Do you support the death penalty?

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you. It went well.
Why do you keep trying to rephrase my position? I have explained what I believe and I have never used the word “must”. My position was clearly laid out in post #632 but it’s short so I’ll repeat it:

For [JPII] the default position would be not to apply capital punishment; for me the default position would be to use it. Both of us accept that circumstances can reverse the default position.

Ender

Many times rephrasing a person’s position is done in an honest effort to truly understand that position. That is why I have reworded your position twice. I misunderstood it the first time and I hope I succeeded the second time.

Surely this is better than assuming that one understands without verification. If I can correctly state your position using words of my own I have learned something valuable and can add appropriately to the discussion.

 

[Ender]

Correct; they aren’t the same thing.

Except that I have now cited over a half dozen sources saying specifically and unambiguously that they are the same thing. Do you really believe all those people (including two priests, the USCCB, and three or four university professors) are mistaken? Can you cite anything at all supporting your position that “redress” and “retribution” don’t mean the same thing?

We all agree that the primary purpose of punishment is “redress.” But wny must redress equate 100% with retribution?

Because that’s what the words mean.

And even if that were true, why must “retribution” equate 100% will killing the offender?

That’s another issue and in any event is not something I have ever said. Right now I’m focusing solely on what “redress the disorder” means. How many citations will it take for you to accept that it means retribution? If you had something to indicate that these are different concepts that would be one thing but you have nothing at all with which to respond to my citations except to ignore them because you disagree with them. Dismissing comments is not the same as rebutting them.

Ender

 

[surritter]

But why must redress equate 100% with retribution?

Because that’s what the words mean.

Ugh. Apparently this is the crux of the monkey wrench in these hundreds of posts: redress does not mean retribution. They are not synonyms, as you insist. A dictionary/thesaurus might tell us that, but it would sure help to also reread posts #77 and 85.

The four “ends” of punishment are rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution.
For the umpteenth time, it is going beyond the intent of the Church (and any dictionary) to say that the only one of the four ends that has anything to do with redress is retribution. 'Nuff said.

 

[mmccarthyak]

This is not a poll. This is a conflict of conscience where you and you alone must accept the consequences of the heart and the head. Remember that our Heavenly Father has provided each of us children with free will. Consider these scenarios for a moment:

A Sociopath brutally murders and dismembers their victim without remorse

A doctor of a local clinic kills an unborn child using the practice of Abortion

A person in their home defends their life by shooting and killing the perpetrator

A soldier on the battlefield, ordered to engage the enemy, kills an “insurgent”.

An officer of the court “throws” the switch to execute a prisoner sentenced to die

Each example is an example of Killing another human being. The question should read: Which example can you justifiably accept with a clear conscience all the while remembering that one prevailing Judeo - Christian precept is “Thou shalt not Kill”

This is not as easy as “do you support the death penalty?” Each one in and of itself is the death penalty. It’s the make-up of the court that is different.

I just pray that my catholic faith will guide me correctly when confronted with such unimaginable circumstances.

 

[surritter]

Your position is that capital punishment must be used (because of a definitive Church teaching) unless circumstances justify not using it (the “prudential” part).

Why do you keep trying to rephrase my position? I have explained what I believe and I have never used the word “must”.

I’m not changing a thing about what you said. Recall your words in post #344:

Surritter: You constantly maintain that the death penalty is, by default, a required punishment, unless prudential judgment deems it more harmful to the common good.
Ender: Yes, that’s pretty much my position.

No need to jump all over me; you clearly said that it’s a “must” (which is what “required” obviously means) unless circumstances justify not using it (which is exactly what I wrote!!)
If you are now nuancing your position, fine. But I try to be pretty honest with quotations, and even included the “unless” part.

 

[dudleysharp]

I voted “other/ it depends.”
I believe that in very rare cases where to let someone live would mean they are a danger to others or themselves. This would mean even life in prison is not enough confinement to keep them from being a threat. Under these circumstances, then the death penalty is a valid but sad option.
I seriously believe that it is over-used.

That is why everyone that votes other/it depends is a yes vote.

All who say yes, understand that it is conditonal and depends upon the crime and/or the criminal.

Even those who say they are against the death penalty, often change their minds to support depending upon the crimes.

For example, when Gallup asks about truly death penalty eligible murders, Gallup found death penalty opposition falls by 43% and support rose by 25% (1), which would mean 77% support and 20% opposition using Gallup’s 10/6-9/11 poll (2), as with Timothy McVeigh’s (the Oklahoma City bomber’s) execution, 81% supported his execution, with 16% opposed (Gallup 5/02/01), while 65% offer general support for executions for all murders, with 28% opposed (Gallup, 6/10/01) (1). The polls were conducted at nearly the same time.

A Nov, 2010 poll showed that a majority (81%) believes that innocents have been executed and that a majority (83%) still supports the death penalty (2).

(1) “Death Penalty Support Remains Very High: USA & The World”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-polls-support-remains.html

(2) a. “(83% 0f) Americans Support Punishing Murder with the Death Penalty”, Angus Reid Poll, 11/09/10,
angus-reid.com/polls/43498/americans-support-punishing-murder-with-the-death-penalty/

   b. 80% US death penalty support, 12% opposed – 10/4/11 poll

angus-reid.com/polls/44070/most-americans-prefer-the-death-penalty-for-convicted-murderers/

 

[dudleysharp]

I’m not changing a thing about what you said. Recall your words in post #344:

No need to jump all over me; you clearly said that it’s a “must” (which is what “required” obviously means) unless circumstances justify not using it (which is exactly what I wrote!!)
If you are now nuancing your position, fine. But I try to be pretty honest with quotations, and even included the “unless” part.

Surritter:

If circumstances justify not using it, then it is conditional, and, being conditional there is no “must” using the death penalty in all cases.

Isn’t that clear?

Let’s be a bit more charitable.

I think neither you nor LS thought that EV and CCC were abolitionist on the death penalty, when they both clearly were.

Sometimes we may read and/or write in a manner that are unclear and we can later clarify without accusations, can we not?

I can understand why Ender would think the death penalty was a must, unless conditions dictated otherwise, as both well known biblical passages and Magisterial commentary state, with commands, unqualified words for execution. Many of those have been reviewed within these posts, already.

Some examples of many:

Numbers 35:31 You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he MUST be put to death.

Matthew 15:4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother SHALL DIE.’

Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of “PARAMOUNT OBEDIENCE” to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, “WHEN ALREADY, BY HIS FAULT, HE HAS DISPOSSED HIMSELF OF THE RIGHT TO LIVE.” 9/14/52.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dudleysharp]

It seems obvious that redressing the disorder must mean justice or just retribution and also must include a redressing the imbalance created by the wrong, with expiation, restoration, rehabilitation and atonement all being hoped for ends, but justice or just retribution being required.

Pease review:

“While punishment does serve the purpose of protecting society, it also and “primarily” serves the function of manifesting the transcendent, divine order of justice–an order which the state executes by divine delegation.” " . . . it may be argued that such a conception of punishment, rooted in the restoration of moral balance, always presupposes an awareness of the superordinate dignity of the common good as defined by transcendent moral truths." (5)

“Yet the presence of two purposes–retributive and medicinal justice–ought not obscure the priority of assigning punishment proportionate to the crime (just retribution) insofar as the limited jurisdiction of human justice allows. 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.” “The medicinal goal is not tantamount merely to stopping future evildoing, but rather entails manifesting the truth of the divine order of justice both to the criminal and to society at large. This means that mere stopping of further disorder is insufficient to constitute the full medicinal character of justice, which purpose alike and primarily entails the manifestation of the truth. Thus this foundational sense of the medicinality of penalty is retained even when others drop away.” (6)

Justice is the soul of sanction. All other results - “defense of society”, protection, safety, deterrence - although beneficial and desired, are a result of sanction, not the reasons for it.

Rehabilitation//correction/redemption/expiation have a foundation in just retribution, but depend upon the free will choice of the criminal who we hope will, by grace, avail themselves of those choices.

Some non Catholic, but I hope, thoughtful reviews:

----- C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

----- C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002

----- Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.

They want the child to understand the level of transgression, which is reflected in the degree of sanction (retribution), that the expected and hoped for result of that sanction is teaching, to encourage sorrow and apology that will be reflected in improved behavior, that such rehabilitation will result in a better person that will improve the total moral good (rehabilitation and redemption).

Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.

1. “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Death Penalty”, p 519, Steven A. Long, The Thomist, 63 (1999): 511-552
2. ibid, p 522

 

[Ender]

Wait a minute…You are telling me that I should consider the possibility that my position is weak, yet your position, which you admit is quite different from that of the Catechism and the previous pontiff, is the correct one?

Context … I was talking about your belief that retribution doesn’t mean redress, and on this point there is no disagreement between me and this or any other catechism.

We can obviously use non-Magisterial documents, if they indeed provide an adequate explanation of why a Magisterial document means what we purport it to mean. For instance, in post #566 you quoted from Christopher Kaczor. But it was a mere snippet that made it sound like he supports your position that the DP is required, simply due to the need for justice.

No, again you have taken my comment to mean more than I said. I quoted Professor Kaczor solely for his statement that retribution and redress mean the same thing. I wasn’t making the claim that his words meant that capital punishment was required - a claim that I myself have never made.

Yet here is a fuller quotation from Mr. Kaczor that actually explains why it is false to say that the DP is required:…

What is false is your portrayal of my position. I no more describe capital punishment as required than JPII described it as forbidden. Our positions are not that simple.

If there is a diversity of allowable punishments, as given in that last sentence, then your notion of redress=retribution=capital punishment doesn’t quite square with things.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE SAID. You keep attacking an argument I haven’t made.

Ender

 

[Ender]

We all agree that the primary objective of punishment is “redress.”

Please, the argument is over what “redress” means. Dulles listed punishment’s four objectives, none of which was redress, so the question is: which one of those four equates to redress?

But you are asking which of the four items given by Dulles is the primary one. He clearly doesn’t hold one up as primary, nor do I.

The Church identifies one objective as primary but we disagree on what the term she used means. Dulles uses different terms and what I asked was for you to identify which of the terms he used means redress.

I believe you have written several times that the Church teaches capital punishment to be a necessity, unless prudence deems it unwise.

I don’t believe I’ve ever written this. Find one of those “several times” you refer to.

My reading of this would say that Cardinal Dulles doesn’t agree with that position.

Of course Dulles disagrees with parts of my position but his disagreement on point A is irrelevant to a discussion of point B. We are addressing the question of whether redress and retribution mean the same thing and on that point there is no disagreement between me and anyone I have cited.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Thank you. I checked post #566 but there was no link or proper reference regarding Mr. Kaczor’s alleged quote. I wonder if one will be provided.

myweb.lmu.edu/ckaczor/capitalpunishment1.pdf

 

[surritter]

I don’t believe I’ve ever written this. Find one of those “several times” you refer to.

I dealt with this in a concise manner in post 656, unless you wish to argue that “must” and “required” have different meanings. I never omitted the “unless” clause, but kept it when I rephrased your position.

 

[surritter]

Surritter:

If circumstances justify not using it, then it is conditional, and, being conditional there is no “must” using the death penalty in all cases.

Isn’t that clear?

Let’s be a bit more charitable.

Exactly. If something is set aside at certain times, then the word “must” or “required” is out of place.
I would appreciate charity from all sides, rather than accusations about twisting words that are clearly there.

 

[dudleysharp]

Exactly. If something is set aside at certain times, then the word “must” or “required” is out of place.
I would appreciate charity from all sides, rather than accusations about twisting words that are clearly there.

No, the conditon is it “must” be used, unless something else occurs.

It is common to have mandatory rules or must requirements, which have exceptions. We live with them, every day.

 

[dudleysharp]

Thank you. I checked post #566 but there was no link or proper reference regarding Mr. Kaczor’s alleged quote. I wonder if one will be provided.

LS:

The “alleged” comment appears to be particularly uncharitable and implies distrust.

We may misunderstanf each other, but I don’t believe anyone is being dishonest.

Next time, wouldn’t it be better to ask “May I have a citation, please?”

 

[surritter]

Please, the argument is over what “redress” means.

Redress means to repair, remedy, or set right. I honestly didn’t think that this is what the argument was about!

Dulles listed punishment’s four objectives, none of which was redress, so the question is: which one of those four equates to redress?

Why must it “equate”? Also, why must it be one? I see this as the real argument.

The Church identifies one objective as primary but we disagree on what the term she used means…

The only thing the Church identifies as primary is redress. Everything beyond that is up for legitimate discussion, although I’m willing to use the angle present by Cardinal Dulles:

Dulles uses different terms and what I asked was for you to identify which of the terms he used means redress.

He doesn’t identify which of the four terms equates with redress; that was my point. But we can analyze each point once again:
Rehabilitation: to rehabilitate is by definition to repair a person or a society from a previous wound. Punishment can sometimes rehabilitate a criminal, which repairs his soul if he is contrite. Thus, we can say that a proper rehabilitation serves as a redress. The Catechism states it this way in 2266: “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.” Notice that “medicinal” is darn close to “rehabilitative.”
Defense/protection of society: This is a proactive objective of punishment, and doesn’t relate to the notion of redress.
Deterrence: This is also a proactive item, not directly relating to redress.
Retribution: This is the notion of having the offender pay for the offense, not out of vengeance, but the necessity of justice. This relates to redress.

I have never denied that retribution has a role in redress! But my claim was that it need not be the only factor that contributes to redress. Church tradition merely says that these are the four factors, and that redress is the primary goal of punishment.

 

[surritter]

No, the conditon is it “must” be used, unless something else occurs.

It is common to have mandatory rules or must requirements, which have exceptions. We live with them, every day.

That’s precisely why I carried over the “unless” phrase each time I quoted Ender’s posts. If I said that Ender’s position was that “the DP must be implemented on murderers,” then I would be twisting his position.

At any rate, sorry for the confusion. We are all sensitive when accusations are made.

 

[Ender]

If you are now nuancing your position, fine. But I try to be pretty honest with quotations, and even included the “unless” part.

Fine. I’ll nuance my position to be what I stated in #651: the default position should be to apply capital punishment. This is in contrast to JPII’s position that the default position should be not to apply it. A better way of thinking about this is that I see the death penalty to be the just punishment for the crime of murder; that really is the central point.

Ender

 

[surritter]

Fine. I’ll nuance my position to be what I stated in #651: the default position should be to apply capital punishment. This is in contrast to JPII’s position that the default position should be not to apply it. A better way of thinking about this is that I see the death penalty to be the just punishment for the crime of murder; that really is the central point.

I think this is a fair statement about the two sides. The sticky part is to decide which view is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, in terms of the “default.”

Let’s see if I can find an olive branch somewhere in all of our recent posts…
The funny thing is that it’s possible for both views to have the same result, in the application of the DP, if the conditions of a society make it so. Sort of a meet-in-the-middle. Whether today’s society is such that the two views balance out to the same result is a legitimate point of debate; JPII seemed to favor the idea that it does. Like you, I see his view on that particular matter relating to today as a prudential comment, not an infallible statement of the DP in all times and places.