Is the death penalty really inadmissable?

[edjlopez23]

Our doctrine on the death penalty seem to have change am wondering why and am a bit confused. There is over 1900 years of Catholic thought into this.

Before I thought it was a matter of prudential judgment and may not be necessary in many cases; but, to call it inadmissible is a whole other ball game.

What do you guys think?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Before I thought it was a matter of prudential judgment and may not be necessary in many cases; but, to call it inadmissible is a whole other ball game.

What do you guys think?

I don’t think anyone ever claimed it was “inadmissible” entirely. I think the main argument is that it’s immoral when it’s not necessary, and in the developed world where the state is capable of safeguarding the public from dangerous criminals by other means, it’s almost never necessary.

 

[StephenW]

This stops short of saying that it is intrinsically evil. In context, I think that one can only say that it is inadmissible given modern means to deal with criminals. Shortly after this change in the Catechism, there was an article or it might have been something from the CDF that made this point. I will try to find it again and post it.

What about the current context, say in the US? Is it ever demanded because of justice? Also, prison is a society too, and these criminals endanger and murder people there too. So, is there a possible case that one be put to death to protect others in prison?

I think this is it: http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

 

[edjlopez23]

What about the current context, say in the US? Is it ever demanded because of justice? Also, prison is a society too, and these criminals endanger and murder people there too. So, is there a possible case that one be put to death to protect others in prison?

That’s an interesting point.

 

[edjlopez23]

I think Jimmy Akin had a good article on this subject. From my understanding, there has not been an announcement Ex Cathedra, so it is not a sin to still personally support the death penalty.

Well to be fair speaking Ex Cathedra are very rare when it comes to doctrine.

 

[Canvas]

Our doctrine on the death penalty seem to have change am wondering why and am a bit confused. There is over 1900 years of Catholic thought into this.

Before I thought it was a matter of prudential judgment and may not be necessary in many cases; but, to call it inadmissible is a whole other ball game.

What do you guys think?

That it is a development of doctrine based on the situation in the 21st century. The Church has spoken, and it has strongly affirmed the right of every human person to life, from conception until natural death. Period. Full stop.

 

[StephenW]

It is not clear to me that this is a development in any doctrine, per se, but it is an application of doctrine to a specific situation. As far as I can tell, there is no doctrinal change here. Now, while it is true that we do each have a right to life, this right is not absolute. For example, if you are trying to do me serious harm or even trying to kill me, I have a right to defend my life. In defending my life, if it requires force, and that force results in your death, this is not direct killing (murder) (CCC 2263-2264). Thus, the Church does not condemn this, and the state does not try and imprison people who defend themselves. This also applies to nations, which, at times, must defend its citizens (CCC 2265, 2308-2309)

 

[StephenW]

Per the Catechism, punishment is not simply a matter of protecting others.

“Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (CCC 2266).

So, is there such an offence, that is so grave, that it should be redressed by the death penalty?

 

[Canvas]

I agree with your statement. You said it better than I did. It is the application of “the respect for human life” in the 21st century rather than a new idea. I mean, the Catholic Church has been pretty anti death penalty as long as I can remember. I remember always seeing nuns or Priests on the news protesting outside of jails when executions were scheduled.

 

[StephenW]

It is the application of “the respect for human life” in the 21st century rather than a new idea

I think, perhaps, you are touching on something key here. Given the culture of death, the moral relativism and such, could the death penalty be implemented morally? Given the moral degeneration of our society, would people and juries not view the death penalty as merely an act of revenge instead of “…redressing the disorder introduced by the offence” (CCC 2266) (i.e. justice)?

 

[Canvas]

people and juries not view the death penalty as merely an act of revenge

that is one of the biggest problems of the death penalty — it is revenge, not actual justice.

 

[AHapka]

I agree in the modern world. But don’t forget there are some primitive tribes in remote parts of the world that don’t have modern confinement options.

 

[neophyte]

What do you guys think?

The constant teaching of the Church is that the civil government may legitimately resort to capital punishment. It is not inherently evil.

At the same time, the State is obligated to resort to it only if society cannot be protected from the evildoer using other means. The ability of modern societies to protect themselves from such people is well developed, so there is little real need for it in such societies.

 

[StephenW]

that is one of the biggest problems of the death penalty — it is revenge, not actual justice.

In our morally-sick society, that is probably true in the minds and hearts of very many people, if not most. It can be a matter of revenge, and many may want it for that reason, but it is not necessarily so. Any punishment can turn into revenge instead of defense of society and justice (common good). So, in my opinion, I think that is a significant problem with it. There are other problems too, such as the risk of putting to death someone who, later, turns out to be innocent. In my opinion, I think our society should do everything that is reasonably possible to avoid using the death penalty, but recognize that, at times, it is called for. This leads to the question of how do we identify those times? What is the criteria for executing someone, given the present milieu?

 

[edjlopez23]

In my opinion, I think our society should do everything that is reasonably possible to avoid using the death penalty, but recognize that, at times, it is called for. This leads to the question of how do we identify those times? What is the criteria for executing someone, given the present milieu?

I think it’s a matter of prudential judgment.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What about the current context, say in the US? Is it ever demanded because of justice? Also, prison is a society too, and these criminals endanger and murder people there too. So, is there a possible case that one be put to death to protect others in prison?

It’s easier to just move them to another prison if they are dangerous, and justice doesn’t mean more killing.

 

[Motherwit]

That’s only a few priests or nuns though. Throughiut Christendom, tbe death penalty has always been considered a moral necessity. It’s very different from abortion and infanticide, which had been condemned since the early church.

It was never celebrated as a ‘right to kill’ like it is today. It was always regarded soberly and solemnly as more a necessary evil. When the Church addressed it in the past it was to affirm against ideas that it was murder in itself. Today we have the opposite. People aggressively claiming the death penalty as a right to be held so tightly as to never let it go. It’s a primitive bloodlust that has never been seen in any of the Church’s teaching.

 

[kapp19]

If the liceity of capital punishment in principle (if not in particular applications) is not a datum of the universal ordinary magisterium, then no moral teaching seems to exist in the universal ordinary magisterium.

We should read the Pope as giving very strong prudential exhortation.

There is more to CP than defense… it is about retribution/vengeance (a virtue!), repentance, reparation, deterrence…

 

[StephenW]

It’s easier to just move them to another prison if they are dangerous, and justice doesn’t mean more killing.

How would moving this person to another prison resolve this problem? What would be different about another prison such that a given criminal would not endanger and murder people there too?

Regarding justice, I pose the question because the Catechism states: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” There is something here about punishment that is not about defending society. In a general way, it seems correct to say that to the extent that that crimes go unpunished that it wounds the common good of society. Taking a rather simplistic example, if someone wrecks your car (totals it), would this person not have to pay for it? There is, then, by being in prison or being given other types of punishments that a person is paying the debt of justice.

In a previous post, I posed the question if there was such a crime such that it called for the death penalty? Think of some of the worse crimes perpetrated by individuals in history. So, again, the question I posed was if the death penalty was ever demanded because of justice? This question does not imply that justice=more killing, as if the criminal’s murder and the death penalty are the same thing. Not all killing, of course, is the same. Please see my previous posts referencing the Catechism’s remarks on self defense by individuals and governments, as an example.

 

[StephenW]

I think it’s a matter of prudential judgment.

I think it would have to be, and that, I think, is precisely where the difficulty is here. Prudential judgements, however, can be conclusive. In other words, given first world countries, for example, it may be possible to say that the death penalty is inadmissible, although, not intrinsically evil. If that is correct, then one would have to conclude that it cannot ever be done in first world countries. In my opinion, however, it is not all that clear such that prudential judgment can reach that conclusion. It does seem, however, that it should be avoided, if at all possible, provided that the protection of society and the matter of justice can be maintained for the sake of the common good.