Did the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty change?

[farmersboy]

i haven’t read all the thread - please forgive me - but what about the persons who have to carry out a death penalty.

i reckon it’d be upsettting and traumatic for those intimately involved in carrying it out - except for those who’d get a kick out of it, of course.

i’m not referring only to the act of putting someone to death but everything that leads up to it.

 

[Ender]

In addressing the assertion that ‘if some mortal sins should be punished with death, that all should be’, Aquinas stressed that the punishments of God accord with divine reckoning… but the punishment of this life are more medicinal in character and death can only be justified by concerns for others grave undoing. Ender, I challenge you to read this without bias.

Fine, I’ll use someone else’s explanation. You have seriously misunderstood the meaning of “medicinal” in this context.*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. **The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. ***

*The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime. While this end is in the wide sense medicinal, its form is retributive–for the divine order participated by temporal penalty has both medicinal and retributive aspects. *(Prof. Steven A. Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)

The whole gist of the rest of his reply, is addressing why the sentence of death is in practice justifiable for some mortal sin, but clearly delineated from the unconditional eternal punishment we will experience in the next life, by saying that the punishments of this life are more medicinal and concerned with the public good.

It is again a misinterpretation of Aquinas’ comments to assume “the public good” means only “protection from future crimes.” In fact what he means by it is justice, not protection.Now since the will follows the apprehension of the reason or intellect; the more universal the aspect of the apprehended good, the more universal the good to which the will tends. This is evident in the example given above: because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate. (ST I-II 19,10)

Surely you are not suggesting that people who miss Mass or reject doctrine should be put to death by the State.

No. I’m suggesting that Aquinas understood the passage he was citing.

Augustine and Aquinas warned that “the letter of law killeth”.

You have ripped this saying completely out of context and would have it mean we need follow the law only when it suits us.

Aquinas has clearly explained why we can’t just arbitrarily kill as the Lord would.

Arbitrarily? Where do you come up with this? On the one hand you charge me with uncompromisingly following the letter of the law and then turn around and charge me with applying it arbitrarily. Charge me with whatever you like but at least don’t make your charges contradictory.

Our punishments are medicinal and concerned primarily for public good.

And what constitutes the common good?*in every community, he who governs the community, cares, first of all, for the common good; wherefore it is his business to award retribution for such things as are done well or ill in the community. *(ST I-II, 21,4,1)
Ender

 

[Ender]

i haven’t read all the thread - please forgive me - but what about the persons who have to carry out a death penalty.

i reckon it’d be upsettting and traumatic for those intimately involved in carrying it out - except for those who’d get a kick out of it, of course.

i’m not referring only to the act of putting someone to death but everything that leads up to it.

Most of us would find it extremely traumatic to amputate someone’s limb but when it is done through necessity there is at least no moral trauma involved. It becomes simply a duty, however unpleasant. This is not really different than the policeman or soldier who also finds it necessary to kill in the performance of his duties.*Only evil people do violence against evil people. But this is quite different from those who must act because of their position in society. A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. *(Augustine)

*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *(Augustine)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Fine, I’ll use someone else’s explanation. You have seriously misunderstood the meaning of “medicinal” in this context.*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. **The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. ***

The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime. While this end is in the wide sense medicinal, its form is retributive–for the divine order participated by temporal penalty has both medicinal and retributive aspects. (Prof. Steven A. Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)

Aquinas clearly states "All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. "

What does this mean if not that the punishments of this life are more medicinal than retributive. Aquinas is making a line in the sand here otherwise why would he bother even mentioning this point in the first place. Of course the authority to punish whether it be State or other authoritive institution or parent, is the model of Gods divine reckoning, but…

Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

• Dulles

It is again a misinterpretation of Aquinas’ comments to assume “the public good” means only “protection from future crimes.” In fact what he means by it is justice, not protection.Now since the will follows the apprehension of the reason or intellect; the more universal the aspect of the apprehended good, the more universal the good to which the will tends. This is evident in the example given above: because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate. (ST I-II 19,10)

The ‘common good’ refers to the temporal welfare of society. Rather than being an expression of mans relation to God, it is the ideal of mans relation to each other and is necessarily of a different nature to a religious institution as you seem to be asserting. So the common good is certainly justice, but mans justice. Not Gods justice.

 

[Ender]

What does this mean if not that the punishments of this life are more medicinal than retributive.

What, according to the church, is the primary objective of punishment?

So the common good is certainly justice, but mans justice. Not Gods justice.

What is justice? Very simply it is treating a person as his actions deserve.It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): “Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him.”

• We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now,** retribution according to justice** is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt.*(ST I-II 21,3)
  Punishment is an obligation of justice and if execution is the just punishment for a crime then what is the argument that it should not be applied, especially given that the church has always accepted that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

What, according to the church, is the primary objective of punishment?

"**Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”. - Evangelium Vitae **

Punishment is an obligation of justice and if execution is the just punishment for a crime then what is the argument that it should not be applied, especially given that the church has always accepted that death is a just punishment for the crime of murder?

Ender

"The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society". Evanglium Vitae

This is more deeply in keeping with doctrine, the essence of which esteems mans value in ever greater degrees…

***From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable *

1. “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves ?the creative action of God’, and it remains forever 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, in any circumstance, claim for himself the right to destroy directly an innocent human being”.41 With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God’s revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life. - EV.**

 

[bcuster]

The Church has not changed doctrine, it has developed a new and deeper understanding of the concept of keeping society safe from murderers, etc. In today’s society, the death penalty may not be needed to keep us safe. There may still be situations when it is needed, but in the developed nations there are alternatives.

 

[Ender]

I asked for the church’s definition of the primary objective of punishment. You responded with a three paragraph citation from Evangelium Vitae that doesn’t answer the question. What I was looking for was the one sentence definition given in catechism section 2266: "The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." You don’t seem comfortable answering questions directly but I’ll ask another one anyway: would you consider “redressing the disorder” to be medicinal?

From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable.

With this I think we’ve reached the end of useful debate. That you can cite this passage and claim that human life is inviolable, knowing that Gn 9:6 says something entirely contradictory to your interpretation, demonstrates to me that no citation from anyone is likely to influence your opinion.

1. With these words the Instruction Donum Vitae sets forth the central content of God’s revelation on the sacredness and inviolability of human life. - EV.

Regardless of your interpretation here, the church has never taken the position that human life is inviolable, meaning that it may never be taken under any circumstances. Evangelium Vitae here is discussing the commandment “Thou shall not kill” but it does not mean that human life is always inviolable, rather it means this: "*The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Aquinas). *If it meant otherwise how could the church have ever developed a just war theory, sanctioned killing in self defense, or allowed capital punishment even in theory as she does today?

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

People unfamiliar with prisons tend to think that the section of CCC 2267 oft quoted:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”

means that locking people away in prisons, even super max, means society is defended against the aggressor.

However, the situation in the United States where our legal system guarantees right of visitation and communication in even the most secure confinement—as in a super-max prison or on death row, the aggressor still has the capacity to reach out and harm the innocent, whether through the possession of contraband cell phones, information transmitted through attorneys, guards, and visitors—and it is in this context that criminal justice professionals require the continued option of capital punishment; and it is from this perspective of still being able to threaten the innocent, that the magisterium of the Catholic Church, expressed through the centuries, continues to support capital punishment.

As a former criminal—thief and robber—who spent 12 years in maximum security prisons, I can assure you that prisoners find it relatively easy to control organized criminal activity on the streets from prison, even including murder, and several examples of such are included in the book published by my criminal reformation apostolate, The Lampstand Foundation:

Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Lukenbill%2C+Capital+Punishment+%26+Catholic+Social+Teaching%3A

A note on the discussion so far and I too am growing weary of it, because in discussing this issue with liberal Catholics, Catholic doctrine is always subordinate to maintaining their progressive Catholic narrative, which includes opposition to capital punishment and approval of abortion.

The atheistic core of the left—drawn mostly from Marxist analysis—is that human life is not sacred, that it is a construct of social movements, and removing the sacredness of human life allows the murderer who takes innocent human life to remain alive while destroying the life of the most innocent, the unborn.

 

[LongingSoul]

I asked for the church’s definition of the primary objective of punishment. You responded with a three paragraph citation from Evangelium Vitae that doesn’t answer the question. What I was looking for was the one sentence definition given in catechism section 2266: "The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense." You don’t seem comfortable answering questions directly but I’ll ask another one anyway: would you consider “redressing the disorder” to be medicinal?

This is how I understand ‘medicinal’ here.

*Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 *

It only assumes the value of expiation according to the internal disposition of the guilty party. If the guilty party is not so accepting to the justness of his punishment, it has no value of expiation. Punishment defends public order, protects peoples safety and has a medicinal purpose in regards to the correction of the guilty party ie. his rehabilitation.

From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable.

With this I think we’ve reached the end of useful debate. That you can cite this passage and claim that human life is inviolable, knowing that Gn 9:6 says something entirely contradictory to your interpretation, demonstrates to me that no citation from anyone is likely to influence your opinion.

I didn’t make the claim there. It was copied straight from EV. From man in regard to his fellow man I will demand an accounting for human life" (Gen 9:5): human life is sacred and inviolable.

You are correct in believing that nothing will convince me that the post-conciliar Church is misleading the faithful and changing doctrine. I’ve done the spiritual exercises some years ago and continue in the spirit of St Ignatius to “think with the Church” to groom myself for heaven.

Regardless of your interpretation here, the church has never taken the position that human life is inviolable, meaning that it may never be taken under any circumstances. Evangelium Vitae here is discussing the commandment “Thou shall not kill” but it does not mean that human life is always inviolable, rather it means this: "*The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Aquinas). *If it meant otherwise how could the church have ever developed a just war theory, sanctioned killing in self defense, or allowed capital punishment even in theory as she does today?

Ender

By the principle of double effect, Aquinas preserves the sacredness of the fifth commandment free of clauses and loopholes.

 

[Moabiter]

I find it quite sad that some simply ignore the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Especially if those individuals otherwise embrace a “culture of life”.

It suggests they - as so many - only accept the Church’s teaching, which is already in conformity with their views.

Doesn’t that make those individuals just as much - to quote Peter Kreeft - “cafeteria Catholics”?

 

[LongingSoul]

People unfamiliar with prisons tend to think that the section of CCC 2267 oft quoted:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”

means that locking people away in prisons, even super max, means society is defended against the aggressor.

However, the situation in the United States where our legal system guarantees right of visitation and communication in even the most secure confinement—as in a super-max prison or on death row, the aggressor still has the capacity to reach out and harm the innocent, whether through the possession of contraband cell phones, information transmitted through attorneys, guards, and visitors—and it is in this context that criminal justice professionals require the continued option of capital punishment; and it is from this perspective of still being able to threaten the innocent, that the magisterium of the Catholic Church, expressed through the centuries, continues to support capital punishment.

As a former criminal—thief and robber—who spent 12 years in maximum security prisons, I can assure you that prisoners find it relatively easy to control organized criminal activity on the streets from prison, even including murder, and several examples of such are included in the book published by my criminal reformation apostolate, The Lampstand Foundation:

Capital Punishment & Catholic Social Teaching: A Tradition of Support, amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Lukenbill%2C+Capital+Punishment+%26+Catholic+Social+Teaching%3A

I actually accept the validity of this argument in accordance with the then Cardinal Ratzingers words…

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

My argument is specifically addressed to those who claim that for a State authority to choose to abolish the death penalty, as Australia and all other Christian countries have done, is a rejection of Church teaching.

A note on the discussion so far and I too am growing weary of it, because in discussing this issue with liberal Catholics, Catholic doctrine is always subordinate to maintaining their progressive Catholic narrative, which includes opposition to capital punishment and approval of abortion.

The atheistic core of the left—drawn mostly from Marxist analysis—is that human life is not sacred, that it is a construct of social movements, and removing the sacredness of human life allows the murderer who takes innocent human life to remain alive while destroying the life of the most innocent, the unborn.

In this forum of mostly faithful Catholics, I’ve never seen one poster approving of abortion or rejecting the sacredness of life. In fact, the opposite is true of them. They feel the truth in Pope John Pauls urgent urgings towards arresting the virulent culture of death that pervades the spirit of society…

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life:who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away… I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”-Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, Missouri, January 1999

 

[estesbob]

I actually accept the validity of this argument in accordance with the then Cardinal Ratzingers words…

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

My argument is specifically addressed to those who claim that for a State authority to choose to abolish the death penalty, as Australia and all other Christian countries have done, is a rejection of Church teaching.

In this forum of mostly faithful Catholics, I’ve never seen one poster approving of abortion or rejecting the sacredness of life. In fact, the opposite is true of them. They feel the truth in Pope John Pauls urgent urgings towards arresting the virulent culture of death that pervades the spirit of society…

“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life:who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away… I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”-Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, Missouri, January 1999

Actually what they claim repeatedly is that there is a moral equivalence between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty. They use that as a justification for voting for pro abortion candidates

 

[estesbob]

I find it quite sad that some simply ignore the Church’s teaching on this issue.

Especially if those individuals otherwise embrace a “culture of life”.

It suggests they - as so many - only accept the Church’s teaching, which is already in conformity with their views.

Doesn’t that make those individuals just as much - to quote Peter Kreeft - “cafeteria Catholics”?

Abortion is an intrinsic evil, capital punishment is not.A Catholic can in good conscience support the latter but never the former.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Actually what they claim repeatedly is that there is a moral equivalence between supporting abortion and supporting the death penalty. They use that as a justification for voting for pro abortion candidates

That nailed it.

 

[Ender]

People unfamiliar with prisons tend to think that the section of CCC 2267 oft quoted … means that locking people away in prisons, even super max, means society is defended against the aggressor.

However, the situation in the United States where our legal system guarantees right of visitation and communication in even the most secure confinement—as in a super-max prison or on death row, the aggressor still has the capacity to reach out and harm the innocent, whether through the possession of contraband cell phones, information transmitted through attorneys, guards, and visitors—and it is in this context that criminal justice professionals require the continued option of capital punishment; and it is from this perspective of still being able to threaten the innocent, that the magisterium of the Catholic Church, expressed through the centuries, continues to support capital punishment.

There is no doubt whatever that the assertion that imprisoning felons adequately protects society may legitimately be challenged. If Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment means anything at all it means at least that much: "“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
That argument is not the one I’ve been making. I have never accepted the claim that capital punishment can be justified only if it is necessary to protect society. Protection is a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective of all punishment is retribution - retributive justice - and it is an obligation of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. In the case of murder the only commensurate punishment is the life of the murderer.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Protection is a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective of all punishment is retribution - retributive justice - and it is an obligation of justice that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. In the case of murder the only commensurate punishment is the life of the murderer.

I agree, and in a great book, Thomas Aquinas and the Philosophy of Punishment, by Peter Karl Koritansky, a great point is made:

“…Aquinas does not adhere to a strict version of the *lex talionis *which demands that punishment return the same kind of evil upon the criminal that he himself perpetuated. Instead, it is sufficient that the criminal’s sinful will be repressed by the infliction of some contrary evil, not necessarily for the purpose of rectifying the criminal’s will, but for repairing the order of justice that was damaged by the original act. So insistent is Aquinas on this point, he even admits that if a reformed criminal freely submits to the punitive sentence imposed upon him, his penalty “loses somewhat the nature of punishment.” (ST, I-II, 87.6) It is also why he recommends that wherever possible political authority ought to impose punishments “by depriving a man of what he loves most” (ST, II-II, 108.3) with the extent of the punishment corresponding to the severity of the crime. Again, this dimension of Aquinas’s understanding of punishment has emphatically retributive overtones…”(pp. 105-106)

 

[Ender]

This is how I understand ‘medicinal’ here.

Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. …

Good, then you accept that retribution is medicinal because “redressing the disorder” in fact means retribution. This is exactly what Professor Long meant in saying:*The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. *… The end is not punishment, but rather the manifestation of a divine norm of retributive justice, which entails proportionate equality vis-à-vis the crime. While this end is in the wide sense medicinal, its form is retributive
The objectives of rehabilitation, protection, and deterrence are all legitimate but they are also all secondary.

You are correct in believing that nothing will convince me that the post-conciliar Church is misleading the faithful and changing doctrine.

If the doctrine has not changed then why do you disagree with the doctrine as it was expressed throughout the entirety of church history until 1995?

By the principle of double effect, Aquinas preserves the sacredness of the fifth commandment free of clauses and loopholes.

Can you provide a citation to support this claim?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I find it quite sad that some simply ignore the Church’s teaching on this issue. … Doesn’t that make those individuals just as much - to quote Peter Kreeft - “cafeteria Catholics”?

There is of course a more charitable conclusion: you could assume we are simply wrong in holding the position we do. Given that charity obliges us to interpret a person’s comments in the best possible light you might want to rethink your statement.* He who interprets doubtful matters for the best, may happen to be deceived more often than not; yet it is better to err frequently through thinking well of a wicked man, than to err less frequently through having an evil opinion of a good man, because in the latter case an injury is inflicted, but not in the former." *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

My argument is specifically addressed to those who claim that for a State authority to choose to abolish the death penalty, as Australia and all other Christian countries have done, is a rejection of Church teaching.

Since you and I have been carrying much of this debate recently it seems reasonable to believe you think this is my position. It isn’t. What I have rejected are (most of) the **arguments **presented to support the position that capital punishment ought to be eliminated.

I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”-Pope John Paul II, St. Louis, Missouri, January 1999

This is a good example of what I mean. It might in fact be a good idea to end the death penalty, but not because it is* “both cruel and unnecessary.”* That I reject both of those claims says nothing whatever about my position on capital punishment.

Ender