Edward Feser on Capital Punishment

[Ender]

Justice is good and it should be sought, but never at the expense of the sanctity of life.
Capital punishment is virtuous only when there is no other remedy to protect the lives of others.

I have several times referenced this notion that capital punishment is justified only when necessary to protect life. This presumes something that is not true: that protection is the primary objective of punishment. It confers on a secondary objective an authority it does not possess.

Even if it was the only way to protect other people no one would ever claim we should execute a person who didn’t deserve such treatment. This is because we all recognize that it would be unjust to do so, and this implicitly recognizes that justice is a higher good than protection. We can accept punishments that don’t provide protection, but we will not accept punishments that are unjust.

The irony is apparently lost on those who insist it is appropriate to execute someone if it prevents a murder while simultaneously objecting to the execution of those who have actually murdered someone. Does threatening murder really justify a harsher punishment than committing murder?

 

[Ender]

D.B.Hart:

I mean that they seem not even to be aware of the theology of the Apostle Paul. They appear not to know how fraught with difficulties and paradoxes the whole question of law, justice, penalty, and forgiveness is in the New Testament and early Christian thought.

Regarding “early Christian thought” the First Vatican Council had this to say:

We, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

What was the position of the Fathers on the question of capital punishment?

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)

It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit… (Steven A. Long, Univ of St. Thomas)

At least, they might have avoided overly buoyant claims for notoriously dangerous verses—such as Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image” (Revised Standard Version). Admittedly, this seems quite precise, but only if one neglects to quote the immediately preceding verses: “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you… Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man” (RSV). It might, after all, seem to undercut the universal authority of a literal reading of the Noachide laws to take note of the equally firm dietary prescriptions included among them…

Hart ridicules Feser for believing Gn 9:6 means what it says, even though “Admittedly, this seems quite precise”, because of what is said in Gn 9:5, but here is how the church interprets those passages.

2260 …For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

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

It’s pretty clear the catechism isn’t referring to dietary restrictions in its interpretation. We can also legitimately ask what teaching is it that “remains necessary for all time”? That “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life” or that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”?

 

[John10]

Something that is immoral in all cases is by definition something that is intrinsically evil; that’s what the words mean.

Not necessarily, you see what has changed is not the nature of death penalty itself but rather the circumstances around it. It is now immoral because

"Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide"

 

[fide]

Your sense of justice is strange to me. Justice, mercy, righteousness are all one in Truth, who is God. All that is in God and of God is good, true, just, loving, merciful.

Is it “justice” as defined by men, that you consider? A lawyer I know once said to me that for lawyers, the decisions of the courts define justice. This is truly a concept confined to the dimensions of the “natural”, empty of the supernatural.

Did this burden of justice come from men, or from God?:

Gen 9:6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

 

[Ender]

D.B.Hart:

Jewish tradition always enfolded the Noachide prescriptions into the Law, as that small portion thereof of which gentiles were capable; and it is the wrath of the Law as a whole that is, according to Paul, set aside—even conquered—by Christ.

It seems that Hart is saying here that the Noaic covenant (of which Gn 9:6 is a part) was abrogated by Christ. This would surely trouble those who wrote the catechism.

CCC 58 “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.”

Their principal response to Christ’s injunctions to unconditional forgiveness and against retaliation and judgment is simply to argue that he is speaking only of private rather than public morality.

Again, it seems that Hart is unwilling to acknowledge the distinction between the obligations of the individual and those of the state. The church, however, has been very clear on this point.

In order to protect the common good, the lawful public authority must exercise the right and the duty to inflict punishments according to the seriousness of the crimes committed (Compendium of the Catholic Church, 2004)

CCC 2266 ….Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (1997)

In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the of life in expiation of his crime… (Pius XII, 1952)

Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause [that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. (Leo XIII, 1891)

And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine, 1579)

etc, etc. There are dozens of references that distinguish between what is just for public authority and what the individual may do.

@Londoner: is this enough or do I need to continue? Unlike you I don’t find much in Hart’s article to agree with.

 

[Ender]

Your sense of justice is strange to me. Justice, mercy, righteousness are all one in Truth, who is God. All that is in God and of God is good, true, just, loving, merciful.

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?

A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all (Baltimore Catechism)

Aside from addressing the justice vs mercy concern it makes the point that people who are punished deserve it because of a sin/crime they have committed. This is why the State has the obligation to punish the guilty.

 

[Ender]

Not necessarily, you see what has changed is not the nature of death penalty itself but rather the circumstances around it. It is now immoral because…

Is this essentially the argument you are making?
X is justified only by Y
Y no longer exists
Therefore X is no longer justified

In the abstract it seems reasonable, but there are two assumption there that must both be correct for the conclusion to be true: is X justified only by Y, and does Y no longer exist? If either is untrue then the conclusion will be untrue whether the logic is accurate or not.

With regard to the first statement, if X is “capital punishment” and Y is “the need for protection” then the premise is untrue. Capital punishment was never justified solely by the need for protection.

“Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.”

Yes, I know this is in the updated version of 2267, and is similar to what was in the 1997 version. The fact is that the need for protection was never cited as a justification for the death penalty, let alone the only one.

 

[fide]

And for those who love Truth, justice - even when it personally hurts - is beautiful and good because it is TRUE. Man today is busy about being a god unto himself, and does not see how suicidal that is.

 

[John10]

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

The above is why now the death penalty is inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

The above is why now the death penalty is inadmissible.

Well, not surprisingly I don’t accept most of this.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.

Are you not even a little troubled by the idea that it is only today that the church has finally comprehended man’s dignity? As for that, it isn’t clear what it even means.

In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

More insights attributable to modern man. Again, what is the new significance of penal sanctions? Does anyone know? Perhaps it is explained somewhere; I confess to not having seen it described.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Now this one I can address, because the church has never taught that an execution, deserved or not, could possibly “deprive” anyone “of the possibility of redemption.” What she has in fact taught is that this is not possible.

one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime. (Pius XII, Address, 1954)

What is more, according to the Apostle Paul, God knows his own (2 Timothy 2.19), and it is impossible for any of them to perish by the whirlwinds and floods of any error, scandal, schism, persecution, heresy, tribulation, adversity or temptation, for he has foreseen from eternity and unchangeably the number of his elect and the extent of their merits in such a way that everything good and bad, what is theirs and not theirs, prosperity and adversity, all work together for them for good, except indeed that they appear even more glorious and commendable in adversity. (St. Albertus Magnus)

 

[Ender]

Here is a rather well informed opinion on the matter of the church’s position on capital punishment (by Edward Peters). It is a response to Cardinal Dolan’s tweet that “With the clear and cogent clarification of the successor of St. Peter, there now exists no loophole to morally justify capital punishment.”

 

[John10]

Are you not even a little troubled by the idea that it is only today that the church has finally comprehended man’s dignity?

I would confess I am. However if it was morally acceptable to put someone to death because of his or her crime, it would only make sense if that person was more worthy being dead than alive. Therefore he or she implicitly would seem to have no more dignity or value. I would feel a lot more troubled by that than by what they are now saying.

In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

I am guessing this relates to ensuring the penal sanctions are not only meant to provide justice. Justice although necessary is never enough, there must also be means to at the very least provide the possibility for those convicted to rehabilitate themselves and redeem themselves from their crimes. Restoring those convicted back to society when possible is a charitable thing to do.

Now this one I can address, because the church has never taught that an execution, deserved or not, could possibly “ deprive ” anyone “ of the possibility of redemption .” What she has in fact taught is that this is not possible.

What the Church teaches on this point I think is that by executing the death penalty we are closing the door for the person to redeem themselves. Certainty God can still save anyone if the person allows it, however it is obvious we are cutting short the convict’s life and the possibility of any future good work or redemption he or she might have done. What is even worse we are killing them when they no longer represent a danger to society, since they are already in jail, for a past crime. So I can see how the death penalty presents too many ethical and moral challenges today to be admissible.

What I conclude is that the pope’s changes are, as Cardinal Ladaria stated in his letter to all bishops, “the development of doctrine” in continuity with past teaching.

 

[bobperk]

Although Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI strongly discouraged the death penalty, they never called it immoral or made statements that were in clear contrast to traditional Church teaching. But Pope Francis, even though using the vague term “inadmissible,” seems to believe capital punishment is immoral.

Now, I am not saying these things to troll or to “pick on” the Pope, but he does tend to take a quite liberal, materialistic, Socialist view of man quite often. Not trying to sound disobedient or nasty, but the Pope’s words often echo those of the most left-wing politicians in the West today. And in the case of the death penalty, I believe his thinking is that societal circumstances cause people to commit horrific crimes. They are driven to crime, even murder, because they were not given the right opportunities in society, did not make enough money at their job, or were otherwise somehow ‘marginalized’ by the culture and, out of desperation, turn to crime. Therefore, it is not really their fault that they committed a crime, but society’s; thus, that very same society that drove them to a life of crime in the first place does not have the right to put them to death.

Furthermore, the Pope seems to have a special frustration with the United States, and seeing that we still use it here, he made a focused effort to try to eliminate it.

 

[JimG]

It might be noted that in the United States, the death penalty is entirely a matter left to the individual states. Each state has its own laws on whether or not the death penalty is to be used. I doubt that it would even be possible to apply a Federal mandate to the matter one way or the other.

 

[fide]

What is even worse we are killing them when they no longer represent a danger to society, since they are already in jail, for a past crime. So I can see how the death penalty presents too many ethical and moral challenges today to be admissible.

You continue to insist that a prison system now exists that assures society that they are all safe with the murderer in prison. Where, exactly, is the country in the world today where this is true? It certainly is not America, where reports continue to emerge of

1. the escape of dangerous prisoners,
2. the planning and direction of crimes (including murders of persons outside) from within the prison population,
3. the murders and other crimes of grave assault of other prisoners and of prison staff and guards, by murderers given “life imprisonment” for their crimes.
4. “schools” of crime in prisons, uncontrollable gangs and subcultures, smuggled drugs, corruption.

The lives of persons outside of prison, as well as the lives of guards and prisoners inside the prisons continue to remain threatened by convicts given “life imprisonment” because our prisons are NOT able to insure against escape and other means of criminal activity by prisoners, including “reaching out” to harm victims for any number of reasons. “Life imprisonment” gives a criminal NOTHING more to fear - society will have played their last card, and he can do as he pleases, as he learns how to “play” the prison system for all he can.

The perfect, ideal prison system presumed in this argument simply does not exist. For all the technology advances of the modern world, we see continuing degradation in matters of virtue that might give us confidence in ANY civil secular institution (such as the prison system): we see decreasing civility, honesty, morality, compassion, conscience, respect for others, respect for life, respect for truth… fear of God.

 

[Elf01]

“Life imprisonment” gives a criminal NOTHING more to fear

Nor does the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

However if it was morally acceptable to put someone to death because of his or her crime, it would only make sense if that person was more worthy being dead than alive. Therefore he or she implicitly would seem to have no more dignity or value.

This seems a bit thin - would it ever occur to you to think that a person was more worthy being in prison rather than being free? If punishment does not determine “worthiness” in the case of prison then why would it do so in the case of an execution?

This goes back to the need for a correct understanding of punishment. People are punished because they deserve it, and they deserve it because they are being held morally accountable for their actions. To not hold someone accountable would be to deny his dignity.

…the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed (JPII, Reconciliatio et paenitentia)

Man’s dignity is upheld by holding him accountable for the actions he has freely chosen. To apply a lesser punishment than appropriate is to deny that he is fully human. It is the way we treat children.

I am guessing this relates to ensuring the penal sanctions are not only meant to provide justice.

Well your guess is probably as good as anyone’s because there is nothing to explain what any of this actually means.

Justice although necessary is never enough, there must also be means to at the very least provide the possibility for those convicted to rehabilitate themselves and redeem themselves from their crimes.

The catechism agrees with you as the last sentence in section 2266 is this:

Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)

If, however, you look at endnote 67 you will find it is this: Lk 23: 40-43 - ref the salvation of the good thief That is, the church herself points to a case of capital punishment as an example of a punishment that “contributed to the correction of the offender.” You are right in insisting that punishment have that goal, but mistaken in assuming the death penalty cannot achieve it.

 

[Ender]

What the Church teaches on this point I think is that by executing the death penalty we are closing the door for the person to redeem themselves.

No, this is just a denial of those citations I provided. If our concern is with man’s ultimate salvation then we have to accept that being executed cannot diminish that possibility.

Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. (Romano Amerio)

What I conclude is that the pope’s changes are, as Cardinal Ladaria stated in his letter to all bishops, “the development of doctrine” in continuity with past teaching.

Lincoln allegedly once said "If you call a tail a leg would a dog have five legs? No, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg." Calling the reversal of doctrine a “development” doesn’t make it so.

 

[John10]

People are punished because they deserve it, and they deserve it because they are being held morally accountable for their actions

Agreed however when talking about death penalty as punishment is not as straightforward. Nobody deserves to die for their crimes, because their dignity remains no matter how serious their crime was, so death penalty is inadmissible. That is what Pope Francis said.

Well your guess is probably as good as anyone’s because there is nothing to explain what any of this actually means.

That with the death penalty there is no opportunity for the convict to redeem themselves, not to mention the risk of a wrong conviction, in which an innocent person is put to death.

You are right in insisting that punishment have that goal, but mistaken in assuming the death penalty cannot achieve it.

paragraph 2267:

“Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ [1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

The means does not justify the ends, something that attack the dignity of the person is inadmissible.

 

[John10]

I agree there is no perfect human penitentiary system in the world. There is always the risk of escape and the security guards are certainly in a sometimes dangerous situation.

However we must work with what we have, there are many mechanisms and tools available today to properly manage the risk from convicts.