Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[Ender]

Because, again, that is a separate section. We can not proof-text. In exercising a recourse to capital punishment there is already evidence that shows a person committed murder. From a Catholic point of view, the justified execution would also need to include the inability to safely incarcerate.

It is not a question of proof texting, it is a problem of conflicting sections. Self defense may not be preemptive. You believe this as do I. 2267, however, allows preemptive self defense; there is simply no other way to understand what the words say. It says it is acceptable to execute someone if that is the only way to keep him from killing again. The punishment is acceptable if it defends against what might be done in the future. How is that not preemptive? Yes, there are separate sections involved and one would reasonably expect them to reinforce one another, but that is not the case here where 2267 permits something another section condemns.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I think we do not give enough credit to those who compile this work. You quote the Council of Trent. I am reasonably certain Pope John Paul II was familiar with the council of Trent, as was all the Curia. Your knowledge (and dudley’s) of Church Tradition may exceed those of the Holy Father and all who contribute to the doctrine of the Church, but I can not count on it. Therefore, I have no option but to limit any defense the death penalty to the what the Catechism allows.

So long as you stick to the two arguments “JPII said so” and “It’s in the Catechism” you can sustain your position, but as soon as you try to defend EV 56 and CCC 2267 based on what the Church teaches and has taught from the beginning your position will crumble. There is no defense for what is contained in 2267 other than “It’s there so it must be right.” Nor is it correct to say your position is based on what the Catechism allows as 2267 conflicts with other parts of that same Catechism. You have chosen one part of the Catechism as the controlling section without attempting to reconcile what it says there with what it says elsewhere - which is understandable as such a reconciliation is simply not possible.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

So long as you stick to the two arguments “JPII said so” and “It’s in the Catechism” you can sustain your position, but as soon as you try to defend EV 56 and CCC 2267 based on what the Church teaches and has taught from the beginning your position will crumble.

It is not my position, it is the Church’s position. I see neither a crumbling or the conflict you do.

 

[Betterave]

I agree with you but this raises an interesting question: if self defense may not be pre-emptive then how is it that we may execute someone to “defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”? That is certainly an example of pre-emptive self defense because there is nothing in that statement (or anywhere else in 2267) that talks about the just punishment for the crime already committed, it is solely about preventing the next crime , which is an entirely pre-emptive concern.

Ender

With all due respect, Ender, this argument just shows what a lousy exegete you are. We know that pre-emptive self-defense against an as-yet innocent potential aggressor is not legitimate. Therefore any intelligent person ought to conclude that the legitimacy of execution to defend innocents cannot be based solely on the defense of innocents - there must also be an element of just retribution in play. You should not assume that the writers of the Catechism are so stupid as not to have noticed this, just so you can legitimate your claim that they contradict themselves. It’s really not that hard to understand, provided you’re not purposely trying to be difficult.

 

[Betterave]

I thank you and pnewton for the correction. My comments could have been more reserved and wise. I am most appreciative of those comments.

I give very short shrift to the opposing views, invoked in EV and the CCC, because they are contradicted by the facts. I, as everyone, am very concerned about protecting innocent lives. EV and CCC either did not consider the cost to innocents if the death penalty was not invoked or if they did, we can find no evidence of it in those writings.

For me, this was an astounding reversal of the Church’s normative concentration on protecting innocents. The evidence, not contradicted on this board or by the Church is that innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.

If the Holy See so desired, they could find that thousands upon thousands of innocents are killed every year, because of the problems with worldwide criminal justice systems.

Just in that very small set of murderers that have served on the US death penalty since 1973, the beginning of the modern death penalty era in the US, we find that at least 8% of those on death row had murdered at least one person, prior to committing the additonal murder(s) which put them on death row, or at least 640 additonal innocents murdered.

How many innocents do we have proof have been executed in the US since 1973? Zero.

That is just one example.

2267 cannot stand because it makes prudential errors that contradict established Church teachings.

Here is a major confusion in your argument: 2267 offers a general assessment of the current world-historical state of security that can be provided by incarceration. This assessment may or may not be accurate. But as Ender notes, the claim is a social-scientific one and as such does not contribute any principle that could possibly contradict established Church teaching (which necessarily deals only with unchangeable principles). Make sense? The correct way to read the assertion, then, is as a conditional: “If incarceration can provide adequate security…” This is the correct reading because the statement is specifically predicated upon a particular historical situation obtaining, and as such it is automatically open to revisionary assessment insofar as the historical situation it envisions may not obtain in all times and places (obviously - since it did not so obtain in the past and history, broadly speaking, ‘tends to repeat itself’). Make sense?

 

[Ender]

With all due respect, Ender, this argument just shows what a lousy exegete you are.

Ahh, finally a mature argument. How refreshing.

We know that pre-emptive self-defense against an as-yet innocent potential aggressor is not legitimate. Therefore any intelligent person ought to conclude that the legitimacy of execution to defend innocents cannot be based solely on the defense of innocents - there must also be an element of just retribution in play.

True, the legitimacy of any punishment cannot be based solely on defense as that is only a secondary objective; it is retribution that justifies punishment.

If execution is the just punishment for some crimes - as it would have to be for the Church to support it (which she has done since the beginning) - then what does defense add? If execution is just - if it meets the requirement that it be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime - then how is it not unjust to impose a lesser punishment, and if execution is not a just punishment for a past crime then how could it be a just punishment to prevent a future crime?

2267 says that it is wrong to execute a person for a crime he has already committed, that retribution does not require it … but it then goes on to say that even though it is wrong to use it to meet the primary objective it is OK to use it to satisfy a secondary objective. This creates the bizarre situation where it is acceptable to execute a person to prevent a crime for which he could not be executed for committing. This still works out to be preemptive self defense in that the severity of his punishment is now being determined by what he has not yet done.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

Ahh, finally a mature argument. How refreshing.

Ender, an argument is not the same as an observation. And there was nothing immature about my observation.

“If execution is the just punishment for some crimes - as it would have to be for the Church to support it (which she has done since the beginning) - then what does defense add?”

It adds a reason for considering execution to be not only just but desirable.

“If execution is just - if it meets the requirement that it be of commensurate severity with the severity of the crime - then how is it not unjust to impose a lesser punishment?”

It’s very simple: “A is just” does not imply “not-A is unjust.” This is not only a basic logical principle, it is a basic principle of Christianity.

“…and if execution is not a just punishment for a past crime then how could it be a just punishment to prevent a future crime?”

It couldn’t be, there is no such thing as a *punishment *for a *future *crime!

“2267 says that it is wrong to execute a person for a crime he has already committed,”

No, it clearly does not! It says that it is rarely necessary, not that it is wrong.

“…that retribution does not require it…”

That is correct.

“…but it then goes on to say that even though it is wrong to use it to meet the primary objective…”

Again, Ender, it clearly does not say this.

“…it is OK to use it to satisfy a secondary objective.”

No, it may be necessary to use it in light of a secondary objective.

“This creates the bizarre situation where it is acceptable to execute a person to prevent a crime for which he could not be executed for committing. This still works out to be preemptive self defense in that the severity of his punishment is now being determined by what he has not yet done.”

Your exegesis is as bad as ever. Even after your error has been explicitly pointed out you repeat the exact same mistake.

 

[Ender]

It adds a reason for considering execution to be not only just but desirable.

One would think that justice would be desirable, so tell me what is more desirable than a just punishment?

“A is just” does not imply “not-A is unjust.”

Not exactly. In a general sense this may be true but in this particular case it is not. A just punishment must be neither too harsh nor too lenient. If capital punishment is just then it must satisfy that requirement, but if its level of severity is right, then how can a (significantly) lesser level of severity also be right? They cannot both satisfy the requirement of retribution: either execution is too harsh or imprisonment is too lenient, and if that is true then one of them is an unjust punishment.

there is no such thing as a *punishment *for a *future *crime!

True … so what justifies executing people to prevent them from killing in the future? We have already said that retribution does not necessitate execution, so on what basis is it permitted? It can clearly have nothing to do with punishment … which leaves preemptive self defense.

No, it may be necessary to use it in light of a secondary objective.

Necessary? It is not justified by retributive punishment so what justifies it? When does it become necessary in this context to kill someone for what he might do in the future?

Your exegesis is as bad as ever. Even after your error has been explicitly pointed out you repeat the exact same mistake.

Your arguments are as vacuous as ever (just an observation). You have no basis on which to justify an exection under any circumstances. You have already accepted that retribution does not justify it and you certainly don’t accept that self defense justifies it. You cannot seriously believe that “necessity” justifies it - but you’ve offered nothing else.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

One would think that justice would be desirable, so tell me what is more desirable than a just punishment?

Mercy and repentence.

 

[Ender]

Q: what is more desirable than a just punishment?
A: Mercy and repentence.

On the face of it this seems like a reasonable response but I have never been comfortable with the idea that one virtue can simply override another. It seems more reasonable to expect that the virtues should complement one another rather than oppose one another. As JPII said in Dives in Misericordia: “Mercy differs from justice but is not in opposition to it.” As for repentence, we know that rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment which the Church recognizes but it, unlike justice, is secondary, and in any event repentence depends on an action of the sinner which is not something the State can control. The State’s obligation is to impose a just punishment for the crime; it is the individual’s obligation to repent.

I also think you may be using mercy when what is actually being suggested is clemency. I have seen no argument that suggests that clemency - or mercy - is something that should be universally applicable as a matter of course. That does not meet the obligation imposed by justice.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

On the face of it this seems like a reasonable response but I have never been comfortable with the idea that one virtue can simply override another.

It doesn’t. However, mercy does not override justice and* justice does not override mercy.* This is the very reason why the Church goes beyond both and uses a criteria of the protection of society.

 

[Ender]

It doesn’t. However, mercy does not override justice and* justice does not override mercy.* This is the very reason why the Church goes beyond both and uses a criteria of the protection of society.

Well the protection of society is only a secondary objective of punishment while justice is the primary objective so I don’t see any way to reasonably claim that protection - which is not even a requirement that all punishment satisfy - can be said to go beyond either justice or mercy.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Well the protection of society is only a secondary objective of punishment while justice is the primary objective so I don’t see any way to reasonably claim that protection - which is not even a requirement that all punishment satisfy - can be said to go beyond either justice or mercy.

Ender

You keep swapping something said about punishment and using it for the death penalty. I think this is the key to why a few people see 2267 as a contradiction. What was said about punishment in general applies to the death penalty, but that particular punishment has another key factor, namely, death. Thus, why nothing in 2267 contradicts the previous chapters, it does include a value of life that is not considered in other punishments.

It is one thing when people say that 2267 contradicts traditional church teaching. I do not agree, but I understand why people think that. When people say that 2267contradicts the previous chapters though I just shake my head. This shows me a great desire to read into the Catechism what one wants it to say instead of taking the role of student. This work is not put together by imbeciles. There is not contradiction ten sentences away. If something were not understood, my reaction would have to be that the problem lay with me rather than something so fanciful.

 

[dudleysharp]

When people say that 2267contradicts the previous chapters though I just shake my head. This shows me a great desire to read into the Catechism what one wants it to say instead of taking the role of student.

As a student, when I first read EV and this Catechism section, I had the same reaction. I shook my head. After reading it many times and considering traditon teachings, as well as the reality of correctional systems, I had a discussion with a Catholic scholar at a US Catholic University, who acknowledged all of my concerns, offering no rebuttal to them. Yes, he was only one scholar, but I was specifically referred to him because of my inquiries into EV and the death penalty. At this time, EV had been out for about a year.

It was such a poorly considered prudential judgment, I never considered that it may be amended into the Catechism. Soon, thereafter, it was.

We all know that the amendment to the Catechism was changed because of EV. This newest Catechism had been underway for a decade or more and there was much less time and consideration of that amendment, than of the entire Catechism. And it shows.

I suspect most of your are aware of this note from Karl Keating on the matter.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

Based upon what may have been Dulles last interview, it seems like he ended up adopting Rutger’s position, speculating that the Church may have to revert to the Church’s tradition teachings, meaning an abandonment of both EV and the amendment it provoked into the Catechism.

There is no doubt that what PJPII wanted to do in EV and later with the amendment, was to so drastically limit the death penalty as to bring about its end. Any of you who have read PJPII’s later speeches on the death penalty understand that such was a personal goal of PJPII.

Personal. And that was entered into the Catechism.

No one has disputed that execution is different than lesser sanctions.

However, the question is “Is it in the spirit of truth that the Church can separate different sanctions in such a manner, when the separation requires different foundations in the purposes of punishment?”

No, the foundations must be the same. It is the foundation upon which all punishments must adhere. What pnewton wrongly does it to allow them to have different foundations. They cannot. Such foundation cannot be disturbed only because of a personal bias by one Pope, a bias which contradicts the purposes of all sanction, as well as traditional teachings of the Magisterium.

All of this is the result of a prudential judgement, a personal bias of PJPII, that was provable wrong in its foundation, and which was later amendment into the Catechism, with that error intact.

As it stands, this error filled prudential judgement tells us that we must defer to murderers, that we must do everything we can to keep them alive, a teaching that has a foundation in an error prone and unevenly regulated criminal justice system, and which brings about more sufferring for innocents.

Such is the reality of EV and its amendment into the Catechism.

 

[Ender]

You keep swapping something said about punishment and using it for the death penalty. I think this is the key to why a few people see 2267 as a contradiction. What was said about punishment in general applies to the death penalty, but that particular punishment has another key factor, namely, death. Thus, why nothing in 2267 contradicts the previous chapters, it does include a value of life that is not considered in other punishments.

There is certainly a uniqueness to the death penalty that applies to no other punishment, but even accounting for this there are still severe problems with 2267. As I pointed out earlier, the first statement made in that section is factually incorrect: the Church never applied a defense of society condition to the use of capital punishment. If this was in fact the traditional teaching of the Church as is claimed then someone ought to be able to point it out. It is obvious to my why no one has yet done so - such a tradition does not exist.

It is one thing when people say that 2267 contradicts traditional church teaching. I do not agree, but I understand why people think that.

I am hard pressed to understand why you don’t agree at least with this. Surely you recognize how different 2267 is from the teaching on this subject in the Catechism of Trent. What was written there is the true tradition of the Church on the subject and what is in the current Catechism represents a major change.

When people say that 2267contradicts the previous chapters though I just shake my head. This shows me a great desire to read into the Catechism what one wants it to say instead of taking the role of student.

You are free to denigrate my arguments but you are prohibited from uncharitably judging my motivation. Aside from the fact that even if my motives were improper my arguments stand or fall on their own merit.

There is not contradiction ten sentences away. If something were not understood, my reaction would have to be that the problem lay with me rather than something so fanciful.

Your second comment here is quite reasonable and I have been cautious in proposing otherwise, but the evidence exists nonetheless that 2267 is a personal opinion, that it is based on erroneous assumptions, and that it is not in accord with what the Church teaches … and I find the evidence persuasive.

You brought up the aspect of the sanctity of life, an aspect unique to capital punishment. How do we know life is sacred? Because man is made in the image of God. And how do we know this? Because we are told this in Genesis 9:6, a passage that is routinely cited in one encyclical after another. The problem is that this passage, which calls for the execution of a murderer, is now reversed and is used to oppose his execution. How is this not a contradiction? The Catechism cites this passage and goes so far as to state that it is not just true but “necessary for all time” yet seven sections later its plain meaning is not simply ignored, it is … contradicted. It is very well for you to raise the expertise of the writers of the Catechism as your reason for accepting 2267 but you provide no explanation as to how one can accept that section without rejecting 2260.

Beyond this (and this goes to the argument Betterave and I are having) if you accept that retribution alone is an inadequate reason for executing someone - which 2267 clearly does - then you are left with no justification for executions whatever, including the defense of society. 2267 is not only at odds with Church teaching it is at odds with itself.

Ender

 

[wheels10]

As a student, when I first read EV and this Catechism section, I had the same reaction. I shook my head. After reading it many times and considering traditon teachings, as well as the reality of correctional systems, I had a discussion with a Catholic scholar at a US Catholic University, who acknowledged all of my concerns, offering no rebuttal to them. Yes, he was only one scholar, but I was specifically referred to him because of my inquiries into EV and the death penalty. At this time, EV had been out for about a year.

It was such a poorly considered prudential judgment, I never considered that it may be amended into the Catechism. Soon, thereafter, it was.

We all know that the amendment to the Catechism was changed because of EV. This newest Catechism had been underway for a decade or more and there was much less time and consideration of that amendment, than of the entire Catechism. And it shows.

I suspect most of your are aware of this note from Karl Keating on the matter.

catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

Based upon what may have been Dulles last interview, it seems like he ended up adopting Rutger’s position, speculating that the Church may have to revert to the Church’s tradition teachings, meaning an abandonment of both EV and the amendment it provoked into the Catechism.

There is no doubt that what PJPII wanted to do in EV and later with the amendment, was to so drastically limit the death penalty as to bring about its end. Any of you who have read PJPII’s later speeches on the death penalty understand that such was a personal goal of PJPII.

Personal. And that was entered into the Catechism.

No one has disputed that execution is different than lesser sanctions.

However, the question is “Is it in the spirit of truth that the Church can separate different sanctions in such a manner, when the separation requires different foundations in the purposes of punishment?”

No, the foundations must be the same. It is the foundation upon which all punishments must adhere. What pnewton wrongly does it to allow them to have different foundations. They cannot. Such foundation cannot be disturbed only because of a personal bias by one Pope, a bias which contradicts the purposes of all sanction, as well as traditional teachings of the Magisterium.

All of this is the result of a prudential judgement, a personal bias of PJPII, that was provable wrong in its foundation, and which was later amendment into the Catechism, with that error intact.

As it stands, this error filled prudential judgement tells us that we must defer to murderers, that we must do everything we can to keep them alive, a teaching that has a foundation in an error prone and unevenly regulated criminal justice system, and which brings about more sufferring for innocents.

Such is the reality of EV and its amendment into the Catechism.

Exodus 21:23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Matthew 5:38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Does the text from Matthew conflict with the text from Exodus? How can it since both are coming from God, and God will not contradict Himself. Are not both the text from Exodus and Matthew speaking the Truth, and both are Good? So what makes one choose one course of action vs. the other, when both actions are Good?

Matthew 7:12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

I think it is generally understood that the decisions that we make in this world will have an effect on the outcome of our Lives after death.

 

[pnewton]

You brought up the aspect of the sanctity of life, an aspect unique to capital punishment. How do we know life is sacred? Because man is made in the image of God. And how do we know this? Because we are told this in Genesis 9:6, a passage that is routinely cited in one encyclical after another. The problem is that this passage, which calls for the execution of a murderer, is now reversed and is used to oppose his execution. How is this not a contradiction?

I do not see the contradiction because I do not accept the first premise you give. Rather, I understand the sanctity of life, not from the Genesis account, but rather through the teaching of the Catholic Church.

FYI - I did not refer to you uncharitably. If I ever do, please feel free to report it. I deliberately left the statement nonspecific to any person (“People say…”) and clearly marked this as my own opinion ( "This shows me …).

 

[Ender]

I do not see the contradiction because I do not accept the first premise you give. Rather, I understand the sanctity of life, not from the Genesis account, but rather through the teaching of the Catholic Church.

But the Church understands the sanctity of life from Genesis. It is specifically Gen 9:6 that is cited repeatedly when the Church talks about this. The phrase “man is made in the image of God” - which is the source of man’s sanctity - is directly from Gen 9:6. JPII makes this point even in Evangelium Vitae (39):

*The biblical text is concerned to emphasize how the sacredness of life has its foundation in God and in his creative activity: “For God made man in his own image” (Gen 9:6). *

The Genesis account is the Church’s view of the sanctity of life.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Does the text from Matthew conflict with the text from Exodus?

I am very reluctant to offer any personal interpretation of Scripture. I let the Church interpret Scripture and base my position on my understanding of what she has said

So what makes one choose one course of action vs. the other, when both actions are Good?

One way to understand these issues is to distinguish between the obligations of the individual and the obligations of the State. The comments in Matthew apply to the individual but the State has very different duties, for while the individual is forbidden to punish the guilty the State is obligated to do so. The individual is obligated to forgive but the State is duty bound to dispense justice, nor in fact does forgiveness eliminate the need for punishment.

In any event, the Church has always taught that the State has the right and duty to punish the guilty and that that right extends to capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

One would think that justice would be desirable, so tell me what is more desirable than a just punishment?

lol!

Not exactly. In a general sense this may be true but in this particular case it is not. A just punishment must be neither too harsh nor too lenient. If capital punishment is just then it must satisfy that requirement, but if its level of severity is right, then how can a (significantly) lesser level of severity also be right? They cannot both satisfy the requirement of retribution: either execution is too harsh or imprisonment is too lenient, and if that is true then one of them is an unjust punishment.

You miss a major point: the execution of justice by secular authorities ALWAYS extrapolates beyond simple demands for justice. (That’s why secular authorities justifiably don’t execute anyone for making porn, for example, whereas God, in his capacity of executor of justice…) This is necessarily the case given the very basic theological truth that God is the only truly just judge because no one else has the knowledge required to make truly just judgments. Thus your setting up the standard of perfect justice being executed by secular authorities is pure fantasy. It sounds great (especially if you’re a Marxist), but it is not the standard to which secular authorities are supposed to try to aspire.

I notice that you never responded to my question whether you think we should still execute thieves. I wonder why…

True … so what justifies executing people to prevent them from killing in the future? We have already said that retribution does not necessitate execution, so on what basis is it permitted? It can clearly have nothing to do with punishment … which leaves preemptive self defense.

No, Ender, you’re not listening. Of course it has something to do with punishment! Good grief, man!

Necessary? It is not justified by retributive punishment so what justifies it? When does it become necessary in this context to kill someone for what he might do in the future?
Your arguments are as vacuous as ever (just an observation). You have no basis on which to justify an exection under any circumstances. You have already accepted that retribution does not justify it and you certainly don’t accept that self defense justifies it. You cannot seriously believe that “necessity” justifies it - but you’ve offered nothing else.

Ender

“Necessary” judged relative to the social good, Ender. (Your ‘observation’ is…)