Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[Ender]

We know by the strength of Pope John Paul IIs words, the consensus of subsequent Popes and the conferences of Bishops and the wording of CCC2267, that capital punishment is to be regarded as a violation of human dignity except when used to safeguard the general community.

This is the interpretation I reject, because if it is a violation of human dignity today it was equally a violation in earlier centuries when the church formed her teaching on the subject.

…due to the advancements in the penal system, it isn’t necessary in the business of penal justice.

I am unfamiliar with earlier penal practices, but I do know that earlier societies imposed life sentences and had the means to enforce them. It isn’t at all clear that modern penal systems have advanced much on those capabilities.

Being Catholic, you must surely do the first step in contemplating an issue you have a difficulty with, that being, assume the Church is right…

I do assume the church is right. In fact I assume she’s always been right which is why I see no justification in repudiating all she has taught on the subject.

We don’t go in trying to prove the Church wrong by somehow separating the Popes into opposing groups.

Why is this my problem? It is your position that requires the dismissal of every pope prior to Paul VI. I have no trouble incorporating the words of the last three popes into the teaching of the 260+ popes that preceded them.

This perspective is what confuses me the most. Isn’t this simply the nature of human development?

Right and wrong don’t develop; they are unchangeable.

Capital punishment served justice in the way that fire served cooking. Now that neither are necessary to achieve those ends…

If you accept that capital punishment was just in the past you must accept that it is equally just today. What makes a punishment just is its relationship to the crime: does the punishment fit the crime? If it does - and you have already conceded that point - then it will always be a just and fitting punishment … and it will always serve justice.

in the light of more humane techniques for achieving our ends… we are able to abandon the more primitive methods that helped us.

“Primitive methods” … meaning everything prior to 1969?

The fact that Augustine rejected its use at all, negates the argument that it is a necessary part of retributive justice.

It means he recognized when, for prudential reasons, its use was unwise…just like JPII.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The belief that its primary purpose is retribution is wrong.

Not according to the church. The catechism is regrettably not as clear on this point as it needed to be, nonetheless retribution is indeed the primary purpose of punishment. Being unclear on this point is probably one reason we have such divergent views on capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is clear that we are not to deny that the State has the right and duty to have recourse to a death penalty if this is the only possible way of safeguarding the community. What is also clear is that without that very specific justification for using the death penalty… it is a measure that has no support by the Catholic Church. The belief that its primary purpose is retribution is wrong. That would be like saying that the primary purpose of limb amputation is to restore health when really the primary purpose of amputation is as a last resort to halt disease. Of course in halting disease you are restoring health but it is a measure of last resort. You would never amputate a limb that could be treated and restored to health because that would be a violation of medical ethics. It would not do to mistake the measure of amputation as having something to recommend it other than as being the only possible way to save the body. It would probably make medical care a lot cheaper and quicker to amputate parts that present with problems, but wholeness of the body is more important.

So then amputation was addressed in an entirely different way in the era before modern medicines and the alternatives. By virtue of its necessity it held a more general place in medical treatment since the idea of less drastic alternatives was not conceived of yet. In that environment it might be entirely valid to say that the primary purpose of amputation was to restore health since it was the only way.

This analogy functions better as a dis-analogy since amputation was never considered to be a response to a moral failure on the part of the cancer patient. Neither can the cancer itself be seen as a moral agent in need of punitive, retributive, rehabilitative or other measures that would be considered classical responses to wrong-doing. All of which entails that we cannot use a paradigm response to disease as in any way supporting or disaffirming a response to moral evil. The argument you attempt to make here is simply void regarding capital punishment.

The other problem, that still exists for you, is whether God’s initial implementation of death (capital punishment) in response to Adam and Eve’s sin might (on the same grounds as yours for abolishing capital punishment) be deemed an unjust or unnecessary act on God’s part if we accept that capital punishment can be made unwarranted merely because of its being unnecessary without due consideration for the ‘demands’ of justice.

Obviously, God, as omnipotent and omniscient would have known about all other methods of sanctioning Adam and Eve’s moral failure, yet he invoked the death penalty (human mortality) citing, for one thing, that evil should not be allowed to live forever, i.e., that Goodness simply does not long tolerate the existence of evil owing to its infectious and pernicious nature.

To put it simply, God would have been in an eminently unique position to commute the death penalty (mortality) executed on all humans following Adam (on grounds roughly similar to yours,) yet we remain mortal to this day.

 

[LongingSoul]

This analogy functions better as a dis-analogy since amputation was never considered to be a response to a moral failure on the part of the cancer patient. Neither can the cancer itself be seen as a moral agent in need of punitive, retributive, rehabilitative or other measures that would be considered classical responses to wrong-doing. All of which entails that we cannot use a paradigm response to disease as in any way supporting or disaffirming a response to moral evil. The argument you attempt to make here is simply void regarding capital punishment.

I use that analogy since Thomas Aquinas used it and it is cited frequently in the capital punishment debate.

*“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).” *

The other problem, that still exists for you, is whether God’s initial implementation of death (capital punishment) in response to Adam and Eve’s sin might (on the same grounds as yours for abolishing capital punishment) be deemed an unjust or unnecessary act on God’s part if we accept that capital punishment can be made unwarranted merely because of its being unnecessary without due consideration for the ‘demands’ of justice.

Obviously, God, as omnipotent and omniscient would have known about all other methods of sanctioning Adam and Eve’s moral failure, yet he invoked the death penalty (human mortality) citing, for one thing, that evil should not be allowed to live forever, i.e., that Goodness simply does not long tolerate the existence of evil owing to its infectious and pernicious nature.

To put it simply, God would have been in an eminently unique position to commute the death penalty (mortality) executed on all humans following Adam (on grounds roughly similar to yours,) yet we remain mortal to this day.

To this 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. "

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article2

I think it’s important to absorb the words “This also does human justice imitate according to its powers” When God puts to death a sinner to deliver the good, He has much to go on in judging a soul. Human beings, without benefit of that all knowing perspective, have to judge according to their powers. It puts to death ‘those who are dangerous to others’. We can know that a man deserves to be punished for his crime. It is quite another thing to say a man deserves to be killed for his sin. Only God could possibly have that power.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
We know by the strength of Pope John Paul IIs words, the consensus of subsequent Popes and the conferences of Bishops and the wording of CCC2267, that capital punishment is to be regarded as a violation of human dignity except when used to safeguard the general community.

“Christians have always understood that at the close of the apostolic age—with the death of the last surviving apostle, John, perhaps around A.D. 100—public revelation ceased (Catechism of the Catholic Church 66–67, 73). Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law (Matt. 5:17) and is the ultimate teacher of humanity: “You have one teacher, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:10). The apostles recognized that their task was to pass on, intact, the faith given to them by the Master: “[A]nd what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2); “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it” (2 Tim. 3:14).

However, this closure to public revelation doesn’t mean there isn’t progress in the understanding of what has been entrusted to the Church. Anyone interested in Christianity will ask, “What does this doctrine imply? How does it relate to that doctrine?”
In answering these questions, the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines. The Blessed Virgin Mary models this process of coming to an ever deeper understanding of God’s revelation: “But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19). It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it “invent” new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been “once for all delivered to the saints.” New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up.

Vatican II explained, “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8).

As we read Scripture, we see in it doctrines we already hold, each of us having been instructed in the faith before ever picking up the sacred text. This is a necessary process, as Scripture indicates. Peter explained, “There are some things in them [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). Those who are ignorant of orthodox Christian doctrine because they have never been taught it, or who are unstable in their adherence to the orthodox doctrine they have been taught, can twist Paul’s writings and the rest of Scripture to their own destruction. Therefore, it is important that we read Scripture within the framework of the Church’s constant tradition, as handed down from the apostles in the Catholic Church.

However, when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles’ authentic teachings, we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over time. As an example, consider the Holy Spirit’s divinity. In Scripture, references to it seem to jump out at us. But if we imagine ourselves as ancient pagans or as present-day non-Christians reading the Bible for the first time, we realize, for them, the Holy Spirit’s status as a divine person is not as clearly present in Scripture, since they are less likely to notice details pointing to it. If we think of ourselves as having no recourse to apostolic tradition and to the Church’s teaching authority that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (cf. John 14:25-26, 16:13), we can appreciate how easy it must have been for the early heresies concerning the Trinity and Holy Spirit to arise.

…As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years. The Church has never felt the need to define formally what there has been no particular pressure to define. This strikes many, particularly non-Catholics, as strange. Why weren’t things cleared up in, say, A.D. 100, so folks could know what’s what? Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it. The same could be said about Old Testament prophets: Why didn’t they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer over time."

catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop

 

[LongingSoul]

…due to the advancements in the penal system, it isn’t necessary in the business of penal justice.

I am unfamiliar with earlier penal practices, but I do know that earlier societies imposed life sentences and had the means to enforce them. It isn’t at all clear that modern penal systems have advanced much on those capabilities.

You must be joking. Apart from the justice system itself, we live in a world where there are eyes everywhere and compared to the days when criminals could hide in plains sight and fly under the radar, now unless one goes bush, there is no way to get by without IDs. You can’t use the bank or the phone without being traceable etc. etc. The world itself is part of the business of criminal justice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I think it’s important to absorb the words “This also does human justice imitate according to its powers” When God puts to death a sinner to deliver the good, He has much to go on in judging a soul. Human beings, without benefit of that all knowing perspective, have to judge according to their powers. It puts to death ‘those who are dangerous to others’. We can know that a man deserves to be punished for his crime. It is quite another thing to say a man deserves to be killed for his sin. Only God could possibly have that power.

The logical consequence of this is that only God has a right to invoke the death penalty and, therefore, it should never be used because its use means that human beings are presuming to act for God. Since humans can never know precisely what God would do since only he knows the true disposition and inner state of any man, and humans can never know for certain whether a man ought to be killed for his sins, humans could NEVER be justified in using capital punishment. This is not what the Church teaches, however.

I think you have overstated your case and, perhaps, demonstrated that a flaw exists somewhere in your argument.

 

[LongingSoul]

The logical consequence of this is that only God has a right to invoke the death penalty and, therefore, it should never be used because its use means that human beings are presuming to act for God. Since humans can never know precisely what God would do since only he knows the true disposition and inner state of any man, and humans can never know for certain whether a man ought to be killed for his sins, humans could NEVER be justified in using capital punishment. This is not what the Church teaches, however.

I think you have overstated your case and, perhaps, demonstrated that a flaw exists somewhere in your argument.

Aquinas explains this conundrum by what we term the principle of double effect.

“Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], “it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense.” Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.” newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

In the course of this explanation we learn that the death penalty as a form of self defense…“it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity”

There would be little reason for Aquinas to mention the public authorities use of the death penalty in this context if it were justified as retribution. Here it is clearly shown to be a defense measure for society and in that role, serves as the punishment for the crime.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You must be joking. Apart from the justice system itself, we live in a world where there are eyes everywhere and compared to the days when criminals could hide in plains sight and fly under the radar, now unless one goes bush, there is no way to get by without IDs. You can’t use the bank or the phone without being traceable etc. etc. The world itself is part of the business of criminal justice.

If this is the case, then you seem to be demonstrating that the guilt of those accused can be determined with an ever greater level of certainty. So if it were determined with absolute certainty by these modern methods that a killer acted with malicious intent, in a premeditated manner simply for personal gain and showing no remorse or willingness to change his behaviour patterns, it would still be morally wrong to invoke the death penalty, in your view?

It seems to me that you are perilously close to arguing that the death penalty is not properly a consequence of justice, but merely a protective measure and where protection of the common good can be assured by the penal system, the death penalty should not exist BECAUSE protection is the ONLY reason it ought ever to be used. Again, I do not think this is a tenable position.

 

[LongingSoul]

If this is the case, then you seem to be demonstrating that the guilt of those accused can be determined with an ever greater level of certainty. So if it were determined with absolute certainty by these modern methods that a killer acted with malicious intent, in a premeditated manner simply for personal gain and showing no remorse or willingness to change his behaviour patterns, it would still be morally wrong to invoke the death penalty, in your view?

It seems to me that you are perilously close to arguing that the death penalty is not properly a consequence of justice, but merely a protective measure and where protection of the common good can be assured by the penal system, the death penalty should not exist BECAUSE protection is the ONLY reason it ought ever to be used. Again, I do not think this is a tenable position.

I’m demonstrating that we are now more able to constrain unjust aggressors. Australia has never had a death row system because before capital punishment ended here, criminals were tried, convicted, sentenced and barring appeals, hanged within a very short time. I believe in the US, condemned people live under that sentence for 10 or more years constrained quite adequately. Does anyone escape from death row? It isn’t too much of a stretch to just make them life sentences anyway.

But moreso, the Catechism makes it very clear that the death penalty is primarily a protective measure that should be used very rarely if at all. Non lethal sentences are sufficient to meet the requirements of justice.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m demonstrating that we are now more able to constrain unjust aggressors. Australia has never had a death row system because before capital punishment ended here, criminals were tried, convicted, sentenced and barring appeals, hanged within a very short time. I believe in the US, condemned people live under that sentence for 10 or more years constrained quite adequately. Does anyone escape from death row? It isn’t too much of a stretch to just make them life sentences anyway.

But moreso, the Catechism makes it very clear that the death penalty is primarily a protective measure that should be used very rarely if at all. Non lethal sentences are sufficient to meet the requirements of justice.

I think your error is in applying a very narrow reading to the words “protective measure” as if only direct harm counts as what needs to be protected against. I think Aquinas argues against this point, precisely.

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. (ST II, II, Question 64, Article 2)

Your argument seems to depend upon the community incurring probable and direct harm as the only reason for invoking the death penalty such that if the community is protected in some way from that obvious harm, the death penalty has no other legitimate justification. Aquinas’ point though is that even when “the good [members of society] incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved…the latter may lawfully be put to death.” He very clearly implies here that it is not simply protection from harm, but protection of the “common good” in a wider sense that legitimizes its use. This may, for example, include using the death penalty as a deterrence measure. His use of the word “saved” is interesting here because it implies something like changes to the social order that make it more difficult for individuals to be saved, i.e., corruption of the religious aspirations of the society at large that would make it more difficult for individuals to be saved.

 

[adrift]

I’m demonstrating that we are now more able to constrain unjust aggressors. Australia has never had a death row system because before capital punishment ended here, criminals were tried, convicted, sentenced and barring appeals, hanged within a very short time. I believe in the US, condemned people live under that sentence for 10 or more years constrained quite adequately. Does anyone escape from death row? It isn’t too much of a stretch to just make them life sentences anyway.

Yes they do escape from death row

“No prison is escape-proof,” Wayne Scott, executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, told the Dallas Morning News. “Even Alcatraz had escapes. Any time you have human beings, you are going to have human error.”

Those in prison have nothing to do but to plan escapes.

But moreso, the Catechism makes it very clear that the death penalty is primarily a protective measure that should be used very rarely if at all. Non lethal sentences are sufficient to meet the requirements of justice.

I disagree with you that the Catechism is clear that the death penalty is primarily a protective measure

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender

The old Catholic encyclopedia talks of the death penalty (it is not called the death protection) as a punishment for crime.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think your error is in applying a very narrow reading to the words “protective measure” as if only direct harm counts as what needs to be protected against. I think Aquinas argues against this point, precisely.

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. (ST II, II, Question 64, Article 2)

Your argument seems to depend upon the community incurring probable and direct harm as the only reason for invoking the death penalty such that if the community is protected in some way from that obvious harm, the death penalty has no other legitimate justification.

No I certainly don’t see the public authorities role as protecting the community from probable and direct harm in that very narrow sense. I would say that applies to the situation that Augustine describes as “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time.” (The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21)

I’m guessing that explicit commission for a limited time would be saving the community ‘from probably and direct harm’. I imagine that the killing of Osama Bin Laden could find justification here since there was certain danger in incarcerating a person of that type in the environment today. But of course on a day to day basis, it isn’t possible for the State to make those individual specialist determinations in each criminal case. It appeals to the principles of general/institutional law that attend to the general health of the community.

Aquinas’ point though is that even when “the good [members of society] incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved…the latter may lawfully be put to death.” He very clearly implies here that it is not simply protection from harm, but protection of the “common good” in a wider sense that legitimizes its use. This may, for example, include using the death penalty as a deterrence measure. His use of the word “saved” is interesting here because it implies something like changes to the social order that make it more difficult for individuals to be saved, i.e., corruption of the religious aspirations of the society at large that would make it more difficult for individuals to be saved.

I agree that deterrence is a valid argument for retaining the death penalty. I don’t agree with the actual argument, being from a State that abolished the death penalty nearly a century ago… but I agree that it is a valid argument for the retention of the death penalty and has to be assessed within the environment it pertains to. However, the Church strongly states that it does more harm than good as a general rule and I’m in agreement with the Church.

What I’m arguing against from what I strongly believe is the Catholic Church’s perspective, is the belief that the death penalty is an institution in and of itself. That it can be invoked arbitrarily as being a divine command regardless of its practical purposes… and that it could only ever be ‘suspended’ and not abolished. That it is a staple of human justice and on a par with the commandments.

I believe the Church in her wisdom is defining for us, the true nature of the death penalty in the light of our times and is not mistaken, confused, misleading or repudiatory when she says… “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 is Enders main bugbear)

 

[LongingSoul]

I disagree with you that the Catechism is clear that the death penalty is primarily a protective measure.

The old Catholic encyclopedia talks of the death penalty (it is not called the death protection) as a punishment for crime.

I see this as putting the cart before the horse and playing God by allocating vengeance or retribution as the primary end of the death penalty. The reason that the State uses punishment, is to ultimately protect society. That is its primary mandate. In striving for that end, punishment must conform to that which protects society first and foremost and in doing that it conforms to justice. Even the 450 year old Catechism of Trent makes that distinction…

“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”

The purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. If the following sentence constituted a divine command of retribution, the State would be obliged to kill all murderers of the innocent. The State ‘according to its powers’ has to determine what sentence will serve to ‘protect and foster human life’ as its measure of justness.

 

[adrift]

I see this as putting the cart before the horse and playing God by allocating vengeance or retribution as the primary end of the death penalty. The reason that the State uses punishment, is to ultimately protect society.

:doh2:

The purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. If the following sentence constituted a divine command of retribution, the State would be obliged to kill all murderers of the innocent. The State ‘according to its powers’ has to determine what sentence will serve to ‘protect and foster human life’ as its measure of justness.

This makes no sense to me. I do not understand you at all.

The death penalty is a penalty. The reason for that penalty is as you have stated protection but that does not negate that it is a penalty. Penalties are for protecting society:doh2:

The definition of capitol punishment is The infliction by due legal process of the penalty of death as a punishment for crime.

 

[Ender]

As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years.

None of this addressed the issue I raised: if capital punishment is a violation of human dignity today then it is a violation for all time. Doctrine may develop but it cannot develop to the point of repudiating the past, which is what your position represents.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You must be joking. Apart from the justice system itself, we live in a world where there are eyes everywhere and compared to the days when criminals could hide in plains sight and fly under the radar, now unless one goes bush, there is no way to get by without IDs. You can’t use the bank or the phone without being traceable etc. etc. The world itself is part of the business of criminal justice.

Once again your response is irrelevant to the issue. The question is whether earlier societies had the means of safely incarcerating prisoners for life; it was not about whether they could detect criminals in the first place. The catechism implies that modern societies have a capability of securely imprisoning criminals that more ancient ones did not. I have challenged that assertion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I agree that deterrence is a valid argument for retaining the death penalty.

If a secondary objective of punishment (deterrence) is a valid reason for retaining capital punishment then why is the primary objective (retribution) not also a valid reason? I wonder if you recognize the problem your position raises: suppose it is determined that the death penalty actually is an effective deterrent? According to 2267 capital punishment should be used where it is necessary to protect the public, but deterring murders is surely providing protection so - again, assuming capital punishment is a deterrent - wouldn’t that mean we should increase its use? Don’t you see it as a problem that the decision to use or not use the death penalty be determined by social scientists, and that its approval could swing back and forth with the development of better and better studies in the field?

What I’m arguing against from what I strongly believe is the Catholic Church’s perspective, is the belief that the death penalty is an institution in and of itself. That it can be invoked arbitrarily as being a divine command regardless of its practical purposes… and that it could only ever be ‘suspended’ and not abolished. That it is a staple of human justice and on a par with the commandments.

I suspect you believe this is a description of my position, even though I have several times denied it. I’m pretty sure no one other than you has ever said anything remotely close to this.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I see this as putting the cart before the horse and playing God by allocating vengeance or retribution as the primary end of the death penalty.

Retribution is the primary end of all punishment. You really do need to understand that point.

The reason that the State uses punishment, is to ultimately protect society.

Protection is a secondary end. The primary objective is justice - retributive justice.

Even the 450 year old Catechism of Trent makes that distinction…
“For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.”

The purpose of the law (the commandment) is different than the purpose of punishment; these things are related but they are different.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The death penalty is a penalty. The reason for that penalty is as you have stated protection but that does not negate that it is a penalty. Penalties are for protecting society.

Punishment has four objectives:*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)
The catechism identifies which objective is primary:The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)
The question is: which of the four objectives Dulles identified is the one referred to by “redress the disorder caused by the offense”? It surely cannot be defense or deterrence since they are about preventing future offenses, nor can it be rehabilitation since, while it may redress the disorder in the individual, it does nothing to redress the disorder caused by his crime. That pretty much leaves retribution as the primary objective of punishment. Some may be uncomfortable with that but it is what the church teaches.*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution **or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB)
You are obviously right in saying that the death penalty is a penalty, but the primary purpose of punishment is not protection, rather it is justice.

Ender