Magisterium of the Church, be very careful when you select Scripture verses because the Holy Spirit does not guide rank-and-file Catholics when they read God’s Word like Protestants assume He does.

If the death penalty or self-defense were wrong, Christ through His Church would have taught us so, ages ago. This is not so.

Matthew 6:9 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14** For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences. **

So while Justice is Good, Mercy is Better. Do not our sins require death for payment? And yet Jesus took our place and shows us Mercy. How can we do anything different? While I’m not saying that we should let criminals loose, I think life in prison, which will give the person a better chance to possibly become remorseful, and ask God for forgiveness prior to death is a more merciful sentence than death.

God Bless.

Justice and mercy are not competing virtues to be played off one another, as Ender explained. Yes, criminals should be given a chance to repent, even violent ones, but also society must be protected and the innocent who have not declared war on their fellow man must come first, and it is wrong to require the innocent to pay for eternal prison sentences when they struggle to make ends meet for themselves.

 

[wheels10]

We cannot play one virtue off against another; it is necessary to accommodate both. Both are equally necessary.

Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)

God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. (Baltimore Catechism, A. 177)

There is a place for mercy to be considered in any sentence handed down but there is no place for mercy to be handed out indiscriminately. Mercy is not something that is appropriate in every instance; justice must be considered as well.

Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy)“obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Aquinas ST II/II 30,3)

Ender

I am not suggesting that we should not have justice served. What I am suggesting is that both Justice and Mercy be applied. Are you suggesting that life in prison for murder would not be a Just sentence?

 

[wheels10]

Yes, we read that in Scripture, but how do you know the sense in which that is to be understood by us today?

Christ was speaking to certain people at a certain time and place, not to all men at all times. Read literally, those verses would seem to justify pacifism and would be dangerous for Christians to follow. .

I agree, it is very dangerous to follow the path of Christ. We have Jesus Himself that was put to death, as well as many martyrs that did follow His path. I’m not a pacifist. I do believe in self defense, but I draw the line at killing.

Yes, criminals should be given a chance to repent, even violent ones, but also society must be protected and the innocent who have not declared war on their fellow man must come first, and it is wrong to require the innocent to pay for eternal prison sentences when they struggle to make ends meet for themselves.

Again I agree, choosing the narrow path will always be more costly than taking the wide and less expensive path.