Death penalty and torture double-standard?

[Oscarthecat]

Capital punishment has always been morally justified; the Church has been consistent on this point. Even JPII (Evangelium Vitae 1995) recognized this - while at the same time closing the door in practice he left it open in theory. His position, by the way, is not supported by anything the Church has said on the subject prior to 1995.

The primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the sin, that is, it is retributive. It is an issue of justice. Sin is to punishment as cause is to effect. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime for the punishment to be just and for some crimes the only commensurate punishment is execution.

Ender

That’s all well and good, but my comments were intended to keep the focus of this conversation on the morality of torture, and not get sidetracked into a full blown discussion on capital punishment.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Capital punishment has always been morally justified; the Church has been consistent on this point. Even JPII (Evangelium Vitae 1995) recognized this - while at the same time closing the door in practice he left it open in theory. His position, by the way, is not supported by anything the Church has said on the subject prior to 1995.

The primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the sin, that is, it is retributive. It is an issue of justice. Sin is to punishment as cause is to effect. The severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime for the punishment to be just and for some crimes the only commensurate punishment is execution.

Ender

And just as a point of fact…

The Church’s position on Capital Punishment has been consistent, insofar as the Church has always recognized the right of the State to use Capital Punishment under specific circumstances.

But that certainly does not imply that any or all actual instances of capital punishment have ever satisfied the criteria laid out by the Church.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;

Agreed. Be it more Catholic or not, the definition encompasses more and more actions regardless of what they are. To many, a blowtorch and candle wax are the same thing. Air conditioning is equal to pulling fingernails.

That’s true- which is why torture should be understood as the extreme end of the whole spectrum of inflicting physical pain or discomfort, wherein the pain and discomfort are disproportionate to the crime committed.

Once the infliction of pain or discomfort becomes disproportionate to the crime, then that act of inflicting pain or discomfort becomes an end unto itself, and wouldn’t satisfy the conditions for double-effect.

You stopped short here.

for the specific intention of compelling the subject to produce a specific action or response" in order to prevent the deaths (etc)of others.

Sure we have those who abuse their power and try to coherce false statements, but that is already illegal.

No, I didn’t stop short- regardless of your desired end, torture is still an attempt to compel another person to act.

While we are able to reliably intervene to stop someone from taking action, we are not reliably able to intervene to compel someone to act.

You can’t ignore that the function of torture is to compel action from the subject… you are torturing them with the intention of making them do something. And there is no guarantee that people will do what you want them to do when you’re attempting to compel them to act.

 

[Ender]

But that certainly does not imply that any or all actual instances of capital punishment have ever satisfied the criteria laid out by the Church.

No one ever claimed that capital punishment is universally moral in every situation or that abuses haven’t occurred.

It does strike me as a bit irrational to suggest that no instance of its use has met the Church’s criteria. The Vatican had the death penalty on the books until 1969 and had repeatedly through the centuries affirmed its use as justifiable. Remember that the criteria set forth by JPII in 1995 had never been promulgated prior to that date. Up until that point the Church recognized and supported the appropriateness of capital punishment.

Catechism 2297 “Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

Note that this does not prohibit torture for the purpose of extracting information. It was probably an oversight but in fact the UN ban on torture includes that objective as well. Just pointing out that this section of the Catechism does not resolve the question being asked.

Ender

 

[CatholicLeft]

Catechism 2297 “Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

I don’t think you looked hard enough…Try the next paragraph

#2298, “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

And also…

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2313: "Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out.”

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;

Why would you need an investigation?

Answer second paragraph below.

Really you can torture innocent people and you have no responsiblity.

If I, me personally, knowingly tortured innocent people, then I should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If I had probable cause and needed information, then I see torture as a viable option. As long as the crime is a physical harm case.

And again why would you need to prove anything would the torture not produce the proof?

You are combining all kinds of different scenarios in one here. Torturing for intelligence is different from torturing for a confession.

How do you know the “information” from the false statement they made to attempt to stop torture?

You take the information they give and verify it.

 

[neat62]

Wow, people. Great discussion! But has anyone bothered to pick up a catechism and check out what the official Church teaching is…

Well, your justification for this crime against humanity was well thought out and looked really good on paper, but I think that official Church teaching may not have come to the same conclusion.

And as you know we must follow the rules of our church, even those we might not agree with.

Hopefully no one here will ever be in a situation where you have to decide wheither to torture someone or not, but now you know the truth.

Let us pray for the Iraqi prisoners and for their tormentors. Let us also pray for those whose fear drives them to believe that by torturing our fellow human beings that we can become safer.

But self defense and war(just) can be allowed.

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

That’s true- which is why torture should be understood as the extreme end of the whole spectrum of inflicting physical pain or discomfort, wherein the pain and discomfort are disproportionate to the crime committed.

Once the infliction of pain or discomfort becomes disproportionate to the crime, then that act of inflicting pain or discomfort becomes an end unto itself, and wouldn’t satisfy the conditions for double-effect.

Agreed.

No, I didn’t stop short- regardless of your desired end, torture is still an attempt to compel another person to act.

While we are able to reliably intervene to stop someone from taking action, we are not reliably able to intervene to compel someone to act.

You can’t ignore that the function of torture is to compel action from the subject… you are torturing them with the intention of making them do something. And there is no guarantee that people will do what you want them to do when you’re attempting to compel them to act.

Yeah, to act in order to prevent deaths. Just like we have the death penalty, like you said, in order to prevent. In both cases, the same end result is sought: To save lives.

 

[porthos11]

Thanks for the reply…but in the case I presented above, we do know that he is guilty…so what now?

I believe I’ve received few posts because this is is tough one. Anyone want to take it on?

I still believe that torture is intrinsically evil and should not be done.

Given the situation you described, I’d do it anyway, if I knew that it would break him, which I think is a given in your scenario.

It would go against my beliefs, and I would take no pleasure from it, or do it for its own sake. I won’t justify it or make excuses, and I know I’d be committing a grave sin. I would be repenting of it and regretting it the very same instant I commit it, and I would tell Father Confessor the whole thing right afterwards, without intent of presumption.

It’s an imperfect world, and I pray I don’t get put in such a dillemma, because I’m sure I’ll do the wrong thing, even if to save lives.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Oscarthecat;

Yeah, to act in order to prevent deaths. Just like we have the death penalty, like you said, in order to prevent. In both cases, the same end result is sought: To save lives.

Catholic teaching doesn’t accept that the end justifies the means.

But even so, torture doesn’t directly result in saving lives- it only directly results in forcing the one being tortured to lie, tell the truth, or refuse give any information.

Only one of those three choices has the possibilty of helping to save lives, and that is still unreliable because, even if the subject chooses to cooperate, they may simply not have sufficient information.

 

[Oscarthecat]

No one ever claimed that capital punishment is universally moral in every situation or that abuses haven’t occurred.

It does strike me as a bit irrational to suggest that no instance of its use has met the Church’s criteria.

I’m not suggesting that, I’m simply trying to keep from being mired in an off-topic conversation about the DP by keeping my comments about it as neutral as possible.

I agree that the DP can, in theory, be a legitimate, moral exercise of the state, and that it is entirely possible that particular occasions of capital punishment have been consistent with Church teaching.

But now, I fully expect that someone with an axe to grind who is opposed to the death penalty will start clamoring about how it can’t ever be OK.

This is a good example of why it is pointless to try to take the middle ground on anything, because you’ll just end up being needled by both sides, instead of just one.

Note that this does not prohibit torture for the purpose of extracting information. It was probably an oversight but in fact the UN ban on torture includes that objective as well. Just pointing out that this section of the Catechism does not resolve the question being asked.
Ender

Again, since we haven’t agreed on a common definition of torture, we won’t agree on how to interpret the CCC.

My rudimentary definition of torture is the infliction of disproportionate pain or suffering to achieve a desired end.

The reason I say that it has to be disproportionate is, as I have said before, because most people would generally agree that inflicting proportionate pain or discomfort on others is not intrinsically evil.

For the sake of the argument, ignoring all of the moral principles at stake here, a simple logical problem develops when you discuss the use of proportionate pain to gather information from a subject.

How do you go about determining the proportionate level of pain or discomfort?

You could say that if you increase the level of pain slowly and incrementally until the person confesses, and then stop torturing them immediately, you can say you used proportionate pain or discomfort because you did not continue to hurt them after they confessed, and because the greatest level of pain inflicted immediately preceded the confession.

But, when you’re dealing with pain compliance you have to consider several different factors involved in inflicting pain…the level of pain is one thing, but so is the duration, the type, and whether the ongoing experience of residual pain and discomfort is proportionate.

You also have to consider whether the damage done to the persons “doing” the torture is proportionate, too.

You also have to consider the possibility that the person lacks the information necessary to satisfy your demands. In this case, any use of pain would be disproportionate to the task, because even an infinite amount of pain and discomfort would not enable them to provide information they do not have.

You also have to consider that people can be trained to resist torture- I’m not saying this is an effective tactic, but it might be possible, I guess. In this case, theoretically, what if the level of pain necessary to elicit the desired result is so great that the person would die long before you were able to torture them enough?

So, while you can say that proportionate pain is an appropriate intervention, the problem really arises when you’re engaging in any specific and deliberate infliction of pain.

However, just to throw another log on the fire, I am a big believer in failing to mitigate pain and discomfort by removing levels of comfort…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer;

Answer second paragraph below.

If I, me personally, knowingly tortured innocent people, then I should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

who’s law? (god, international law, US, Spain, Mexico)

If I had probable cause and needed information,

Who decides probable cause?

then I see torture as a viable option. As long as the crime is a physical harm case.

Who decides physical harm standard?

You are combining all kinds of different scenarios in one here. Torturing for intelligence is different from torturing for a confession.

And that is what it is, your standards will not be accepted by all?

You take the information they give and verify it.

meaning the information produced by torture is not good enough to stand alone

 

[neat62]

Oscarthecat;

Catholic teaching doesn’t accept that the end justifies the means.

Unfortunately, I know. And dealing with that rolling over, exposed underbelly is something I grapple with all the time. Most of my replies here are due to the complaining and whining about our cesspool, Liberalzation of society and not being able to fight it because we are Catholics. Many people here, including myself, should find better things to do than to get all riled up over somethings we cannot and refuse to fight to win. The more we take the “We must educate people” the more we lose. Sad, isn’t it? And frustrating.

But even so, torture doesn’t directly result in saving lives- it only directly results in forcing the one being tortured to lie, tell the truth, or refuse give any information.

Only one of those three choices has the possibilty of helping to save lives, and that is still unreliable because, even if the subject chooses to cooperate, they may simply not have sufficient information.

But when it comes down to saving lives, all means should be at our disposal, complimenting probable cause. And yes, even torture, when all other methods have failed. And of the three results, we cannot hide the fact that the truth option is one of them.

 

[neat62]

Texas Roofer;

who’s law? (god, international law, US, Spain, Mexico)

Well considering that I love in the US, then I would be concerned with US Law.

Who decides probable cause?

Our justice system.

Who decides physical harm standard?

You need a definition for physical harm?

And that is what it is, your standards will not be accepted by all?

I don’t understand this line.

meaning the information produced by torture is not good enough to stand alone

Sure. Like asking a criminal suspect if he killed that woman for her money. Is his word good enough to stand alone?

 

[RobHom]

Convictions :

Soldiers convicted in Abu Ghraib scandal
The Associated Press
October 16, 2006
Eleven U.S. soldiers have been convicted of crimes stemming from detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq:…et al. I deleted specifics to save space.

I’m not sure I would consider what was done at Abu Ghraib as torture, but… I would consider them as illegal actions on the part of the individuals who were stupid enough to do it. What they were actually guilty of was not torture in and of itself, but they violated the UCMJ, Articles 92, 93, 107, and 128 au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm

What they did was blatantly stupid, moronic, and disgraceful! However, it hardly classifies as torture.

Concerning Rumsfeld:

…………We are asking the German prosecutor to launch an investigation because the U.S. government is unwilling to open an independent investigation into the responsibility of these officials for war crimes and the U.S. has refused to join the International Criminal Court. CCR and the Iraqi victims brought this complaint to Germany as a court of last resort. Several of the defendants are stationed in Germany.
The Pentagon and the U.S. government are taking this suit very seriously. According to the Deutsche Press Agency, **Donald Rumsfeld has warned Germany that he will not attend an upcoming security conference in Munich if there is any indication of an investigation going forward, and Chief Pentagon Spokesman Larry Di Rita, **calling the complaint “frivolous,” said that he raised the case with the State Department: "State is engaged in this. Obviously, it’s something that we’re focused on and very concerned with" Please encourage the German prosecutor not to bow to U.S. pressure.
Defendants in the suit include Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, Lt. General Ricardo S. Sanchez, Major-General Walter Wojdakowski, Brig.-General Janis Karpinski, Lt.-Colonel Jerry L. Phillabaum, Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, Lt.-Colonel Stephen L. Jordan, Major-General Geoffrey Miller, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone. ……………
democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=325

I am aware of this…and I am also aware of the fact that the German courts do not have jurisdiction. They have no more jurisdiction over US persons, outside their sovereign borders than we have over German citizens outside the US and its possessions. Again, it is little more than a ploy to make waves.

Do I agree with what has been done? No, I can’t say that I do, or have agreed with any of it. However, any action on the part of this country or any other country to arbitrarily charge and possibly convict any citizen of another country for acts committed elsewhere (outside the alleging country) is ludicrous.

Again, you need to separate the two words **interrogation ** and torture and apply literal meanings to them. They are very different.

 

[RobHom]

who’s law? (god, international law, US, Spain, Mexico)

If it is in fact contrary to God’s law, He will address it naturally. Beyond that, if a crime was committed, it is incumbent upon the country of the offender’s nationality to address the crime, unless it is an issue wherein the victor of the war has precedence, as for instance the Nuremburg Trials.

Who decides probable cause?

Persons appointed by competent authority.

Who decides physical harm standard?

Persons appointed by competent authority.

And that is what it is, your standards will not be accepted by all?

If you take a modest look at reality, you will find that no-one has ever come up with a standard accepted by all. Its probably humanly impossible. That’s why we have governments… to set and establish standards.

meaning the information produced by torture is not good enough to stand alone

It could very well not be. If you interrogate someone intensely and they tell you that a huge dirty bomb is planted in Yankee Stadium and set to go off at mid-game when thousands of people are in the stadium…you aren’t just going to revel in the fact that you got an answer…your going to either prove the veracity of the information and act on it, or you will prove the falseness of the information and seek more accurate information.

Where I think you are making an error or confusing the issues, is that you are attempting to make one shoe fit all feet. It doesn’t work that way. No two feet are alike, and situations requiring responses are not alike.

There are instances when severe interrogation techniques are justified, and then there are instances when they are not. Its called “situational ethics determination”.

You, Texas Roofer, may have a problem with intensely interrogating a terrorist who has information that can prevent the deaths of many innocents, but there are those of us that do honestly believe that the welfare of the majority override the welfare of one or the few. I sincerely hope with all my heart that you never find yourself in the position where you have to make such a decision. I fear your decision, while coddling the terrorist, will be the death and maiming of many innocents.

 

[CatholicLeft]

But self defense and war(just) can be allowed.

Of course, but it has to meet the criteria provided in the Catechism. If it doesn’t meet this criteria then you start getting in dangerous waters like empire building, resource pillaging and genocide.

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

These criteria are “rigorous” and “strict conditions”, meaning the Church allows no wiggle room.

 

[CatholicLeft]

Yeah, to act in order to prevent deaths. Just like we have the death penalty, like you said, in order to prevent. In both cases, the same end result is sought: To save lives.

Yes, but Catholic teaching states the ends do not justify the means.

 

[neat62]

CatholicLeft;

Of course, but it has to meet the criteria provided in the Catechism. If it doesn’t meet this criteria then you start getting in dangerous waters like empire building, resource pillaging and genocide.

Yeah, but it is not the job of the Church to forbid certain things because of what a nation or country may do.

And if they allow self defense and just war(killing) even though we are told to turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and not kill them, then I cannot see why torturing a person reasonably believed to have vital information which could save lives, would not be allowed.

On this, I have to disagree with the Church and point out that I see some selective policy here, borderlining…What’s the word? Not hypocrisy, but…I don’t know, maybe unfairness??? War to end killing and save lives is OK but torturing for the same reasons is not?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer;
Well considering that I love in the US, then I would be concerned with US Law.

Article III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;–between Citizens of different States;–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

Our justice system.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

You need a definition for physical harm?

No you do, you aspire to inflict and constrain by such

I don’t understand this line.

Sure. Like asking a criminal suspect if he killed that woman for her money. Is his word good enough to stand alone?

So if you do not believe his words what else to you get from torture?