T
TK421
Guest
As far as I know “inadmissible” doesn’t have a specific meaning in Catholic writing. “Intrinsic evil” has a very specific definition. If something is intrinsically evil that means it is immoral in all circumstances.
- Status
V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
They can go to solitary confinement and a different prison would be more secure.
S
StephenW
Guest
I need to reply to you in two parts. See Part Two further below.
PART ONE
I have thought about that too, in the past. Total isolation would, indeed, would be a profound punishment, which, as an aside, could very well be worse than death. But that is another question, I suppose. What changed my mind about solitary, a few years ago, was a documentary. They had to get a violent prisoner out of his cell. I think it was to either fix something or renovate. Regardless, these individuals, sooner or later, will have to be in contact with other people, even if only for medical exams or treatment, maintenance, etc. Anyway, it was four, perhaps, five prison guards, with riot gear on that had to burst into his cell and struggle to subdue this rather big man. They did try to talk to him, to get him to cooperate. So, this was a last resort, and he did manage to ruff up these guards. I am not suggesting that in no case maximum security and solitary confinement would not work. I think that could be preferable to execution. What I am getting at here is that, regardless of prison technology and techniques, certain individuals will still remain a threat to the society in the prison. It is hard to believe that someone would be like this, but these people do exist. Are they to blame for being like that? I don’t know. I’d like to think that they were driven to it by their environment or that they are simply mentally ill. Yet, I do believe that human beings, of their own accord, are capable of turning themselves into this. I mean to say, that I believe that I could have gone there in my life, but for the grace of God. And I think this is true, in general, for most. The point is simply that it seems quite plausible that such a situation could exist in which the death penalty is warranted for those in prison who have continued the violence and murder. I am not, of course, in favor of promoting the use of the death penalty-- not at all. It is just that I don’t find these arguments very convincing. The argument to which I am referring is that there is never a justification for the death penalty based on the notion that the government can simply shut these individuals up in solitary. So, I am probably in 95% agreement with you regarding the use of the death penalty. I suspect the disagreement I would have with you is its total abolition, such that the law of the land should prohibit it in all cases and circumstances.
Last edited:
S
StephenW
Guest
See Part One above.
PART TWO
Then there is the matter of justice, which I think is a very difficult question with which to deal, but something that really needs to be examined in a careful and serious way. This question should not be simply brushed aside because one is uncomfortable with the idea of executing a person (statement not directed at you). This sort of thing leads, in my opinion, to “fuzzy” moral reasoning, such as when individuals equate the death penalty with abortion. I don’t know how old you are, but if you remember Manson’s heinous murders, I am suggesting that the question of justice is about such deeds. If there is a lack of justice in these cases (and there are far worse ones than Manson), this does, in fact, harm the common good of society. Maybe I can make this point clearer using another, lesser crime. Think of someone defrauding a large number of people of massive sums of money, ruining these people financially and destroying their retirements. That is what happened, if you recall, with Enron. If justice is not a question here, and only the protection of society, then, all that is needed is to fire these individuals and not allow them to ever have contact with such money ever again. Can you get a sense now of the injustice involved if all one is doing by prison is preventing the criminal from committing the crime again? Thus, the question: Is there not anything that anyone could ever do, no matter how perverted, how heinous, and cruel, no matter how destructive, and so on, that the death penalty could never be justified? I am proposing the question for discussion.
E
Ender
Guest
I really think the opinion that the protection of society is the primary objective of punishment has led to a real misunderstanding of punishment in general and capital punishment in particular. Protection is not primary, it is secondary. The primary objective is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense” (CCC 2266). That is, it is retribution.edjlopez23:
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.
The Church has historically taught that the “primary reason for punishment” is “retribution,” he said, which is not revenge but “the idea that the punishment has to fit the gravity of the crime.” Secondary reasons for punishment included the rehabilitation of the criminal and the protection of society. (Interview with Fr. Thomas Petri, Oct. 2020)
The punishment must fit the crime, and that means not being too lenient as well as not being too severe. Protection has always been a secondary consideration. It is (retributive) justice that determines the severity of the punishment, and JPII did not change that. This has always been true, and is still true today. Speaking in terms of what is necessary for protection simply misses the point; as a secondary objective it does not determine what is a just punishment.
E
edjlopez23
Guest
I would say which would give the sinner the better opportunity to repent. Capital punishment or time in confinement? That is where a balance of mercy, justice, and prudential judgment comes in.
After all, the Church’s mission is the salvation of souls. We should also however need to put into the account of what’s good for all.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
It is doctrine, at least now. As it is not dogma, one can dissent and is not a heresy, but if one does dissent, as with any dissention for a Catholic, there is an obligation to understand the mind of the Church on the matter. The same would hold true of a lot of doctrines that have been defined in encyclicals.
G
Genesis315
Guest
We can’t say it is absolutely inadmissable always and everywhere as some immutable point of the moral law. The Scriptures and Tradition, and the teaching Church have always upheld it can be used justly. But it can also be used unjustly, there are times when it can do more harm than good to the common good, etc., etc…
The Pope and pretty much all the bishops have expressed their belief that, in light of our current circumstances, it is currently inadmissible for various reasons and they urge us to seek its abolition (the Pope gives various reasons in his latest encyclical, like the available use of other punishments, the various abuses or potential for abuse, the message it sends in our time, and an advocacy of a general Christian approach to seeking mercy and that the preference that the guilty be converted and live).
While giving them the due respect they deserve as our divinely authorized pastors, because this ultimately hinges on an understanding of the facts as they are (for which our pastors are neither omniscient, nor infallible), one could in good conscience come to a different conclusion in a particular case or cases.
The Pope and pretty much all the bishops have expressed their belief that, in light of our current circumstances, it is currently inadmissible for various reasons and they urge us to seek its abolition (the Pope gives various reasons in his latest encyclical, like the available use of other punishments, the various abuses or potential for abuse, the message it sends in our time, and an advocacy of a general Christian approach to seeking mercy and that the preference that the guilty be converted and live).
While giving them the due respect they deserve as our divinely authorized pastors, because this ultimately hinges on an understanding of the facts as they are (for which our pastors are neither omniscient, nor infallible), one could in good conscience come to a different conclusion in a particular case or cases.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
I don’t think a blanket statement can be made. We tend to think the more time, the better, and that may likely be true for some.
But for others, years among bad company could further harden their irrepentance and add sin upon sin. On the other hand, being spared an unprovided or unexpected death, and instead being faced with going to one’s final judgment while one’s bad acts are more fresh in one’s memory may incite sufficient attrition or contrition to make a good confession, be absolved, and be saved. In such a case, the punishment of death would be immensely expiatory, possibly eliminating even the need for purgatory.
I think it would be a case by case question, so more objective criteria should be ultimately used in deciding this policy.
Last edited:
E
edjlopez23
Guest
Exactly. It is a case by case basis. Some say that Capital Punishment may cause sinners to repent and obtain conversion as well.
E
Ender
Guest
Rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment, but, like protection, it is only a secondary one. The primary objective still determines the severity of the punishment, which must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.
I certainly accept that there must be a balance in the application of punishment, but I don’t accept that “balance” rules out the application of capital punishment in all cases, or that mercy demands that it never be applied. I don’t find that to be reasonable.
Contrary to what is generally believed, capital punishment does not rule this out.
…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)
E
Ender
Guest
It is not doctrine. The phrase “at least now” is appropriate to prudential judgments, which change with time and circumstance as opposed to moral truth which does not. Further, doctrine does require our assent; it is prudential opinions which do not.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Just curious, any thoughts on this statement from Fratelli Tutti: "I would link this to life imprisonment… A life sentence is a secret death penalty”.[257]
To me this seems like the statement of someone without a real knowledge of the fact that some criminals are so beyond rehabilitation that life in prison or death are the only just options, for the protection of society and even as an act of mercy towards the criminal. I do wonder what Pope Francis would have us do with such criminals.
To me this seems like the statement of someone without a real knowledge of the fact that some criminals are so beyond rehabilitation that life in prison or death are the only just options, for the protection of society and even as an act of mercy towards the criminal. I do wonder what Pope Francis would have us do with such criminals.
Last edited:
E
edjlopez23
Guest
I say to try conversion, rehabilitation and imprisonment but if he proves too be too much of a liability then either solitary confinement and possibly the death penalty.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I think this is a more obvious example of a prudential opinion, which differs from the other comments only in being more clearly a judgment.
E
edjlopez23
Guest
“The crime must fit the punishment.” I think some people have different opinions on how heinous the crimes must to merit capital punishment. Some people are a lot more lenient than others.
S
sealabeag
Guest
Agreed, definitely rehabilitation should be tried, but there are many prisoners who are, apart from the grace of God of course, beyond rehabilitation. True psychopaths, pedophiles, etc. I don’t see a plan for them beyond “the death penalty is bad and life imprisonment is bad”. Surely they are good, if they protect society? Or at least moral and just.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have been thinking on that point for a while. We are all under a death penalty for the fall of Adam. From a technical point, a person in his sixties given a 40 sentence is in the same position as a person in their twenties give life. So if it is the terminology “life” that is the problem, then cap the worst off crimes at 60 years.
But looking at the point really being made, that of the value of the human soul, there are other solutions. One would be to think of ways that one’s time in prison is more human, not humane. A person’s dignity need not be non-existent during the time in prison. As the number one incarceration nation, along with China and North Korea, the United States has much room for improvement.
G
graciew
Guest
Go by stages. One may end up the whole life in prison yet not be sentenced for life from the start.
Obviously, it is about doing something to improve the response of this person . As a society, community…taking part.
He mentioned if I am not mistaken , how a child may look at this as there is no hope, no matter how hard you try. Which isn’t really the message of the Gospel.
There must be an article with further explanations, there was…
Steps are being taken without disregarding reparation into restoration. And many more. The road to peace isn’t easy .But there are the Beautitudes…
Obviously, it is about doing something to improve the response of this person . As a society, community…taking part.
He mentioned if I am not mistaken , how a child may look at this as there is no hope, no matter how hard you try. Which isn’t really the message of the Gospel.
There must be an article with further explanations, there was…
Steps are being taken without disregarding reparation into restoration. And many more. The road to peace isn’t easy .But there are the Beautitudes…
Last edited:
E
EssentialBeing
Guest
Just because it is law doesn’t mean it is moral & even-though evil individuals may choose to take life, we should not follow their example by killing them. Only god can choose, not human laws, the death penalty is not justice it is only retribution.
- Status