Death penalty question

[wpr7]

I have a question about the morality of the death penalty. My question is NOT whether the death penalty is allowed. I know that the Church allows for the use of the death penalty, at least in situations where it is necessary to preserve innocent lives. CCC 2267. My question is how is that justified?

I know that the Church justifies repelling an unjust aggressor with lethal force by the principle of “double effect.” CCC 2263 (“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.’”). Therefore, if you are attacked and your life is in danger, and you shoot your attacker in the chest, it is okay, because your goal is not to kill him, but rather, to protect your own life. While you may be aware that your shot will likely result in his death, that is not your intention.

Is the death penalty justified by the principle of “double effect?” I cannot see how it is because the death penalty, by its very nature, means that you are intending to kill the person. If it is not the principle of double effect that justifies the death penalty, then does the Church allow for the direct killing people who are not “innocent” based upon another moral principle? Are there Church (or other) documents that explain this? Thanks.

PS–Just to be clear, this is a theological and moral question, not a political one. In this thread, I am not interested in whether the death penalty SHOULD be used. But rather, explanations of why it CAN be used, since the Church is clear that it can.

 

[Joyousguard]

The death penalty comes into play in countries where they are not able to house persons (using our own legal system; deserving of the death penalty) guilty of heinouse crimes. That is to say, countries who cannot afford to house these types of prisoners (some countries really can’t afford it) or it might be much too dangerous to allow this person to sit in prison (effects of supports etc) rather than be put to death.

Lets consider the first scenarion; a country unable to house a convicted prsioner who is a danger to society. What do they do? They can’t lock him away like we can in this country. They either don’t have the money or don’t have the infrastructure or both. How do you protect society from this imminent threat?

Secondly, it becomes a consderation that this person if kept alive might cause greater harm in regards to supporters attempting free this person or staging hijackings etc. etc. If this becomes a real scenario and thhis person has commited crimes that one would legally consider eligible for the death penalty, should they be executed?

Lets look at the double effect principle:

“1. the nature of the act is itself good (e.g., its nature is to relieve someone of pain or distress);
2. the intention is for the good effect and not the bad;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect (e.g., risking a patient’s death to stop intolerable pain); and
4. the good effect (relieving pain) does not go through the bad effect (e.g., death)”

(scamed from wikipedia because the Summae is too difficult to explain in brevity “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect”)

Lets create an example using this understanding.

A facist dictator guilty of genocide in a very small poor African country. This man is arrested and found guilty. The desire of the authorities is to protect the people from this man and his henchmen who he has led in the past and who still seek for his return. The country has a very poor prison system and is incapable of ensureing that this man is kept behind bars. No other country wishes to take responsibility for this man and his care.

In this instance it is felt that the there might be no choice and that the only choice would be to execute this man even though the good is achieved through the double effect of death. The church does not encourage nor promote this but does understand that countries do have the right to protect their people. However, the death penalty would be and should be on a case by case scenario and not a broad allowance if certain criteria are met. The church merely says that there might be certain circumstances, remote as they might be that could warrent the death penalty.

 

[wpr7]

Thanks a lot for your thorough answer. Here is where I am unclear though. I am not sure the death penalty can be justified by double effect because I am not sure it meets criteria #2: “the intention is for the good effect, not the bad.” By the very nature of the death penalty, you are intending to kill the criminal. There is no “unintended consequence” as it says in the Catechism. If the executioner fails to kill, he will have to do it again until he suceeds in what is clearly the stated goal. The good effect is the protection of society, but the “bad effect” is the killing of the criminal (if it is considered bad). You intend them both, you do not merely accept that the “bad effect” will likely result.

That said, does the Church teach another justification for the death penalty? Is it that the state directly willing the death of a criminal is not intrinsicly wrong based upon another moral principle besides double effect? Perhaps the state’s inherent rights to protect society? Is only killing the INNOCENT, intrinsicly wrong?

 

[Joyousguard]

The intent of the death penalty is not to kill the criminal but to rather protect society or delvier justice (legal terminology). Example: I drive to the store. It is my intent to drive to the store to pick up some milk. It was not my intent to go for a ride but it was almost a secondary intent to me wanting to get milk. Similiar with the death penalty. It is not the desire of the church to see any man put to death but rather they understand that the state has a right and obligation to protect its people. The desire of the state to protect the people leads to the death penalty not the desire to punish criminals with death leads to the death penalty (even though many criminologists believe deterence is possible).

A causes B. A is the desire to protect society, B is the means they use to do so (death penalty) and A1 is taking a life. A causes B but A causes A1 as well even though it was not the desire intent. I throw a ball to my friend. My desire is to get the ball to my friend with the end result of him catching it but as a result I must use my arm as well which was not my original intnet nor was it the reason for doing the action.

The Church and indeed all human beings shouldhave no interest in putting people to death, but we do have an interest in protecting society. this desire is what leads to the death penalty and its tolerance in “certain circumstances” by the Church. Notice I use the word tolerance instead of allowance. Tolerance is an understanding that unfourtunately there might be certain cases and they must be looked at in the greater good but allowance is giving ones permission. The Church nor anyone should give their permission for such a thing even though we understand that sometimes there may be no choice.

 

[mercygate]

I have a question about the morality of the death penalty. My question is NOT whether the death penalty is allowed. I know that the Church allows for the use of the death penalty, at least in situations where it is necessary to preserve innocent lives. CCC 2267. My question is how is that justified?

I know that the Church justifies repelling an unjust aggressor with lethal force by the principle of “double effect.” CCC 2263 (“The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. ‘The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.’”). Therefore, if you are attacked and your life is in danger, and you shoot your attacker in the chest, it is okay, because your goal is not to kill him, but rather, to protect your own life. While you may be aware that your shot will likely result in his death, that is not your intention.

Is the death penalty justified by the principle of “double effect?” I cannot see how it is because the death penalty, by its very nature, means that you are intending to kill the person. If it is not the principle of double effect that justifies the death penalty, then does the Church allow for the direct killing people who are not “innocent” based upon another moral principle? Are there Church (or other) documents that explain this? Thanks.

PS–Just to be clear, this is a theological and moral question, not a political one. In this thread, I am not interested in whether the death penalty SHOULD be used. But rather, explanations of why it CAN be used, since the Church is clear that it can.

Double effect is not the operative business here. This is a matter of justice. The death penalty would be justly be applied only for an equivalent crime: taking a life. “Justice” and the greater social good of protecting society would allow the equivalent penalty.

There is no “double effect” because the intention is to take the life of the convicted criminal. The rationale would be the protection of society from a person whose demonstrated evil actions cannot otherwise be contained.

 

[wpr7]

Double effect is not the operative business here. This is a matter of justice. The death penalty would be justly be applied only for an equivalent crime: taking a life. “Justice” and the greater social good of protecting society would allow the equivalent penalty.

There is no “double effect” because the intention is to take the life of the convicted criminal. The rationale would be the protection of society from a person whose demonstrated evil actions cannot otherwise be contained.

This makes sense, so long as intentional killing is not intrinsicly wrong, but only intentional killing of the innocent. Do you know of any Church documents, or prominent theologians, that explain this in more detail?

 

[mercygate]

This makes sense, so long as intentional killing is not intrinsicly wrong, but only intentional killing of the innocent. Do you know of any Church documents, or prominent theologians, that explain this in more detail?

You are correct that the distinction hinges on the word “innocent.”

 

[Sure]

This makes sense, so long as intentional killing is not intrinsicly wrong, but only intentional killing of the innocent. Do you know of any Church documents, or prominent theologians, that explain this in more detail?

CCC2258
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an **innocent **human being.”

 

[Mayo]

Puting someone to death is never justified no matter what way they murdered the person.
Revenge is mine says The Lord. The fifth commandment says thou shalt not kill and that means period. They use the word State . The State is Executing some one. The State is a parcel of land. How can a parcel of land execute anyone?
It is the Authorities in the State that are putting people to death.
The Catholic Church does not allow the Death Penalty you are wrong. If it did it would be saying you can break the Fifth Commandment and we all know that it will not do that

To back this up. A Catholic Governer in one of the States signed a Death Warrent to put somsone to death. A Cardinal from one of the Dioses publiclay said he could not do that
Remember when a Governer signs a death Warrent he is acting as God and he can not do that.
The previous Governer of that State was catholic and he never signed a death warrent for that reason.
WE are all going to die someday and God will judge us according to our works. No one else is allowed to do that. no matter what.

Killing someone in self defence is not a sin when you know your life is in danger. We have a moral responcibility to protect our own lives. The Church teaches that.

Mayo

 

[DaveBj]

The morality of the death penalty is summed up in Gen. 9:6–you can look it up for yourself. That law has never been abrogated.

 

[mapleoak]

It would be hard to justify the death penalty on the basis of the the need to protect society from a dangerous person. Both innocent and guilty people can be dangerous. It is only the murder of the innocent which is an intrinsic evil and that which is never allowed, even to protect society.

 

[Ender]

Double effect is not the operative business here.

I agree with this. Since the benefit (the protection of society) flows directly from the “evil” (the execution of the prisoner) this does not satisfy the criteria.

This is a matter of justice. The death penalty would be justly be applied only for an equivalent crime: taking a life.

This is the key point: it is a matter of justice. The Church teaches (2266) that the state has the “right and duty” to inflict punishment proportionate to the severity of the crime.

“Justice” and the greater social good of protecting society would allow the equivalent penalty.

The Church recognizes four purposes for criminal punishment: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and the protection of society. The primary end of punishment is not the protection of society but (2266) “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” That is, justice requires that the debt of sin be paid.

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The death penalty comes into play in countries where they are not able to house persons (using our own legal system; deserving of the death penalty) guilty of heinouse crimes. That is to say, countries who cannot afford to house these types of prisoners (some countries really can’t afford it) or it might be much too dangerous to allow this person to sit in prison (effects of supports etc) rather than be put to death.

Lets consider the first scenarion; a country unable to house a convicted prsioner who is a danger to society. What do they do? They can’t lock him away like we can in this country. They either don’t have the money or don’t have the infrastructure or both. How do you protect society from this imminent threat?

Secondly, it becomes a consderation that this person if kept alive might cause greater harm in regards to supporters attempting free this person or staging hijackings etc. etc. If this becomes a real scenario and thhis person has commited crimes that one would legally consider eligible for the death penalty, should they be executed?

Lets look at the double effect principle:

“1. the nature of the act is itself good (e.g., its nature is to relieve someone of pain or distress);
2. the intention is for the good effect and not the bad;
3. the good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect (e.g., risking a patient’s death to stop intolerable pain); and
4. the good effect (relieving pain) does not go through the bad effect (e.g., death)”

(scamed from wikipedia because the Summae is too difficult to explain in brevity “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect”)

Lets create an example using this understanding.

A facist dictator guilty of genocide in a very small poor African country. This man is arrested and found guilty. The desire of the authorities is to protect the people from this man and his henchmen who he has led in the past and who still seek for his return. The country has a very poor prison system and is incapable of ensureing that this man is kept behind bars. No other country wishes to take responsibility for this man and his care.

In this instance it is felt that the there might be no choice and that the only choice would be to execute this man even though the good is achieved through the double effect of death. The church does not encourage nor promote this but does understand that countries do have the right to protect their people. However, the death penalty would be and should be on a case by case scenario and not a broad allowance if certain criteria are met. The church merely says that there might be certain circumstances, remote as they might be that could warrent the death penalty.

In theory your answer I guess makes some sense, but in the practical real world what country cannot house those dangerous to its society? I cannot think of one. It’s a lot like making excuses to me. The death penalty is the state’s intentional decision to rid itself of one of its citizens. To me that’s murder and against God’s wishes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The morality of the death penalty is summed up in Gen. 9:6–you can look it up for yourself. That law has never been abrogated.

Where do you get your authority for saying this?

 

[Brendan]

Puting someone to death is never justified no matter what way they murdered the person.
Revenge is mine says The Lord.

Yep, vengence is God’s and He can use any agent He desires to see that vendence is done.

Which He did

Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Romans 13:3-4

The fifth commandment says thou shalt not kill and that means period.

Here is what the Council of Trent had to say about the 5th Commandment and Capital Punishment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

They use the word State . The State is Executing some one. The State is a parcel of land. How can a parcel of land execute anyone?

It is the Authorities in the State that are putting people to death.
The Catholic Church does not allow the Death Penalty you are wrong. If it did it would be saying you can break the Fifth Commandment and we all know that it will not do that

See above on how a Council of the Church views how the 5th Commandment applies.

 

[vern_humphrey]

In an earlier discussion on this subject, I posted a short version of a lesson I developed under contract to the US Bureau of Prisons. Based on an actual incident, the lesson goes like this:

You are the warden. You have just learned that an inmate has handed a photograph to a Corrections Officer. The photograph shows the Corrections Officer’s 6-year old daughter playing in the back yard.

1. What is your assessment of this matter?
2. What action, if any, should you take?
3. What is your evaluation of the state of security in your prison?

Just for fun, try answering those questions.

 

[DaveBj]

Where do you get your authority for saying this?

No authority is needed. It is a fact that in the verse cited (as well as in many other verses in the Torah). It is also a fact that nowhere in either the Old Testament or in the New Testament is that basic law abrogated.

 

[Ender]

The morality of the death penalty is summed up in Gen. 9:6–you can look it up for yourself.

A number of claims have been made about the inapplicability of some of the old testament laws (e.g. “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”) as an argument against using the old testament in support of capital punishment. What is interesting about your citation however is that it is not part of the Mosaic law - as is the example I used - and it is the Mosaic laws that are being challenged. Genesis 9:6 predates Moses; it is part of the covenant with Noah and these are not the words of Noah but the words of God. I think this passage presents a significant challenge to anyone who believes the death penalty is immoral.

Ender

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No authority is needed. It is a fact that in the verse cited (as well as in many other verses in the Torah). It is also a fact that nowhere in either the Old Testament or in the New Testament is that basic law abrogated.

LOL…okay…I believe somewhere in the OT it says to burn witches…And that undoubtedly wasnt abrogated either,…seem to remember some folks did that in Salem, MA…Do you possibly see a problem with your logic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The issue is not “Which crimes call for the death penalty,” but rather “What is the legitimate role of the death penalty (if any)?”

The Church’s position – which is emminently reasonable – is that it is the duty of government to protect the rest of us. If that duty can be carried out without the death penalty, then it should be. But **if **the death penalty is necessary to protect society, then it is a legitimate power of government.

As I illustrated in my mini-lesson on penology, there is no such thing as an absolutely secure prison. There are prisoners who are capable of subverting Corrections Officers, controlling outside crime from within the prison, killing both fellow inmates and Corrections Officers. There are criminals who are depraved enough to kill or terrorize witnesses, prosecutors, judges and juries.

We cannot permit things like this to happen – it would destroy society. So in the end, the death penalty must be available to deal with such dangerous persons.