How should I understand the CC's view on capital punishment?

[froster2]

Not Christian but view is that in most cases death penalty must not be used. A passion crime where a man comes home to find his wife doing it with another man where he takes out a gun and shoots them both dead must be punished with many years in prison but not the death penalty. Ordinary people can commit murder if given circumstances. Housewives have committed murder, teachers have committed murder and cops have committed murder.

If death penalty is used, then only for worst case murders such as serial killers and jury must decide with appeals. But what do posters think of defense lawyers who represent people they know committed worst types of murders and try to get their client acquitted?

And with death penalty, what do you think of the fact that all the death row inmates were once small kids? No, they are not kids now, but there was once a time in life when they were innocent kids. Where did it go wrong?

 

[Ender]

So can you present the specific Church teaching on this matter? Please do keep in mind that I am not looking for Church doctrine that states the STATE has the authority to punish but rather a statement that says the state MUST enact retribution.

Sure, there are numerous citations to that effect. There are a number of others but this should suffice to make the point. 2266 *Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *

*“A penalty is the reaction **required ***by law and justice in response to a fault…" Pius XII

*For the fundamental **demand **of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It **demands **that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; *Pius XII

Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing (Aquinas)

Retribution, even if carried out by the state is done in place of the individual. The state is an institution at the service of the individual rather than a separate hierarchy that exists at the service of God (I would think that branch is the Church).

The state receives its authority to govern from God therefore ministers of the state are God’s ministers and act with the authority he has given them.It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Innocent I)

*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. * (Aquinas)

*Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). *(Cardinal Dulles)

Therefore I feel that this distinction you attempt to make on the matter of obligation (not authority) between individual and state is not tenable and is rather artificial.

For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance … but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.”. (St. Bellarmine)

*Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. *(Aquinas)

As God Himself punishes crime and as lawful authority comes from Him, such authority has the right to punish, though individuals should forgive the injuries done to themselves personally. (Baltimore Catechism Q. 817)

The state has the authority to apply Capital Punishment if the individuals choose to give it power to do so.

*… let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God … *(Augustine)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Enders strict views on retribution fly in the face of St Thomas Aquinas teaching.

"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. "

No, they merely conflict with your understanding of what Aquinas meant. You assume that because in a particular context he said that punishments in this life are medicinal in character that he is also saying that they cannot be retributive, which is not at all true … as comments made in other contexts make clear.Equality of justice has its place in retribution, since equal rewards or punishments are due to equal merit or demerit. (ST I 65,2 ad 3)

*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)

*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Ibid)

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)

Now amendment for an offense committed against anyone is not made by merely ceasing to offend, but it is necessary to make some kind of compensation, which obtains in offenses committed against another, just as retribution does, only that compensation is on the part of the offender, as when he makes satisfaction, whereas retribution is on the part of the person offended against. Each of these belongs to the matter of justice, because each is a kind of commutation (ST II-II 85,1 ad 3)
Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

Sure, there are numerous citations to that effect. There are a number of others but this should suffice to make the point. 2266 *Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

*“A penalty is the reaction **required ***by law and justice in response to a fault…" Pius XII

*For the fundamental **demand ***of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It **demands **that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; Pius XII

Two vices are opposed to vengeance: one by way of excess, namely, the sin of cruelty or brutality, which exceeds the measure in punishing: while the other is a vice by way of deficiency and consists in being remiss in punishing (Aquinas)
The state receives its authority to govern from God therefore ministers of the state are God’s ministers and act with the authority he has given them.It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). (Innocent I)

*And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. * (Aquinas)

*Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). *(Cardinal Dulles)
For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance … but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.”. (St. Bellarmine)

*Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death. *(Aquinas)

As God Himself punishes crime and as lawful authority comes from Him, such authority has the right to punish, though individuals should forgive the injuries done to themselves personally. (Baltimore Catechism Q. 817)

*… let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God … *(Augustine)
Ender

I am a bit taken aback here Ender. You do realize that you have to establish that

1. One must engage in retribution
2. The retribution must be similar in kind to the original act

Now I noticed you quoted a lot. Are you aware that others on this forum can quote you a lot of Scripture, writings of Church fathers and saints that show (1) and (2) above are not true?

The State is at the service of the individuals. The state cannot strictly speaking engage in retribution because the idea that someone hurt the state is only meaningful in so much as we speak of the individuals in it. If as you say there is a right for the individual to forgo retribution, then it also follows that the State will not be able to (or even need to) pursue retribution. The State at that point will only be concerned with remedial nature of punishment for the sake of other citizens.

Do you understand the point I am making here?

 

[Evan]

I am a bit taken aback here Ender. You do realize that you have to establish that

1. One must engage in retribution
2. The retribution must be similar in kind to the original act

Now I noticed you quoted a lot. Are you aware that others on this forum can quote you a lot of Scripture, writings of Church fathers and saints that show (1) and (2) above are not true?

The State is at the service of the individuals. The state cannot strictly speaking engage in retribution because the idea that someone hurt the state is only meaningful in so much as we speak of the individuals in it. If as you say there is a right for the individual to forgo retribution, then it also follows that the State will not be able to (or even need to) pursue retribution. The State at that point will only be concerned with remedial nature of punishment for the sake of other citizens.

Do you understand the point I am making here?

Ender has stated the 1 is not true. One does not engage in retribution. The sword is the be wielded by the state, NOT the one.

Two is obviously not true. Nor must justice be served by retribution in kind. For example: If I deflower your daughter, I don’t think anyone would believe I could be asked to have the offended party deflower my daughter (another evil) or to replace the daughter with a virgin of your choosing.

Have you even read the article I’ve referenced twice in this string? firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

 

[Jaberwocky]

Ender has stated the 1 is not true. One does not engage in retribution. The sword is the be wielded by the state, NOT the one.

Two is obviously not true. Nor must justice be served by retribution in kind. For example: If I deflower your daughter, I don’t think anyone would believe I could be asked to have the offended party deflower my daughter (another evil) or to replace the daughter with a virgin of your choosing.

Have you even read the article I’ve referenced twice in this string? firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

Yes, I think I probably should reedit my reply to Ended to make it clearer if this is not already clear.

The point is not One vs. State. I already made it clear to him in that reply why such a distinction does not make any logical sense. The State cannot simply counter in retribution because the State as an entity is not hurt. It is the individuals that are hurt. If individuals can forgo retribution then it does follow that the State can as well. What the State cannot do is forgo its responsibility for remedial punishment because that it owes to all the other individuals.

Since you agree that (2) is not true, then Ender’s argument actually fails. Because he needs to demonstrate (2) as well in order to justify Capital Punishment.

 

[sw85]

But the state, in punishing, does not act on behalf of the individuals hurt, or rather not solely on their behalf. It acts on behalf of the body politic, the common good of which is wounded by crime, and (transcendentally speaking) to the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.

Retributive punishment in this sense is not primarily an expression of the vengeance of the wounded parties – in fact this is the very same radically defective understanding of retributive punishment which, I said earlier, the Church is criticizing. Rather the state acts in its capacity as the steward of the common good, of good social order, and of justice. When it understands itself acting in this way then it executes licitly. It is only when the state sees itself as a creature of popular sentiments, so that “justice” is deformed and becomes a parody – the vengeance of the mob – that it’s self-understanding is such that it can no longer be trusted to wield the sword.

 

[LongingSoul]

But the state, in punishing, does not act on behalf of the individuals hurt, or rather not solely on their behalf. It acts on behalf of the body politic, the common good of which is wounded by crime, and (transcendentally speaking) to the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.

Retributive punishment in this sense is not primarily an expression of the vengeance of the wounded parties – in fact this is the very same radically defective understanding of retributive punishment which, I said earlier, the Church is criticizing. Rather the state acts in its capacity as the steward of the common good, of good social order, and of justice. When it understands itself acting in this way then it executes licitly. It is only when the state sees itself as a creature of popular sentiments, so that “justice” is deformed and becomes a parody – the vengeance of the mob – that it’s self-understanding is such that it can no longer be trusted to wield the sword.

But that decision to abolish capital punishment comes about through the will of the people essentially. The State has no independent conscience or hotline to the heavens. It’s comprised of the collective will of the people. The Church has not come out of the blue with this position. They are affirming that this move to abolish, really is a Christian movement of the spirit, whilst protecting capital punishment as a valid tool of natural law when the common good dictates its use. The entire Christian world apart from the US have abolished it and that’s been happening since the mid-1800s.

 

[Jaberwocky]

But the state, in punishing, does not act on behalf of the individuals hurt, or rather not solely on their behalf. It acts on behalf of the body politic, the common good of which is wounded by crime, and (transcendentally speaking) to the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.

Retributive punishment in this sense is not primarily an expression of the vengeance of the wounded parties – in fact this is the very same radically defective understanding of retributive punishment which, I said earlier, the Church is criticizing. Rather the state acts in its capacity as the steward of the common good, of good social order, and of justice. When it understands itself acting in this way then it executes licitly. It is only when the state sees itself as a creature of popular sentiments, so that “justice” is deformed and becomes a parody – the vengeance of the mob – that it’s self-understanding is such that it can no longer be trusted to wield the sword.

I argue that the act of the state is more in the remedial sense and not in the retributive sense for the crime. The State cannot engage in retribution on behalf of everyone else as a whole when the harm was done to a person alone.

 

[Evan]

I argue that the act of the state is more in the remedial sense and not in the retributive sense for the crime. The State cannot engage in retribution on behalf of everyone else as a whole when the harm was done to a person alone.

The harm is often done not to a person alone but to society.

I don’t know if there is a crime that effects only the victim.

A murder, effects the entire family, neighborhood, generation, community.
A theft effects all our insurance rates, our trust in our neighbors, our security in our home.
A lie effects our trust in other people, our trust in commercial enterprise.

etc.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
Enders strict views on retribution fly in the face of St Thomas Aquinas teaching.

You can cite ‘til the cows come home however none of those citations voids or diminishes this…

**“…the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”

The sentence of death as a punishment is restricted to the safety and wellbeing of the citizenry. To sentence a criminal to death *on principle *regardless of the states capacity to render him harmless… is expressly forbidden in Aquinas words.

 

[Jaberwocky]

The harm is often done not to a person alone but to society.

I don’t know if there is a crime that effects only the victim.

A murder, effects the entire family, neighborhood, generation, community.
A theft effects all our insurance rates, our trust in our neighbors, our security in our home.
A lie effects our trust in other people, our trust in commercial enterprise.

etc.

Yes, but my point is that since these are individuals who have been affected, they can choose to forgo the retribution aspect. The family/neighborhood/community may choose to forgive the murderer.

Remedial aspect on the other hand cannot be simply forgotten by us or the State.

 

[Ender]

You do realize that you have to establish that

1. One must engage in retribution
2. The retribution must be similar in kind to the original act

Not exactly. Those are the general rules to which there may be exceptions. But, yes, where exceptional circumstances do not exist a just society is one that punishes those who break the law and a just punishment is one that is of commensurate severity with the crime (not similar in kind, similar in severity.) Nor is this particularly difficult to prove.

CCC 2266 * Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty *to inflict penalties … (this answers your first point) commensurate with the gravity of the crime (which answers for the second point).

Now I noticed you quoted a lot. Are you aware that others on this forum can quote you a lot of Scripture, writings of Church fathers and saints that show (1) and (2) above are not true?

No, they cannot. First, I don’t quote scripture and give it my interpretation; that’s really meaningless. When I cite scripture I also give the church’s interpretation, which is the only opinion that matters. Second, unless you are arguing that scripture and the church fathers (doctors, popes, et al) are teaching different things then one should expect them to largely say the same thing.

The state cannot strictly speaking engage in retribution because the idea that someone hurt the state is only meaningful in so much as we speak of the individuals in it.

I don’t understand this - it is church doctrine that only the state may engage in retribution and that it is both a* “right and duty to inflict penalties.”**It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. *(Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)

If as you say there is a right for the individual to forgo retribution…

The individual doesn’t have the right to forgo retribution because he lacks the right to exact it. Only the state may punish. Retribution is forbidden to the individual.

… then it also follows that the State will not be able to (or even need to) pursue retribution. The State at that point will only be concerned with remedial nature of punishment for the sake of other citizens.

How can you ignore all the citations I provided? If you accept what is in 2267 how can you ignore what is in 2266?

Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

Not exactly. Those are the general rules to which there may be exceptions. But, yes, where exceptional circumstances do not exist a just society is one that punishes those who break the law and a just punishment is one that is of commensurate severity with the crime (not similar in kind, similar in severity.) Nor is this particularly difficult to prove.

CCC 2266 * Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties … (this answers your first point) commensurate with the gravity of the crime (which answers for the second point).
No, they cannot. First, I don’t quote scripture and give it my interpretation; that’s really meaningless. When I cite scripture I also give the church’s interpretation, which is the only opinion that matters. Second, unless you are arguing that scripture and the church fathers (doctors, popes, et al) are teaching different things then one should expect them to largely say the same thing.
I don’t understand this - it is church doctrine that only the state may engage in retribution and that it is both a “right and duty to inflict penalties.”**It must, moreover, be observed that every individual member of a society is, in a fashion, a part and member of the whole society. Wherefore, any good or evil, done to the member of a society, redounds on the whole society: thus, who hurts the hand, hurts the man. When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. *(Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)
The individual doesn’t have the right to forgo retribution because he lacks the right to exact it. Only the state may punish. Retribution is forbidden to the individual.
How can you ignore all the citations I provided? If you accept what is in 2267 how can you ignore what is in 2266?

Ender

All the citations you provide say that it is the role and duty of the State to exact retribution. BUT, it does not say if it can or cannot choose to forgo retribution for a remedial punishment.

My point is that it seems logical that the State be able to forgo since the individual can forgo retribution. So if an individual wanted to have an eye for an eye, then the State would be obligated and have a duty to hear the case and satisfy that request. But I do not think it has to do so if the person had said I am just going to let it pass.

That is at least what I can understand after seeing both sides.

 

[Ender]

But the state, in punishing, does not act on behalf of the individuals hurt, or rather not solely on their behalf. It acts on behalf of the body politic, the common good of which is wounded by crime, and (transcendentally speaking) to the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.

Exactly so.*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)

Rather the state acts in its capacity as the steward of the common good, of good social order, and of justice. When it understands itself acting in this way then it executes licitly.

Again, this is church doctrine.*And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. *(Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Ender]

You can cite ‘til the cows come home however none of those citations voids or diminishes this…

***“…the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone ***which conduce to the grave undoing of others.”

The sentence of death as a punishment is restricted to the safety and wellbeing of the citizenry. To sentence a criminal to death *on principle *regardless of the states capacity to render him harmless… is expressly forbidden in Aquinas words.

I think you have rather completely missed the point being made here. Aquinas is explaining why all mortal sins are not punished with the death penalty. One can think of any number of sins that are mortal to our soul but which no society would even punish, let alone punish with execution (anger, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, pride, sloth). The death penalty is appropriate but only for sins that are dangerous to others.

You have to ask yourself: if Aquinas supports capital punishment - and this passage shows he clearly does - then on what basis does he accept it? He nowhere asserts or even suggests that punishment is based on protection, which is not surprising since there is nothing in any church document prior to 1995 that makes that suggestion. Protection is clearly recognized as a benefit capital punishment provides but that is never the justification for applying it.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Exactly so.*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)
Again, this is church doctrine.*And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. *(Bellarmine)
Ender

Neither of those quotes support sw85s assertion about the states role that… “It acts on behalf of …(snip)… the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.”

That is saying that the state has some ontalogical quality to exact retribution for God. Card. Dulles specifically says…

“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.”

That is not ‘acting on behalf’ of the divine order of justice in the way that a Priest forgives sins on behalf of God.

 

[Ender]

All the citations you provide say that it is the role and duty of the State to exact retribution. BUT, it does not say if it can or cannot choose to forgo retribution for a remedial punishment.

My point is that it seems logical that the State be able to forgo since the individual can forgo retribution. So if an individual wanted to have an eye for an eye, then the State would be obligated and have a duty to hear the case and satisfy that request. But I do not think it has to do so if the person had said I am just going to let it pass.

Perhaps if you gave an example I would be better able to grasp the point you’re making. I remember a case several years ago when a man went into a (I believe) an Amish school and killed perhaps half a dozen children. One thing that was so unique about that case is that the parents all forgave the killer so the question is: how should he have been punished? (Let’s assume he was not mentally unstable.)

According to Aquinas crime impacts not just the families directly involved but all of society and retribution is owed society as a whole regardless of the position taken by the families. His punishment therefore is not lessened by the compassion of the parents.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Neither of those quotes support sw85s assertion about the states role that… “It acts on behalf of …(snip)… the divine order of justice which wounded by sin.”

Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God (Bellarmine)

That is saying that the state has some ontalogical quality to exact retribution for God. Card.

The state obtains its authority from God. The ministers of the state are ministers of God. I don’t know that the state has an ontological obligation to exact retribution for God … but it does have an ontological obligation to exact retribution (assuming you are using ontological correctly).

Dulles specifically says…“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.”

That is not ‘acting on behalf’ of the divine order of justice in the way that a Priest forgives sins on behalf of God.

That retribution has limits means both that it cannot do everything God’s justice will do … but also that it does some of it. I don’t see this as very different from the Aquinas quote you provided when he talked about the punishment of mortal sins not dangerous to society, but it is hardly significant to point out that society does not have God’s powers. It is also worth nothing that in that last sentence Dulles equates retribution with justice, which is a point I’ve been trying to make. The states’ retribution - limited though it may be - is nonetheless symbolic of God’s justice.

Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

Perhaps if you gave an example I would be better able to grasp the point you’re making. I remember a case several years ago when a man went into a (I believe) an Amish school and killed perhaps half a dozen children. One thing that was so unique about that case is that the parents all forgave the killer so the question is: how should he have been punished? (Let’s assume he was not mentally unstable.)

According to Aquinas crime impacts not just the families directly involved but all of society and retribution is owed society as a whole regardless of the position taken by the families. His punishment therefore is not lessened by the compassion of the parents.

Ender

I like your example.

As you can see in that example, the town can forgo retribution but punishment will then become more of a remedial matter.

So the punishment would have to be try and make him repent and also instill that “crime does not pay” attitude among the rest of the Citizens (apart from that town).

The permission for retribution only factors in as an upper limit on the type of punishment the state can give.

Would I be incorrect?