Death penalty question

[Blue_Horizon]

ThinkandMull:
The doctrine states that only self-defense justifies killing someone

Ah, still lively discussion here since I’ve been away.
Ender you have tried this line before and it is flawed I believe.

Thinkamull appears quite correct.
Only self-defence justifies killing someone, and even then it may not be directly intended.
The same principle (you call it a “prohibition”) holds for State Executions (ie State Self Defence).

If ever a death is intended, however, it is with an execution. That is the entire purpose of the action.

Ender I believe your Moral Theology/Philosophy is at fault for thinking this statement is true. This is prob the most seminal point in the whole discussion here.

It is certainly quite possible (in Scholastic moral philosophy) for the State to Execute persons without directly intending their death. If you read the CCC in this area very carefully you will see that it is possible for exactly the same reasons that a private individual can do so in defending himself or his family.
That is, reasons of containment (there is no other solution) justify the mortal blow - which even the self-defender seems to directly intend but does not. Just like the State, it may seem to directly intend the death of the recalcitrant criminal but it does not. The just State will actually desire the containment or reform of the criminal not his death.

In fact this is the very principle which alone “can” justify State Executions.
If the criminal cannot be reformed then he must be contained. If he cannot be easily contained (eg POWs on the frontline) then they may be justly executed…as they usually are by Allies and enemy armies alike even in recent times.

So how can capital punishment be considered a justifiable act of self defense if it fails the primary restriction on that act?

And that is exactly our point.
It doesn’t fail if self-defence motive principles are followed.
But it does fail if the motive of retrib justice unto death is followed.

Punishment as retribution always directly intends the punishment - that is why punishment principles alone cannot be used to justify the ultimate punishment - Capital Punishment.

That is why I personally do not identify all State Executions (the physical act) with the bad moral act “Capital Punishment” (ie directly intended death as a punishment).

To call it “Capital Punishment” suggests this ultimate form of retributive justice can be justified by retrib justice principles alone. It cannot. **Directly intended killing **of any form is always wrong.

This is a mistake - recent Popes and the CCC make it clear that State Executions done from motives of Retrib Justice are not morally right.

They must be done from principles of (State) Self-Defence if they have any chance of being justified.

In the past, if it looked like Retrib Justice theory could be used to justify ALL forms of directly intended punishment…then you are mistaken according to the latest CCC and recent Popes.

Of all forms of Punishment, all such human acts can be directly intended justly … except Capital Punishment.

Capital Punishment (ie State executions) cannot be directly intended.
They can only be intended in the same way that I might justly “intend” the death of my attacker.

And yes it is possible to justly execute POWs on the frontline when troops are rapidly advancing and have no way of containing them.

However recent Popes believe that it is possible to contain irreformable criminal killers which means just execution of these persons in modern times is, prudentially, almost impossible to justify.

 

[Ender]

Only self-defence justifies killing someone…

The church teaches otherwise.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; *
*2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; *
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. *(Baltimore Catechism)
It is clear the church considers these to be three separate conditions, with self defense being no part of punishment.

It is certainly quite possible (in Scholastic moral philosophy) for the State to Execute persons without directly intending their death.

I think this clearly shows the difficulty of your position. The immediate intentions of a person in a firing squad, of a sniper, and of a hit-man are identical: the death of the target. They all have different reasons prompting their acts, but it is not possible to deliberately kill someone without also having the intention of doing so.

The just State will actually desire the containment or reform of the criminal not his death.

This is an “ends justify the means” argument. “I didn’t really want to shoot your dog; I just wanted to sleep through the night.” “I didn’t really want to rob someone; I just wanted to buy medicine for my child.”

Punishment as retribution always directly intends the punishment - that is why punishment principles alone cannot be used to justify the ultimate punishment - Capital Punishment.

This is exactly backwards. A punishment is just if and only if a person deserves it, and the severity of the punishment is directly related to the severity of the crime. If a person does not deserve to be executed for a crime he has already committed there is no way he can be executed to prevent a crime he may commit in the future. Capital punishment may be used only if it is a just retribution for a past crime. Retribution is the primary objective of punishment, and if it does not justify capital punishment then nothing can.

To call it “Capital Punishment” suggests this ultimate form of retributive justice can be justified by retrib justice principles alone. It cannot. **Directly intended killing **of any form is always wrong.

Again, you are mistaken. The church has never taught this.Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. (Aquinas, ST II-II 64,3)
What you miss is the distinction between the rights of the individual and those of the state. The individual may never directly intend killing but the state has that right (based on Rm 13:4)

Executions done from motives of Retrib Justice are not morally right. They must be done from principles of (State) Self-Defence if they have any chance of being justified.

You argue that the deliberate execution of someone is not deliberate if the final objective is your safety and not his death while admitting that he does not deserve to die. I don’t think you’re going to find much support from the church for this position.

Of all forms of Punishment, all such human acts can be directly intended justly … except Capital Punishment.

All punishment is directly intended; that is its nature, and capital punishment is no exception. There are no exceptions.

Capital Punishment (ie State executions) cannot be directly intended.

How is it possible to believe that committing a voluntary act you know will lead directly to someone’s death is not intended? Whatever reason you use to justify the act doesn’t change its essential nature: it is intentional homicide.

And yes it is possible to justly execute POWs on the frontline when troops are rapidly advancing and have no way of containing them.

Not in our army it isn’t.

Ender

 

[Ender]

“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.” The part in bold, not the killing, it was “remains forever”

The explanation about the meaning of “blood” in the Old Testament is just that, an explanation, a historical fact. Your interpretation comes down to “historical facts remain necessary for all time.” Do you really think it was necessary to state “the past doesn’t change”? It should be fairly clear what teaching is being referred to here, and it isn’t that one.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The church teaches otherwise.

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:
*1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives; *
*2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it; *
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution. *(Baltimore Catechism)
It is clear the church considers these to be three separate conditions, with self defense being no part of punishment.
​

How strange…
Most of us would see these points are re-inforcing my point.

Do note that even the Baltimore Catechism (its so sad you are unable to make your case from the current one but have to reach back to the myopic, less than Universal Catechisms of the past) uses self-defence principles, viz.

**"AND the good of the community require such execution."
Sounds like a core personal self-defence justification principle to me.

To make your point that retrib justice principles alone can justify State Execution
you would really want this conditional clause to start with OR not AND.

Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. (Aquinas, ST II-II 64,3)

Doesn’t fly sorry. You’ve totally misunderstood the context.
Aquinas is just determining who may lawfully represent the state in deciding a State Execution.

I won’t be responding to the rest, the procrustean personal interpretation of even basic English is just too tortured to respond to I am afraid.

Just keep in mind that the Church in its self-defence principles does indeed teach it is quite possible to purposely deliver a mortal blow to my attacker without directly intending his death. I don’t see the problem extending this to a Head of State (who isn’t usually in the firing squad) or even the authorised executioner who virtuously obeys his orders.

Have you actually been taught scholastic moral theology?

“Clearly the Church…”

Unfortunately no, just clearly Ender’s unique interpretation of the Church.
Its telling you cannot find justification in the current CCC.​

 

[Ender]

Do note that even the Baltimore Catechism … uses self-defence principles, viz.

***“AND the good of the community ***require such execution.”
Sounds like a core personal self-defence justification principle to me.

You make the assumption that the “good of the community” can be reduced solely to physical protection, but according to Piux XII that assumption is false…*“this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.” *
…and was explicitly rejected by him.*Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings… but **those theories fail *to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty.

To make your point that retrib justice principles alone can justify State Execution you would really want this conditional clause to start with OR not AND.

Retribution is the primary objective of punishment; it is the essential component of a just penalty. No penalty can be imposed that is not deserved, which is why the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, but if a man does not deserve to die because of the nature of his crime there is nothing that can justify his execution. We surely cannot execute him to make ourselves safer.

Aquinas is just determining who may lawfully represent the state in deciding a State Execution.

You asserted that **"*Directly intended killing ***of any form is always wrong." I cited Aquinas because he flatly contradicts your claim.

Just keep in mind that the Church in its self-defence principles does indeed teach it is quite possible to purposely deliver a mortal blow to my attacker without directly intending his death.

This is not correct. You may deliver a mortal blow in self defense but you may not intend for the blow to be mortal. Moreover, self defense does not apply unless an attack actually occurs.Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor… Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)
This alone removes capital punishment from the realm of self defense since clearly a preventative execution fails the condition that requires the attack to have already begun.

Unfortunately no, just clearly Ender’s unique interpretation of the Church.

My position is hardly unique. I am in good company.*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

The Pope’s statement on “circumstances in the modern world” are in the nature of temporal judgement not doctrine.

But the Death Penalty is certainly not intrinsically evil, though instances of it will almost certainly be immoral (by reason of Intentions and Circumstances). What is the moral object of the Death Penalty? Like self-defence, it is the protecting the innocent of society from those that would do us harm, and in addition, the good moral object of retributive justice (a good found in the just punishments of Purgatory and Hell). **

That phrase is beside the point. “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor… [as this is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

 

[thinkandmull]

The explanation about the meaning of “blood” in the Old Testament is just that, an explanation, a historical fact. Your interpretation comes down to “historical facts remain necessary for all time.” Do you really think it was necessary to state “the past doesn’t change”? It should be fairly clear what teaching is being referred to here, and it isn’t that one.

Ender

It said “The Old Testament always considered…” The consideration was taught, and that teach is forever, not the killing. At least this is a legitimate explanation. I am trying to reconcile this with John Paul II, which you haven’t done.

You wrote: “If a person does not deserve to be executed for a crime he has already committed there is no way he can be executed to prevent a crime he may commit in the future.” Execution as we usually think is a punishment, not killing murderer because another murder is imminent. John Paul in his catechism and encyclical contradict what you are saying

 

[thinkandmull]

You make the assumption that the “good of the community” can be reduced solely to physical protection, but according to Piux XII that assumption is false…"this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself."
…and was explicitly rejected by him.*Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings… but **those theories fail ***to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty.
Retribution is the primary objective of punishment; it is the essential component of a just penalty. No penalty can be imposed that is not deserved, which is why the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, but if a man does not deserve to die because of the nature of his crime there is nothing that can justify his execution. We surely cannot execute him to make ourselves safer.
You asserted that **"*Directly intended killing ***of any form is always wrong." I cited Aquinas because he flatly contradicts your claim.
This is not correct. You may deliver a mortal blow in self defense but you may not intend for the blow to be mortal. Moreover, self defense does not apply unless an attack actually occurs.Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor… Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)
This alone removes capital punishment from the realm of self defense since clearly a preventative execution fails the condition that requires the attack to have already begun.
My position is hardly unique. I am in good company.*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

What about chopping a persons head off who is attacking you?

Pius XII’s statements are not interpreted by John Paul II as applying to the death penalty.

“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment.”

For what reasons though?

Cardinals nor Church Fathers even are Popes.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You make the assumption that the “good of the community” can be reduced solely to physical protection…

Nope.
I am observing that the principles of just homicide you declare appear to be more about self-defence of the state than any form of retrib punishment focused on the culprit (eye for eye etc).

Much more salient though is our debate over direct intentional killing being always wrong…whether personal self-defence or State Executions.

I hold that the CCC at face value teaches this to be true for both private and State killings.
You do not.

You appear to assert that directly intended killing can be justified in State homocides do you not? You appear ambiguous on this point wrt private self-defence killings. (What is your position on this BTW?).

I assert that in the reign of the last three Popes and indeed the CCC, we are witnessing an evolution of Church Teaching on this point.

Aquinas, wrt State killings, actually oscillates between two different views on this point.
Yes, at times he appears certain that the State may directly intend such deaths.
Yet at other times he is more circumspect and appears to use a double-effect distinction (as does private self-defence theory).
That is, he seems to hold that only “justice” is directly intended by the State - Not the killing of the criminal himself.

Regardless, the once dominant view (it has never been the only one) that the State may directly intend the killing of a murderer has been increasingly losing ground in Catholic scholarly debate since WWI.

This article nicely sums up the point I am observing here:

WRT “directly intending death”"*
“Public persons, Aquinas thinks, can rightfully intend to kill in carrying out needful acts of war, suppression of serious wrongdoing, and punishment.”

As a private person one may rightfully use force in defense of oneself or others even if the force is such that one foresees it is likely or even certain to kill; but one’s intention in using such lethal force must not be to kill."*

Evolution of Church Teaching Against Aquinas’s Dominant View:*
Aquinas wavers between suggesting that the use of lethal public force, e.g. in capital punishment, intends (“is referred to”) justice rather than killing, and plainly accepting that in such cases death is indeed intended.

The latter is his dominant position; his arguments to justify a kind of choice which, whatever its beneficial consequences, is so immediately against the good of life have come increasingly to seem insufficient: the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1993), paras. 2263–67 expounds its whole teaching on war, lethal police action, and capital punishment on the basis of the thought that these can be justified only so far as they amount to causing death as a side-effect, and not as killing with intent to kill. The thought is formulated by appeal to Aquinas’ reference to acts with “double effect” in his discussion of private defence in ST II-II q. 64 a. 7. *

(Stanford Encyclopedia on Aquinas’s Moral,Legal and Political Philosophy, 2005)

My position is hardly unique. I am in good company.*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Oh dear, the best you can do to authoritatively back your position is to quote without context a single rather sweeping, contentless, statement from a theologian who happens to be a Cardinal.

Yes, like all the Fathers, I too support the State’s right to execute criminals if very stringent principles are met.

But THE POINT is - what exactly are those principles?
That is where we differ - and where YOU differ from the new directions of the CCC and recent Popes.

 

[thinkandmull]

In a sense you intend to kill someone in war, but it is to protect yourself, not to execute in the most technical use of that term…

 

[LongingSoul]

In a sense you intend to kill someone in war, but it is to protect yourself, not to execute in the most technical use of that term…

Also in the palliative care realm, the death of a terminally ill patient is most often the result of medication metered out with respect to pain relief. There is a distinct line between death as the side effect of medication and death as the intended effect of medication.

 

[adrift]

Nope.

Much more salient though is our debate over direct intentional killing being always wrong…whether personal self-defence or State Executions.

.

I have noticed you using the argument that execution is not a direct intentional killing. You I assume are using the double effect argument as in an ectopic pregnancy where the tube is removed with the unintentional result of death to the child.

I am at a loss to see how you can execute someone and have a double effect. The intention is to kill there is not double effect involved. It isn’t like the state is trying to cure a disease and the unintended result is the death of the person. The most likely thing you can say that the state is protecting the people with the unintended effect of killing the offender. It is dishonest in my opinion to say that the death was unintended. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you and I look forward to your clarification.

 

[adrift]

[/INDENT]Retribution is the primary objective of punishment; it is the essential component of a just penalty. No penalty can be imposed that is not deserved, which is why the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, but if a man does not deserve to die because of the nature of his crime there is nothing that can justify his execution.

According to the Catholic Catechism

the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

As far as I can tell, there is not further explanation to this statement. I find it ambiguous at best.

 

[Ender]

It said “The Old Testament always considered…” The consideration was taught, and that teach is forever, not the killing. At least this is a legitimate explanation.

Again, all this interpretation does is say “this is what it meant in the past and the past won’t change.” Do you really think this is what was meant?

I am trying to reconcile this with John Paul II, which you haven’t done.

I understand the problem, but there can be no reconciliation if 2267 is taken as a new doctrine because it would completely contradict what the church has always taught and believed. Reconciliation of JPII’s words with 2000 years of church teaching is possible only if his comments are seen as prudential; then there is no contradiction.

You wrote: “If a person does not deserve to be executed for a crime he has already committed there is no way he can be executed to prevent a crime he may commit in the future.” Execution as we usually think is a punishment, not killing murderer because another murder is imminent. John Paul in his catechism and encyclical contradict what you are saying

Look at the box you’re in. You’re forced into accepting that a person can be killed not as punishment for what he has done but only as a preventative measure, but if that is true why would we need to wait for him to commit a crime before executing him? You have separated punishment from prevention so we should be able just to sweep up gang leaders and drug lords, execute them, and move on.

If the death penalty is not applied as a punishment then it cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Pius XII’s statements are not interpreted by John Paul II as applying to the death penalty.

This is what your interpretation forces you to believe. Is it reasonable to assert either that JPII was unaware of church doctrine on this point or that he decided to simply discard all of it? That doesn’t seem the likeliest explanation.

“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment.”

For what reasons though?

Because God himself endorsed it.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Pope St. Innocent I)

Cardinals nor Church Fathers even are Popes.

*In the Catholic Church, this title [Doctor of the Church] is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage and to whom “eminent learning” and “great sanctity” have been attributed by a proclamation of a pope or of an ecumenical council. *
Ender

 

[Ender]

Much more salient though is our debate over direct intentional killing being always wrong…whether personal self-defence or State Executions.

I hold that the CCC at face value teaches this to be true for both private and State killings.

You accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of protection. I accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution. That point aside, the act in both cases is exactly the same: it is a direct intentional killing.

You appear to assert that directly intended killing can be justified in State homicides do you not? You appear ambiguous on this point wrt private self-defence killings. (What is your position on this BTW?).

The state may directly intend a killing; the individual may not. A deliberate act may cause death but that cannot be the intention.

I assert that in the reign of the last three Popes and indeed the CCC, we are witnessing an evolution of Church Teaching on this point.

Doctrine cannot evolve to the point of being reversed.A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started (Cardinal Newman)

That is, [Aquinas] seems to hold that only “justice” is directly intended by the State - Not the killing of the criminal himself.

Again, this is an “ends justify the means” argument (yours, not St. Thomas’). You are saying that so long as our objective (in this case justice) is good we may use whatever means we want to obtain it (killing people).

Regardless, the once dominant view (it has never been the only one) that the State may directly intend the killing of a murderer has been increasingly losing ground in Catholic scholarly debate since WWI.

It may be losing supporters but the doctrine remains unchanged.

This article nicely sums up the point I am observing here:
As a private person one may rightfully use force in defense of oneself or others even if the force is such that one foresees it is likely or even certain to kill; but one’s intention in using such lethal force must not be to kill."

The article fails to distinguish between the rights of the individual and the right of States. Individuals are forbidden to punish the guilty while States are obligated to do so, and the rules that govern their actions are different.

Oh dear, the best you can do to authoritatively back your position is to quote without context a single rather sweeping, contentless, statement from a theologian who happens to be a Cardinal.

The citation was exactly to the point and was a statement of fact which can be verified. I can cite others saying the same thing, which would be pointless except to force you to ignore them as well.

That is where we differ - and where YOU differ from the new directions of the CCC and recent Popes.

Here’s the problem: how can you be so comfortable acknowledging that doctrines taught by the church for 2000 years can so easily be discarded? Do you really accept that popes can create doctrines out of nothing more than their personal opinions?

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

Again, all this interpretation does is say “this is what it meant in the past and the past won’t change.” Do you really think this is what was meant?
I understand the problem, but there can be no reconciliation if 2267 is taken as a new doctrine because it would completely contradict what the church has always taught and believed. Reconciliation of JPII’s words with 2000 years of church teaching is possible only if his comments are seen as prudential; then there is no contradiction.
Look at the box you’re in. You’re forced into accepting that a person can be killed not as punishment for what he has done but only as a preventative measure, but if that is true why would we need to wait for him to commit a crime before executing him? You have separated punishment from prevention so we should be able just to sweep up gang leaders and drug lords, execute them, and move on.

If the death penalty is not applied as a punishment then it cannot be justified under any circumstances.

Ender

You can say “2000 years of teaching” but you haven’t proved it at all. The criminal deserves death and deserves mercy at the hand of humans. That is what the Catechism teaches. It says that the only time the life can be taken is when their is great threat of another murder. Killing is secondary to protection.

“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

This Jewish teaching on blood is valid to this day. That is all it is saying

 

[thinkandmull]

This is what your interpretation forces you to believe. Is it reasonable to assert either that JPII was unaware of church doctrine on this point or that he decided to simply discard all of it? That doesn’t seem the likeliest explanation.
Because God himself endorsed it.*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Pope St. Innocent I)
*In the Catholic Church, this title [Doctor of the Church] is given to a saint from whose writings the whole Church is held to have derived great advantage and to whom “eminent learning” and “great sanctity” have been attributed by a proclamation of a pope or of an ecumenical council. *
Ender

You make so many assumptions. First, Doctors of the Church are just suggested reading. They are not part of Church teaching. Likewise, you need to show that Innocent 1 was speaking of death penalty when they could have contained the criminal, and likewise that he was speaking as Pope

 

[thinkandmull]

only “**if **this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor… [as this is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

That’s a doctrinal claim and teaching

 

[Ender]

According to the Catholic Catechism
"the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. "

As far as I can tell, there is not further explanation to this statement. I find it ambiguous at best.

The phrasing is admittedly not clear, but it is not to difficult to discern what it means. According to Cardinal Dulles: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.
Of these four, only one is taken in reaction to the past. Rehabilitation, defense, and deterrence all seek to affect the future. Retribution is alone in addressing the disorder of the past.

There are other reasons to support this conclusion.*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. *(USCCB)

*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” * (Joseph L. Falvey, Jr. Ave Maria Law School)

*The parts of the Catechism at issue are two consecutive passages: section 2266 on punishment in general and section 2267 on the death penalty. The section on punishment in general reaffirms the traditional formulation of the triple purpose of punishment, and it describes retribution as the first of these purposes. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

Retribution is civil society’s imposition of a just penalty upon an offender who has violated the order of justice. The purpose of the punishment is to restore the order of justice so violated. (John J. Conley, S.J.)

*Retribution, in John Paul’s view, is still the “primary” aim of punishment—primary in the sense that it is the necessary condition for all just punishments. *(Christopher Kaczor, Loyola Marymount Univ.)
Ender