How much is a death worth?

[Armyvet007]

Primary objective of punishment
-Me- A primary objective is the security of the community
-Ender- THE primary objective is retribution, security is a secondary objective
-Dulles quote- 4 primary objectives, he does not indicate 1 primary and 3 secondary objectives

I agree with you on how they work [in parallel, independantly, etc.]. I disagree with Ender that retribution is THE primary objective in all punishment. I pointed to Dulles’s quote because he would have worded his comment differently if he thought that. The fact that the Cardinal instead grouped retribution with three other primary objectives indicates to me that he does not view retribution as THE primary objective.

As for why should society be punished-
-how exactly is society being punished for what the criminal did?
-And please do not say it’s punished because of the fiscial resources it takes to keep a person in prison for life. Right to life > money. Regardless of who’s right to life we are talking about.

The death penaly can be moral. It becomes immoral when it violates the restrictions/criteria defined by the Church. The death penalty in the US is immoral because we have other non-lethal options which can be used and which produce the same/similar results of the death penalty [except death of course]. The death penalty is like a Just War, a last resort option.

 

[Ender]

According to Cardinal Dulles, there are 4 primary objectives of punishment. Even if we assume the good Cardinal did not list them in order of importance, retribution is still only 1 of 4 primary objectives.

You have modified what the cardinal said. You inserted the word primary into his comments where he in fact never used it. Nor is it possible that all four objectives listed could be primary as that actually would mean that none of them was. The catechism lists one objective as primary. One, not four. Cardinal Dulles merely listed all of the objectives without characterizing them.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"62 and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.63 He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.64

This is an obligation of individuals. The obligation of the State is quite different:

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

2302 [incomplete citation] “**To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” **but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” Notice the use of “restitution” instead of an alternate definition/clarification of “good” vengeance.

Restitution is not the same as retribution and satisfaction of the former does not eliminate the necessity for imposing the latter. As Aquinas explained: “Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” That is precisely what retribution is: “the dispensing or receiving of reward or punishment.” (Merriam-Webster)

Word games are not that interesting. The point here is that it is retribution - retributive justice - that is the primary objective of punishment. It is not security.

As I’ve stated before, the death penalty is moral [within the restrictions defined by the Church], it is not moral in the US [it fails to meet these restrictions].

What you to believe to be “restrictions defined by the Church” are in fact prudential judgments. They are not doctrinal obligations.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I disagree with Ender that retribution is THE primary objective in all punishment.

Did you miss that it was not I but the catechism that defined the primary objective of punishment?

*The **primary **scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (2266)

*It should be blazingly obvious that security - preventing future crimes - has nothing whatever to do with redressing the disorder caused by crimes already committed so there is no argument whatever that security could be the primary objective of punishment. The phrase “redress the disorder” was explained in a 1980 message on this topic from the USCCB:

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution **or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.

*It would have been helpful if they had ranked the purposes for punishment, but like Dulles they merely listed them.

I pointed to Dulles’s quote because he would have worded his comment differently if he thought that. The fact that the Cardinal instead grouped retribution with three other primary objectives indicates to me that he does not view retribution as THE primary objective.

You may invent whatever explanation is required to support your position but this is nothing more than an unwillingness to connect the dots and admit that two plus two is four.

• Dulles listed the four objectives of punishment the Church recognizes as valid without prioritizing them, leaving us to debate which is primary.
• The catechism said “redressing the disorder” is the primary objective (singular), defining which is primary without translating the phrase into one of the objectives listed by Dulles.
• The USCCB explained that redressing the disorder means retribution.

I think the dots have been well and fully connected.

Ender

 

[Armyvet007]

The dots were already connected. By the current Holy Father and Blessed John Paul the Great; and I’ll throw in the USCCB as well. It can be moral, but given the advanced nature of the US society, its not moral to use it here.

 

[EddyDRR]

The dots were already connected. By the current Holy Father and Blessed John Paul the Great; and I’ll throw in the USCCB as well. It can be moral, but given the advanced nature of the US society, its not moral to use it here.

Where, then, is it moral to use it, and why?

 

[Armyvet007]

Where, then, is it moral to use it, and why?

The why would be-
-the crime deserved the death penalty [for sake of argument assumed to be valid linkage between crime and punishment]
-the state/society does not have the means by which to protect the community from the criminal [a non-lethal punishment would place the community at risk]

Where-
-hypothetical where- small community in the middle of nowhere with no law enforcement or penal infrastructure or systems [like some towns/communities during the 19th Cen in the American West]
-Maybe Colombia during the height of that one drug lord’s power [the one who had a resort-prison built for him]; assuming his crimes merited the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

The dots were already connected. By the current Holy Father and Blessed John Paul the Great; and I’ll throw in the USCCB as well. It can be moral, but given the advanced nature of the US society, its not moral to use it here.

That punishment is moral if its severity is appropriate to the severity of the crime. The Church has always recognized - and does so today - that execution is a just punishment for certain crimes. The question of whether it is necessary for achieving security is immaterial to whether it is just and therefore is immaterial to whether it is moral. The recommendation that capital punishment not be used, which is what CCC 2267 amounts to, is not doctrine and does not require our assent.

EddyDRR:

Where, then, is it moral to use it, and why?

It is moral to use it anywhere the crime of (e.g.) first degree murder is committed. This has been the teaching of the Church for two millennium and cannot change. The Church bases her position on Gen 9:6 which states that the life of a murderer is forfeit - a position she repeats in CCC 2260. The issue being addressed in 2267 is not whether capital punishment is moral but whether, from a practical perspective, it is the better choice.

Ender

 

[perro_sarnoso]

It depends,

If we are talking about Jesus…life everlasting.