Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[LongingSoul]

This is the part of the Noahic covenant at issue:Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *
What this means is fairly plain: the penalty for murder is death because the life of the victim was sacred*.

Even without my appealing to Church teaching to debunk your interpretation, by noting the preceding lines we can know that this is not the institution of a ‘standard’ punishment of death for the crime of murder.

“But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being."

• Gen 9:4-5

God is demanding an accounting from ***every animal ***as well as from each human being. How is this a strict commentary on crime, culpability and penal punishment when an animal is not subject to those judgements? Here we are getting a lesson on the loss of human life and the need for that to be accounted for before God. This is about divine retribution and Gods accounting and as Card. Dulles says…

"Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."

‘States’ have never been godly institutions invested in ‘a transcendent order of justice’ other than through their duty to the common good and even papal ‘states’ were in error with regards to the use of the death penalty. They were mistaken about their arbitrary powers over life and death for which Pope John Paul II made apologies.

Your position reverses this meaning and holds that the death penalty is wrong because the life of the murderer is sacred. You then assert that this reversal is not really opposed to the covenant but in fact honors it. I suppose there are reasonable arguments to be made, but this surely isn’t one of them.

The Church’s position is that life is sacred and inviolable and the penal sentence of death doesn’t serve that fact justly in a culture of death. There is no ‘standard’ in human law. Any ‘standard’ relates to God alone.

 

[Ender]

-You’re still avoiding the issue. The same fine given to both men for the same theft is not just given that for one it is simply a “slap on the wrist” and for the other a major economic hardship. Your “one punishment always fits for one crime” argument is flawed. It only really works if the only factor that is important in regards to justice is punishment. That’s not the case for how the Church determines justice.

Goodness, I just explained I don’t have a one-size-fits-all position. How can you ignore what I just posted?I accept that there can be mitigating circumstances in every situation…

You even contradict yourself in regards to this. Now it’s no longer just murder= death, but why the murder took place= different punishments. Apparently while a crime is always a crime, the punishment isn’t always the same for the crime. I’m pretty sure that runs counter to your position.

It may be counter to your perception of my position but is certainly not counter to my actual position. I don’t know that repeating myself is useful, nonetheless I’ll try again:…the standard punishment for first degree murder ought to be the death penalty. Can there be extenuating circumstances? Of course…
Ender

 

[Ender]

This is about divine retribution and Gods accounting

The church has never interpreted that passage to be about divine retribution. She has always understood it as a directive from God. For God says, “Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed.” These words cannot utter a prophecy, since a prophecy of this sort would often be false, but a decree and a precept. (St. Bellarmine)

and as Card. Dulles says…
“Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.”

Dulles’ point here is valid for all forms of retributive punishment but clearly he is not suggesting all punishment be abolished.

…even papal ‘states’ were in error with regards to the use of the death penalty. They were mistaken about their arbitrary powers over life and death for which Pope John Paul II made apologies.

I don’t think so. Do you have a citation for this? I’m pretty sure JPII never apologized for the church’s doctrines on capital punishment.

The Church’s position is that life is sacred and inviolable and the penal sentence of death doesn’t serve that fact justly in a culture of death.

If you are arguing that there are prudential reasons for not using capital punishment that would be a valid argument. I think it was in fact JPII’s position. That is very different, however, from suggesting there are moral objections to its use.

There is no ‘standard’ in human law. Any ‘standard’ relates to God alone.

??? Well of course there is, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to say “This is too harsh” or “That is too lenient.” The standard is that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Goodness, I just explained I don’t have a one-size-fits-all position. How can you ignore what I just posted?I accept that there can be mitigating circumstances in every situation…
It may be counter to your perception of my position but is certainly not counter to my actual position. I don’t know that repeating myself is useful, nonetheless I’ll try again:…the standard punishment for first degree murder ought to be the death penalty. Can there be extenuating circumstances? Of course…
Ender

Please show me where the Church teaches that there are different degrees of murder. I frankly don’t care how our legal system defines murder or the various degrees of it. Last I checked there is no such thing as “first degree murder” in Catholic theology. There is “not murder,” “murder,” and then various degrees of culpability for the sin of “murder,” but nothing about various degrees of the sin itself. “Murder” is always “murder,” not “well this murder is more murder than that murder because this murder was planned out in advance.”

 

[LongingSoul]

After quite awhile of not checking in, I do so, and find pretty much the same folks arguing the same issue with the same points and counterpoints, well, points for persistency, oorah!..and best of wishes, I’ll check back in the summer.

Lol. Don’t you like playing Ender’s game, David?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Lol. Don’t you like playing Ender’s game, David?

I don’t get how one can view the Church’s teachings in regards to self-defense (taking the attacker’s life is the last option), the use of force (last option), and warfare (again the last option) and conclude that the death penalty can be something other than the last option in regards to punishment.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t get how one can view the Church’s teachings in regards to self-defense (taking the attacker’s life is the last option), the use of force (last option), and warfare (again the last option) and conclude that the death penalty can be something other than the last option in regards to punishment.

Did you mean to address this to Ender? I agree with you. We just have to go to Thomas Aquinas’ clear explanation as to “Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?” (Summa Theologica) to know how it serves the fifth commandment rather than being a commandment all its own.

"As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that** if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members**, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, **but rather are protected and saved **by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. "

It could not be more clear why we would have recourse to the death penalty.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Did you mean to address this to Ender? I agree with you. We just have to go to Thomas Aquinas’ clear explanation as to “Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?” (Summa Theologica) to know how it serves the fifth commandment rather than being a commandment all its own.

"As stated above (Article 1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that** if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members**, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, **but rather are protected and saved **by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. "

It could not be more clear why we would have recourse to the death penalty.

Sorry, I clicked the wrong button (quote instead of post reply). The comment was for the thread viewers in general. I’m pretty sure my conversation with Ender has reached the point of diminishing returns (it’s clear we both disagree with each other on a fundamental level and further discussion would be useless).

 

[Ender]

Please show me where the Church teaches that there are different degrees of murder.

The church teaches that conditions external to the crime can and should influence the punishment. This all reminds me of debates I’ve had in the past with people who support abortion. I try to focus on the point where the choice is clearest and they (and you) keep trying to force the discussion to the point where the choice is fuzziest.

Let’s return to the clearest example: a person commits a brutal murder just because he feels like it, there isn’t a shred of doubt that he committed the crime, and he not only shows no remorse but brags about it and asserts he would do it again if given the chance.

What is the appropriate punishment: LWOP or death?

Ender

 

[oldcatholicguy]

The church teaches that conditions external to the crime can and should influence the punishment. This all reminds me of debates I’ve had in the past with people who support abortion. I try to focus on the point where the choice is clearest and they (and you) keep trying to force the discussion to the point where the choice is fuzziest.

Let’s return to the clearest example: a person commits a brutal murder just because he feels like it, there isn’t a shred of doubt that he committed the crime, and he not only shows no remorse but brags about it and asserts he would do it again if given the chance.

What is the appropriate punishment: LWOP or death?

Ender

As I indicated in post 47 I see no further reason to continue my discussion with you. It’s obvious that our views are very different and that further discussion will not produce anything of worth for either of us.

 

[LongingSoul]

Let’s return to the clearest example: a person commits a brutal murder just because he feels like it, there isn’t a shred of doubt that he committed the crime, and he not only shows no remorse but brags about it and asserts he would do it again if given the chance.

What is the appropriate punishment: LWOP or death?

Ender

What your scenario is designed to inspire inside a person is a particular kind of passion to make a choice about his fate and we aren’t meant to make choices by drawing on such passion or lust for vengeance.

It reminds me of a case in Sydney in the 80’s where 3 men raped and killed a young nurse getting off a train at night. That is the only times I’ve heard serious cries of ‘bring back the death penalty’. But at the end of the day, most of us recognise that passion as a sense of vengeance. A lust for someones blood in payment. Of course, we can kid ourselves that it’s a passion for righteousness and justice and being the voice of God, but truly, the decision to be a society that doesn’t carry a death penalty in its back pocket has to be based on a wider view of what serves or damages the common good. Just as in any of life decisions about what is right or wrong, it’s not wise to make them from some strong passion. Actually, that is one of St Ignatius’ warnings for living the contemplative life. Don’t make big life decisions while you experience with elation or despair. Truth speaks to us most clearly when the waters are still and we are more widely focused.

 

[Ender]

We just have to go to Thomas Aquinas’ clear explanation as to “Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?”

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good

The problem with your interpretation is that you take “dangerous to others” and “to deliver the good” to mean physical protection only, yet this citation itself suggests this is not the case. Take the examples of Ananias and his wife Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10). God slew them forthwith and according to this citation it would have been “in order to deliver the good.” Since they were quite clearly not a physical threat to anyone it would appear that “dangerous to others” is more inclusive than you believe.

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good

Once again your interpretation of “safeguarding the common good” to mean simply physical protection is too narrow and is not the church’s understanding.*this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. *(Pius XII)

When, however, the good incur no danger, **but rather are protected and saved **by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

How does the church understand how protection is best achieved?*Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *(Catechism of Trent)
Once again from yet another source we see that physical protection was not the primary concern, and how is one to form a true conception of the wickedness of murder if murderers are put to death not because of the crime they committed but only because of the threat they present?

Ender

 

[Ender]

What your scenario is designed to inspire inside a person is a particular kind of passion to make a choice about his fate and we aren’t meant to make choices by drawing on such passion or lust for vengeance.

Not at all. What I am trying to present is the least ambiguous example possible. It is precisely to eliminate the fuzzy possibilities where the use of capital punishment might actually be questionable. It is not about inspiring passion but about presenting a clear choice by eliminating all other distracting considerations. If you think the person I described does not deserve the death penalty for his crime then just say so.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The problem with your interpretation is that you take “dangerous to others” and “to deliver the good” to mean physical protection only, yet this citation itself suggests this is not the case. Take the examples of Ananias and his wife Sapphira (Acts 5:1-10). God slew them forthwith and according to this citation it would have been “in order to deliver the good.” Since they were quite clearly not a physical threat to anyone it would appear that “dangerous to others” is more inclusive than you believe.

God slew Ananias and his wife according to the Old Law conditions as Aquinas says…

"Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this. As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death by his own authority or with his own hand, but published their death sentence pronounced by God. The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands."

As regards the States mandate to act Aquinas says…

"According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others. "

Once again your interpretation of “safeguarding the common good” to mean simply physical protection is too narrow and is not the church’s understanding.this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. (Pius XII)

It* is *the Church’s understanding… *“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.” * CCC2267

How does the church understand how protection is best achieved?*Of these remedies {for the disease of murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *(Catechism of Trent)
Once again from yet another source we see that physical protection was not the primary concern, and how is one to form a true conception of the wickedness of murder if murderers are put to death not because of the crime they committed but only because of the threat they present?

Ender

The Church also forbids suicides and alcoholics from Catholic funerals and burials. The Church teaches that only the formally baptised can enter heaven. The Church bars females from serving at Mass.

It really is pointless having a rational debate with someone who lives in some past time rejecting any movement of the Holy Spirit through the living Church. For my very last point regarding the Church’s teachings on Capital punishment I say…

"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 nonexistent.”

That’s what the Church teaches.

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
What your scenario is designed to inspire inside a person is a particular kind of passion to make a choice about his fate and we aren’t meant to make choices by drawing on such passion or lust for vengeance.

Not at all. What I am trying to present is the least ambiguous example possible. It is precisely to eliminate the fuzzy possibilities where the use of capital punishment might actually be questionable. It is not about inspiring passion but about presenting a clear choice by eliminating all other distracting considerations. If you think the person I described does not deserve the death penalty for his crime then just say so.

Well as a Catholic, I leave the issue of someones desserts to the Churchs teaching which I can faithfully trust and the states just regard for the common good. But in my heart, I put myself into someones shoes and feel relief to live in a place where no matter how terrible a person I am, my community values my life as intrinsically good and redeemable and allows me Gods time to redeem myself instead of definitely taking away that possibility. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” “There but for the grace of God go I”. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others”. “…render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.”

The Church guides us in our day and we follow her to the gates of heaven.

I’m bowing out of the impasse of discussion with you now, Ender. I know by the contributions of others to this topic that there are very few who find your argument credible or purposeful other than those who want to undermine the Church. Your position is quite distinct from the Churchs concession that the application of the death penalty is legitimately debatable within a community and you are not possible to debate without giving a voice to diminishing the gifts of Evangelium Vitae and the CCC.

 

[Ender]

God slew Ananias and his wife according to the Old Law conditions as Aquinas says…
"Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this.

What Aquinas appears to have been saying is not that man should not imitate God’s action but that priests (like Peter) should not. In the OT priests had that right (as Aquinas pointed out), in the new they did not. This point was explicitly codified by the 4th Lateran Council.

It* is *the Church’s understanding… "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." CCC2267

That this wasn’t the traditional teaching is most easily seen by looking at the corresponding section of the 1992 version of the catechism, whose definition of the traditional teaching differs from the 1997 version. The 1992 version is in accord with the catechisms that went before it (Piux X, Baltimore, Douay, Bellarmine, Trent, and Thomas). None of them included the caveat mentioned in the 1997 edition.

It really is pointless having a rational debate with someone who lives in some past time rejecting any movement of the Holy Spirit through the living Church.

I can see that you are frustrated because I refuse to repudiate nearly 2000 years of church teaching on this subject.

But in my heart, I put myself into someones shoes and feel relief to live in a place where no matter how terrible a person I am, my community values my life as intrinsically good and redeemable and allows me Gods time to redeem myself instead of definitely taking away that possibility. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” “There but for the grace of God go I”. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive others”.

I will point out (again) that your position contains within it a condemnation of the church’s position as it existed unchanged at least until 1995. It is an implicit assertion that the church prior to that date did not do unto others, did not forgive, and did not value life.

“…render one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself.”

From a simply historical perspective the assertion that earlier societies did not have the capability of permanently incarcerating people appears to be incorrect. Life sentences were quite well known through the centuries.

I know by the contributions of others to this topic that there are very few who find your argument credible…

Most people are unaware of what the church has said on this subject beyond what is in CCC 2267. They may remain unconvinced that capital punishment should be used after reading my comments but they will at least be more knowledgeable about the topic and better able to distinguish valid arguments from invalid ones.

Ender

 

[djmason]

You can always rely on a rational viewpoint when ever something is a bit foggy… The church justifies execution to prevent the murderer from continuing to keep murdering.

There is not one prescribed jail sentence in book of the law. All punishment was based on compensation to the victims. You steal my Goat then I want to be compensated with added loss. One Goat and Ten chickens, and 2 cows. Hypothetically this is the advent of law and justice. To turn these social dynamics into modern interpretations to justify capital punishment is speculative… There are contradictions but there is logic too…

 

[Ender]

All punishment was based on compensation to the victims.

The church bases her position on punishment on the concept of retributive justice - the lex talionis. This is why the catechism states that the government has not just the right but the duty to punish the criminal, and also that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[djames99]

The condition is that there must be a definite threat of the offender to society. (that is, society proper). Incarcerated, and the ability for isolation makes it very unlikely there will be many cases.

The state must first act in collective conscience, and act under authority, not practice authoritarianism. The latter occurs when the state ignores scripture and the advice from the Church, which is it’s Teacher sanctioned by God.(Mater et Magistra)

In this fallen state, the state cannot count on legislating a righteous common good through right reason, since this is absent. Signs this is happening is when the subjects bind themselves properly to moral Divine law and doctrine, and they find the state does not. Meanwhile, subjects are no longer obliged allegiance to it as it set itself up has a god. The subjects are forbidden to worship two gods.

Every entity on earth in whatever form must be prepared first to align itself to the desires of the Authority it represents, then proceed with his duties applying the Authority’s principles.

*“Whole nations come under the compass of His gaze, and within the reach of His rod. By the individuals composing the community, there is a great danger that national sin should be regarded rather as an abstraction than a reality, rather as an ideal than a substantial criminality… He fixes it as a substantive charge upon the community.” *

“Saul, the first King of Israel”, Joseph Augustus Miller

 

[Ender]

The condition is that there must be a definite threat of the offender to society. (that is, society proper). Incarcerated, and the ability for isolation makes it very unlikely there will be many cases.

The condition is that the punishment must be appropriate for the crime. That capital punishment may not be necessary for the protection of society is one of a number of practical concerns that should be considered in determining the proper sentence. Retribution is the primary objective of all punishment although clearly not the only one. Protection is a valid objective as well, although it is a secondary one.

Ender

 

[djames99]

That capital punishment may not be necessary for the protection of society is one of a number of practical concerns.

Not a concern to us or the nation anymore. If I choose to not practice my religion and break my baptismal promise, then that would be a liberty that would gain me a short honor and popularity in this world. My new principles now place me nicely in line with other sects, and now I make a prime candidate for conversion. Besides, I’d be hypocritical. I’d be the first to betray my adopted principles and be on my hands and knees to plead for the life of my sons,father,mother. This behavior would also have me in front of my new adopted sect’s excommunication board since I would be a revealed turn coat.

The sons of man are now called under the New Law to find means to extend mercy and convey a hopeful environment. Punishment is now a condign persuasive instrument in preparation of a new social life, even if the world for him is a lot smaller.

An offender who is charged with murder can still be assured of God’s attention through prayer, and can still effect a common good by this means. A solitary confinement cell is no worse a condition than the experience of the cloistered monks of days past. Added to this was self imposed mortification. The offender’s pleas to save a life can have effect. He now can choose to fulfill his social duty through a life of prayer and good deeds within the prison environment. In fact, such a test in a continuously hostile environment mirrors the resolve and situational terror of Kolbe and others.

At no time, at no time in this world is a man expendable to his brothers.