L
Lion_of_Narnia
Guest
In addition to his martyrdom, I believe St Thomas More would have also had at least two confirmed post-mortem miracles attributed with his intercession.
- Status
V
vames
Guest
So it should be decried that nowadays people aren’t burned alive anymore if they don’t obey the Church? Aren’t HORRID those who torture and kill others precisely in the name of a religion that teaches “Thou shalt not kill”? The Church teaches us that “every person sincerely open to truth and goodness can, by the light of reason and the hidden action of grace, come to recognize in the natural law written in the heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15) the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, and can affirm the right of every human being to have this primary good respected to the highest degree. Upon the recognition of this right, every human community and the political community itself are founded” (Evangelium vitae). Nowhere it says “the sacred value of human life from its very beginning until its end, but only if people aren’t heretic and obey our Church”.
G
GEddie
Guest
No-one is denying that.
But we cannot judge someone by the standards of our own time. Everybody is a creature of his time.
ICXC NIKA
S
sw85
Guest
Is this ground we should necessarily be conceding, Br. JR? The Church does not teach that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil, nor does it (to my knowledge) teach that states which elect to avail themselves of the death penalty must do so using this or that particular method. It (at least now) explicitly teaches that the state has the right to protect social order against aggressors. In the present age that doesn’t mean punishing heretics, because the present age is not explicitly ordered to the Church; in More’s age, when society was so ordered, there’s a good case to be made that it meant exactly that.
Your point re: relativism is a good one. A teaching may remain consistent even as the mode of its application changes depending on the circumstances. “A father should take care of his children” is true regardless of the age of the father, but the exact manner in which it’s to be applied changes depending on whether the child is 4 or 40.
EDIT: Whoa, just realized this is hardcore thread necromancy.
J
JReducation
Guest
To understand how the Church understands the death penalty one has to read Evangelium Vitae. While the Church does not deny the right of the state to execute, other moral laws are very explicit regarding justice. The problem that people often have with capital punishment is rather complex.
First of all, the doctrine on capital punishment is taught as a single idea, which many people interpret to mean that there are no parameters, because they’re not listed. The truth is that those parameters are taught in another branch of theology. One has to look at the whole of theology to understand capital punishment as the Magisterium understands it. There are moral laws that are very clear that punishment must be proportionate to the crime and must safeguard the dignity of the individual and the dignity of life. The fact that this is not appended to the doctrine on capital punishment does not mean that it does not apply. It certainly does.
Second, the doctrine on capital punishment makes an a priori assumption that the state is acting justly. This is where Evangelium Vitae is very helpful. Bl. John Paul II makes it very clear that in today’s world, the state cannot be trusted to act justly. The Church has to teach the state, because the state has embraced secularism and has driven God out of the equation. When that happens, capital punishment is often applied very unjustly and even unnecessarily, which is what Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have said. The question for Catholics is not “Does the state have the right to execute?” There seems to be an eagerness on the part of many Catholics to protect the state’s “right” to execute, while they ignore the rest of the moral tradition. It’s shameful to hear Catholics scream and holler at the top of their lungs for capital punishment, but not acknowledge that the state often executes unjustly or unnecessarily.
It’s shameful to see Catholics scream in defense of capital punishment without restraint, when in Eastern countries, Communist countries and other totalitarian states people are executed on a whim. It’s very dangerous to make a statement that says, “The state has the moral right to execute” without looking at the whole of moral law. This what the last two popes try to get us to do. They try to get us to notice two things. a) Don’t trust the modern state, especially the USA and b) Remember that capital punishment should be the last resort not the first. There must always be an opportunity for a man to repent and do penance. We have a moral duty to provide this when possible without putting innocent lives in danger. Today, we have the resources and technology that makes such an action possible.
J
JReducation
Guest
Third, there is another problem here. This is where reading someone like Bl. John Henry Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine is helpful. While truth is constant, humanity is not. We change. We evolve. Hopefully, we become more civilized. There is a doctrine on the nature of man and the meaning and value of life. Our understanding of the two has increased. We can’t take the doctrine on capital punishment in isolation. It has to be taken in unison with Christian Anthropology and Moral Theology.
As Bl. John Newman points out, when we look at doctrine through the centuries, our understanding increases; therefore, how we live and deal with God and man also changes for the better. At least it should.
Bonaventure, the master of Theology of History, gives a wonderful example in one of his lectures. He speaks about the Hypostatic Union and how the Apostles did not know what it was or that there was such a thing. However, this does not mean that there was no Hypostatic Union. It means that through history man faces critical questions that lead him to look at Revelation more closely each time. Each time he does so, he understands more than he did before. Thus, the Christians of the 5th century understood more about the nature of Christ than did the Christians of the 1st century. However, that is not to say that the truth changed. Had it not been for the Christians of the 1st century, those of the 5th would have had nothing to go on.
This divine activity through history applies in many areas of faith and morals. The teaching and understanding on capital punishment is one of those areas. As Catholics, we can’t just acclaim the state’s right to execute, while we know that there is more to the moral tradition that one simple statement. That statement has to be taken in context of an entire moral tradition, Christian Anthropology and Catholic social teaching. To ignore one or the other just so that we can push the death penalty is very risky. Just look at our brothers and sisters who are being killed in the Middle East, China, North Korea, Viet Nam and other places, while the rest of the world watches. If we apply the doctrine of capital punishment out of context and without examining other moral laws, those governments have a moral right to execute those whom they believe to be a threat to society.
It always sends chills up my spine when I see Catholics gleefully pushing for capital punishment in a nation such as our own where execute people for being old, sick or disabled under the guise of the right to die. It’s execution, pure and simple. The state has a moral right to execute, so let it do so.
If we deny that the Church has the right to set parameters on the use of capital punishment, we’re in serious trouble. Guess what folks?
There are about 25 new religious communities that have emerged from 1985 to today. Every single one of them is founded for one purpose, to promote the Gospel of Life. This include the elimination of capital punishment, because as the Church says, “it is rarely necessary.”
It’s really interesting how everything works together. I bet all of you out there are plugging for more vocations to the brotherhood and sisterhood, right? Well, they are increasing . . . in those communities that are what we call the John Paul II communities. Their up in the hundreds, maybe thousands already. In the USA alone there are 10 new JP II communities.
We want vocations to the brotherhood and sisterhood, these are the terms. These communities are approved by the Holy See with a mandate, to proclaim the Gospel of Life and protect human dignity from conception to natural death. We’re growing fast. My own community grew from four to 40 in two years, before we were even autonomous. The Franciscans of the Renewal grew from 6 to almost 300 men and women in less than 10 years and so forth.
Those of you who want capital punishment without restraints are in for a fight with a very well educated and very tough group of young religious who have no doubt about the moral need to remind the state of its obligation to exercise restraint and justice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
As Bl. John Newman points out, when we look at doctrine through the centuries, our understanding increases; therefore, how we live and deal with God and man also changes for the better. At least it should.
Bonaventure, the master of Theology of History, gives a wonderful example in one of his lectures. He speaks about the Hypostatic Union and how the Apostles did not know what it was or that there was such a thing. However, this does not mean that there was no Hypostatic Union. It means that through history man faces critical questions that lead him to look at Revelation more closely each time. Each time he does so, he understands more than he did before. Thus, the Christians of the 5th century understood more about the nature of Christ than did the Christians of the 1st century. However, that is not to say that the truth changed. Had it not been for the Christians of the 1st century, those of the 5th would have had nothing to go on.
This divine activity through history applies in many areas of faith and morals. The teaching and understanding on capital punishment is one of those areas. As Catholics, we can’t just acclaim the state’s right to execute, while we know that there is more to the moral tradition that one simple statement. That statement has to be taken in context of an entire moral tradition, Christian Anthropology and Catholic social teaching. To ignore one or the other just so that we can push the death penalty is very risky. Just look at our brothers and sisters who are being killed in the Middle East, China, North Korea, Viet Nam and other places, while the rest of the world watches. If we apply the doctrine of capital punishment out of context and without examining other moral laws, those governments have a moral right to execute those whom they believe to be a threat to society.
It always sends chills up my spine when I see Catholics gleefully pushing for capital punishment in a nation such as our own where execute people for being old, sick or disabled under the guise of the right to die. It’s execution, pure and simple. The state has a moral right to execute, so let it do so.
If we deny that the Church has the right to set parameters on the use of capital punishment, we’re in serious trouble. Guess what folks?
There are about 25 new religious communities that have emerged from 1985 to today. Every single one of them is founded for one purpose, to promote the Gospel of Life. This include the elimination of capital punishment, because as the Church says, “it is rarely necessary.”
It’s really interesting how everything works together. I bet all of you out there are plugging for more vocations to the brotherhood and sisterhood, right? Well, they are increasing . . . in those communities that are what we call the John Paul II communities. Their up in the hundreds, maybe thousands already. In the USA alone there are 10 new JP II communities.
We want vocations to the brotherhood and sisterhood, these are the terms. These communities are approved by the Holy See with a mandate, to proclaim the Gospel of Life and protect human dignity from conception to natural death. We’re growing fast. My own community grew from four to 40 in two years, before we were even autonomous. The Franciscans of the Renewal grew from 6 to almost 300 men and women in less than 10 years and so forth.
Those of you who want capital punishment without restraints are in for a fight with a very well educated and very tough group of young religious who have no doubt about the moral need to remind the state of its obligation to exercise restraint and justice.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
sw85
Guest
I don’t disagree, brother (especially in that our modern, aggressively Masonic state can’t be trusted with power over life and death), but what I meant when I said that the Church doesn’t teach that the death penalty is an intrinsic evil is that there are circumstances where a state may licitly avail itself of the death penalty, and I imagine the England of St. Thomas More’s time largely satisfied those circumstances. It was a society explicitly ordered to Christ through the Church which was seen and understood as wielding the sword to punish the wicked on God’s behalf. It seems to have been wielded for a just purpose (the protection of the social order from unjust aggressors) and the punishment of death was certainly understood as being proportional to the gravity of the crime. So is it really, unambiguously clear that More was in the wrong ordering those executions?
J
JReducation
Guest
Objectively, yes. Subjectively, no.
Objectively, one can argue that there could have been other alternatives that should have been explored.
Subjectively, we cannot take people out of their historical context. This is what Theology of History teaches us. This was the context in which he lived. The thought of exploring another alternative was not one that crossed people’s minds, not because they were evil. The thought did not cross their minds, because they were products of their time.
One thing that few people know about More is that while he did not try to find alternative means of punishment, in every case that came before him, he tried very hard to persuade the heretic to rethink his position. In the end, the number of people whom he ordered to be executed were six out of several hundred who appeared before him
He was nothing like our modern state. He had a compassionate heart. Like his father, St. Francis, he tried to bring his brothers and sisters around. He did not execute lightly as some would have it. The numbers speak for themselves, about six in several hundred.
In reality, he foreshadows what Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have said. The use of capital punishment is rarely necessary. He took in the whole of the moral law. We must remember that this was not your average layman sitting in the pew. This man was a lawyer, a theologian, a Franciscan and a philosopher. He knew his Church and her theological tradition well. Like a good lawyer, he could find the dots in the most remote places in theology books and connect them, unlike many of us who grab hold of one quote from a document and run with it as if it stood alone.
There is not a single statement made by the Church that ever stands alone. Every statement is part of a tradition. Every statement is a dot connected to many other dots that are often obscure, hidden or found in some remote piece of writing, but there nonetheless. We have a moral duty to find all of the dots and connect them, not just use one isolate quote and triumphantly say, “Here’s the answer.”
That’s the problem that many people are having with men like Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict. Unlike their predecessors, they are not focusing on new problems and questions as much as they are on examining prior statements made by popes and councils. But they are looking at them as one dot connected to many other dots.
While someone like St. Pius X made a very succinct statement about a specific situation, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict take St. Pius Statement and connect it to the other dots in theology, tradition, Christian Anthropology, Scripture, Canon Law and their own knowledge. They’re not denying what St. Pius said. They’re putting it into the big tapestry that is Church teaching. When they do this, they can honestly say, “This is how this is to be understood and used.” St. Pius would certainly would not object to such an exercise, because he too engaged in it. The difference is that St. Pius gives us the concluding statement and the current popes give us the context.
When one looks at context, things look differently. This is the case with men like St. Thomas More, St. Louis King of France, St. Joan of Arc and other saints who had to make decisions about other people’s lives. In their context, they look very different from how they would look in our context.
Sanctity has to be judged both objectively and subjectively. The objective view only looks at the rule, not the person. The subjective view looks at the person, his context and his intent against the backdrop of the objective law. In the end, we are judged subjectively.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Europe in the Middle Ages was an absolutely insane place. Murder was commonplace. There was utter chaos much of the time. Treason of any sort, including via heresy, was seen as a grave evil because it upset the social order to the point where everyone in the society could potentially be put in danger.
We didn’t have nice “civilized” governments back then the way that we do now. There was little in the way of police. The King was the king and if you could get away with treason you could stand to get away with anything. The fact that there was a rudimentary judiciary that oversaw legal executions was a step up from the street justice that was the usual order of the day.
C
CatholicLife
Guest
Our government allows abortion and gay marriage. Does that sound civilized?
S
sw85
Guest
Is this the only thing that’s missing in order for us to say that More’s actions were objectively morally appropriate?
Heh, was just thinking something like that. Medieval Europe gave us the Summa; the modern West gives us **** like “queer theory.” Medieval Europe gave us the Basilica of St. Peter; the modern West gives us **** like the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. Medieval Europe gave us Palestrina; the modern West gives us **** like Beyonce. Why is it they lived in the “Dark Ages” again?
T
The_Bucket
Guest
There’s a reason I had the scare quotes in there. Abortion is a travesty, though it was not exactly policed well… ever. It’s not like abortion is a new evil. It’s just becoming more prevalent and its existence is even more disturbing given advances in science and ultrasound technology. We see what we’re doing but we lie to ourselves about it.
As for gay marriage, that’s a whole different animal. Our governments have not exactly been great moral arbiters for marriage. Political players married off daughters and sons to forge alliances. Slaves were not allowed to formally marry. Interracial marriage was banned. No-fault divorce was allowed.
I’m not really terribly concerned about what civil marriage constitutes, though I’d of course never vote in favor of gay marriage. If we someday get a trade off of gay marriage being accepted but abortion being banned, I’d take that trade in a heartbeat because it would keep many hearts beating.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Medieval Europe gave us the Crusades. The modern West questions reasons for war more often. Medieval Europe gave us pogroms against the Jews. The modern West saved them from being wiped off the Earth. Medieval Europe and early Renaissance Europe gave us the Inquisition. The modern West gives us freedom of religion… even if too many of us are just trying to get away from ALL religion.
Every age and region will have great goods and great evils.
S
sw85
Guest
What’s your beef with either the Crusades or the Inquisition? These were just and prudent responses to real problems on the ground at the time.
Also, I’m pretty sure Nazi Germany counts as “the modern West” too, so at best its record is mixed.
J
JReducation
Guest
According to the principles of moral theology by which the doctrine on capital punishment must guide itself, yes.
While the doctrine is clear, "The state has the right . . . . "
The moral law is also clear. Punishment must be proportionate. Death penalty must be a last resort. Every human life is sacred. Every human being has an inviolable dignity. The ends never justifies the means. The burden of proof that the ends and the means are compatible is on the individual, not on moral law. The legal tradition of the Church is to grant the greatest possible “wiggle room” when dealing with faults and to place the greatest possible restriction on authority when it comes to punishment and restitution.
As long as their is the question remains open, “Did Thomas exhaust every possible means to the point that execution was the only option,” he is objectively culpable.
However, sanctity is not determined by what is objective, but by how the person exercises virtue given his ability, his knowledge, his resources and his freedom in the context in which he lived, not in our context.
The objective norm remains the same. But this does not take anything away from Thomas life of heroic Christian virtue. He proved his virtue my making the most difficult choice of his life, between a king and his family whom he dearly loved and God. He sought every possible way to avoid that choice, because he loved them all: God, family and king. We have to look at this context and lay aside the question about capital punishment.
At the end of the day, the question of this thread is answered very simply.
"Thomas More lived a life of heroic Christian virtue to best of his ability in the context of his time. God asks for nothing more. Therefore we can, in faith, believe the Church when she says to use that Thomas More is a saint. The Church is incapable of making an error on a matter of faith. To state that Thomas More is in heaven, because of a life of heroic Christian virtue is a statement of faith.
Any Catholic who doubts that the Church’s statements on matters of faith has greater problems than the canonization of Thomas More. His real problem is not More’s sanctity.
His real problem is Christ’s honestly and integrity. 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Peter, feed my sheep. Upon this rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. He who hears you, hears me."
If one doubts the Church’s freedom from error on matters of faith, then one is calling into question the honesty of Christ’s promises and the integrity of the man who made those promises. Do those who question a canonization believe that Christ did not mean what he said?
The capital punishment discussion is the devil trying to distract from the real question. Do we believe that Christ keeps his promise to his Church?
The devil is an idiot and I can’t believe that so many people are getting derailed by an idiot.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
The Crusades are a very complicated subject and would derail this thread to go into it. Suffice it to say that the Church admits that there were horrors on both sides. The Christians and the Muslims often treated each other like animals. There were also just reasons to defend oneself. It’s not as black and white as people want to make it.
Actually, the Church of the Middle Ages protected the Jews. It was rather interesting. Everyone remembers the Council of Florence, but few people remember or know that there are many papal letters to different kings, religious, and bishops commanding them to protect the Jews from harm and to avoid doing harm to the Jews.
Once again, Catholics take one event, one piece of paper and run with it as if it were the whole story when in the shadows there are other statements about the issue and when you connect the dots, they picture is not quite as we imagine it.
This has happened with the Crusades and with the Church’s view on Jewish people. Sometimes I wish that Catholics would either read less or would read more. But what they’re reading thus far is not complete and it gets us into trouble.
Whether it’s the Crusades or the Jews, we have to look at EVERYTHING that has been written, said, done, not said and not done in order to get the whole picture. A few statements here and there will only give a partial picture. Partial pictures can be accurate, but more often than not, they are incomplete.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
sw85
Guest
I don’t disagree with anything you’re saying about the death penalty, brother (really, I don’t disagree with anything you say ever!). What I’m trying to get at, specifically, is the question of, given what we know about the Church’s teachings about the nature of the authority of the state, of justice, etc., and what we know about Thomas More and the time he lived in, whether it’s prudent to concede the ground that he was objectively wrong to execute those heretics, even if subjective circumstances may have mitigated culpability.According to the principles of moral theology by which the doctrine on capital punishment must guide itself, yes.
While the doctrine is clear, "The state has the right . . . . "
The moral law is also clear. Punishment must be proportionate. Death penalty must be a last resort. Every human life is sacred. Every human being has an inviolable dignity. The ends never justifies the means. The burden of proof that the ends and the means are compatible is on the individual, not on moral law. The legal tradition of the Church is to grant the greatest possible “wiggle room” when dealing with faults and to place the greatest possible restriction on authority when it comes to punishment and restitution.
As long as their is the question remains open, “Did Thomas exhaust every possible means to the point that execution was the only option,” he is objectively culpable.
However, sanctity is not determined by what is objective, but by how the person exercises virtue given his ability, his knowledge, his resources and his freedom in the context in which he lived, not in our context.
The objective norm remains the same. But this does not take anything away from Thomas life of heroic Christian virtue. He proved his virtue my making the most difficult choice of his life, between a king and his family whom he dearly loved and God. He sought every possible way to avoid that choice, because he loved them all: God, family and king. We have to look at this context and lay aside the question about capital punishment.
At the end of the day, the question of this thread is answered very simply.
"Thomas More lived a life of heroic Christian virtue to best of his ability in the context of his time. God asks for nothing more. Therefore we can, in faith, believe the Church when she says to use that Thomas More is a saint. The Church is incapable of making an error on a matter of faith. To state that Thomas More is in heaven, because of a life of heroic Christian virtue is a statement of faith.
Any Catholic who doubts that the Church’s statements on matters of faith has greater problems than the canonization of Thomas More. His real problem is not More’s sanctity.
His real problem is Christ’s honestly and integrity. 'Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Peter, feed my sheep. Upon this rock, I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. He who hears you, hears me."
If one doubts the Church’s freedom from error on matters of faith, then one is calling into question the honesty of Christ’s promises and the integrity of the man who made those promises. Do those who question a canonization believe that Christ did not mean what he said?
The capital punishment discussion is the devil trying to distract from the real question. Do we believe that Christ keeps his promise to his Church?
The devil is an idiot and I can’t believe that so many people are getting derailed by an idiot.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
Now it seems to me that if the only “ingredient” missing in the stew necessary for the licit execution of heretics is whether other options were exhausted first, then given what we know about More (namely, his efforts to induce the heretics to repentance, his general justice and forthrightness, etc.), charity may well oblige us to believe, in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary, that he did in fact endeavor to exhaust all the options that were reasonably available to him, before proceeding with execution. If, in fact, he did, then it seems to me that his being “objectively wrong” is ground we should not concede, especially if it could strength the libeling of a saint. I hope that all makes sense.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bold is mine. I’m thinking about this question. To be honest, I don’t see anything imprudent about such an admission. We have admitted that we failed to do as much as we could for the Jews during WW II. We have admitted that we did treat the Muslims cruelly. It was not just the Muslims who were cruel. We have admitted that Luther was right on many points. Somewhere, I can’t remember where, the Church made an formal statement that we can’t and should not attempt to say where people like Judas, Stalin and Hitler are today, after so many centuries of demonizing Judas.
Take out the word charity and we’ve got something here that is worth thinking about.
Allow me to explain. The word charity is not allowed to be used in Canon Law. There are two words that you will not find in Canon Law, unless it’s in a citation: love and charity. Church law deliberately avoids those two terms.
However, in justice your suggestion certainly merits consideration. It’s academically sound. I’d like to think about it. Because one can say that More exhausted all the means that HE THOUGHT were at his disposal. In which case, the objective law does not apply. You make a very interesting case for the moral theologian. I’m going to sit on this one for a day or so.
Thank you so much for giving me something new, intelligent and interesting to think about.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, FFV
S
sw85
Guest
You’re welcome, brother. So much of this, too, depends on the answer to questions we probably aren’t qualified to answer and which, maybe, no human can answer with any really strong degree of certainty. Could the threat of heresy be combated with lifelong imprisonment, or would this have had worse consequences (e.g., efforts to free the imprisoned, provocations to riot, encouragement to further heresy, etc.)? Was lifelong imprisonment even feasible in those days? Etc.
T
The_Bucket
Guest
I don’t think it was a black and white issue at all. I think there were plenty of just reasons for the First Crusade, but there’s a reason the Holy Father apologized for them altogether. The Reconquista wasn’t pretty either, but then again neither was the initial Moor invasion. Suffice it to say that the Church having temporal power really complicated everything.
Yes, Jews were frequently protected and they were frequently persecuted as well. Certainly kings and other secular leaders wanted to take advantage of the fact that Jews were not subject to usury laws and thus could help bolster their treasuries in times of lean. That’s not to say that all Jews were treated as ATMs. That’s not true. And I’m also not saying that there was systematic persecution that was ordered by members of the Church. Usually it was mob action by the rank and file laity that was corralled sometimes and condoned other times. It was especially bad during times of plague, economic depression and every Easter.
I quite agree and while I’m no scholar, I did get my minor in Medieval History. It’s not much, but it’s something.
My point was not that the Church was evil and terrible in the past or something. My point was that every generation has its great sins and its great good. We in the West generally treat all people more like people. Racism has dropped dramatically. Things like the IRA are in the past. There’s little inter-religious conflict in the West that actually becomes violent.
We are far better at treating sinners the way Christ would in terms of loving them and not shaming them. Unfortunately, we now think that loving the sinner and condoning his sin are the same thing. So we’ve got our own trials of trying to explain to the world where those lines are and how we as Christians are loving sinners MORE by not condoning their sins.
The questions you laid out on lifetime imprisonment are interesting sw85, but I’d argue that it would have been impossible. Prisons didn’t really exist. There were some towers and local proto-jails but no real prisons. You either got the death penalty, some corporal punishment, a fine or public humiliation. So in reference to the thread’s original concept, there were plenty of mitigating circumstances given the conditions at the time. The death penalty is still licit today, especially for places like Africa, developing South America or developing Asia. They don’t have secure prisons and we don’t want serial killers or mobsters or drug cartel leaders escaping or using their clout to kill others from prison. That’s irresponsible when it comes to protecting everyone else in society.
- Status