Korean Church calls for death penalty abolishment

[1holycatholic]

Whatever it says and however you interpret it does not change the fact that the Catechism does contain at least one error in 2267, as I pointed out earlier.

Ender

Catechism of Trent
Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

CCC #2267
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
These are not in conflict.

 

[Ender]

Catechism of Trent - CCC #2267
These are not in conflict.

Concerning the point I raised about the error in 2267, there is certainly nothing in the Catechism of Trent that supports the claim 2267 makes about the traditional teaching of the Church.

Regarding the conflict between the two, Trent states that:

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

While 2267 claims:

*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *

So, what Trent calls an act of paramount obedience is classified by 2267 as an act that doesn’t conform to the dignity of the human person. Really, they can’t both be true.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

Concerning the point I raised about the error in 2267, there is certainly nothing in the Catechism of Trent that supports the claim 2267 makes about the traditional teaching of the Church.

Regarding the conflict between the two, Trent states that:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

While 2267 claims:

*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, *because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

So, what Trent calls an act of paramount obedience is classified by 2267 as an act that doesn’t conform to the dignity of the human person. Really, they can’t both be true.

Ender

Why stop there?

Trent:
… The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence.
That includes the perpetrator. If the state can give security to life by repressing the offender in a prison then it would be unjust to take their life. Generally speaking prisons are able to do that now. It’s not like prisons haven’t changed over time. The prisoner who escaped when the guard fell asleep in the past is going to be hard pressed to escape with lethal electric fences (etc.) that don’t fall asleep.

 

[punisherthunder]

So if there is no death penalty, there is no deterrent for criminals. Prisons? They are a joke. Thugs serve little to none of their sentences.

If there is no real deterrent for deviant behavior, then what should be done?

 

[Tsuwano]

So if there is no death penalty, there is no deterrent for criminals. Prisons? They are a joke. Thugs serve little to none of their sentences.

If there is no real deterrent for deviant behavior, then what should be done?

Texas has the death penalty and puts many prisoners to death each year. So do many other States. Has crime diminished in Texas or those other states? Apparently not, since they continue to put more and more prisoners on death row. There may be a lot of reasons to use the death penalty, but certainly not as a deterrent to crime. It doesn’t work. It never has.

 

[Ender]

Trent:
… The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. That includes the perpetrator.

Then end of the fifth commandment is the preservation of life but this is not the primary end of punishment. The primary objective of punishment is retribution and it does seem to distort the meaning of that section of the Catechism of Trent to claim that the criminal’s life is protected by the ends of the fifth commandment when we have just read that his execution is an act of paramount obedience to that commandment. Once again, how can both be true?

If the state can give security to life by repressing the offender in a prison then it would be unjust to take their life.

This expresses a basic misunderstanding of the nature and objectives of punishment. The primary objective of punishment is retribution - justice - which requires that the severity of the punishment applied be commensurate with the severity of the crime. The protection of society is a valid objective of punishment but it (along with rehabilitation and deterrence) is a secondary objective and a punishment is just if it satisfies the obligation of justice with regard to severity and without regard to protection. Whether or not a punishment provides protection says nothing whatever about whether the punishment is just; protection is not a requirement of justice.

Generally speaking prisons are able to do that now.

This is debatable and it is this claim I was referring to when I said there was an opinion in the catechism. The evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems is not a moral concern; it is at best an informed guess. I happen to disagree with it but that’s beside the point - the point being that this opinion cannot be taken as doctrine and we have no obligation to assent to it.

It’s not like prisons haven’t changed over time. The prisoner who escaped when the guard fell asleep in the past is going to be hard pressed to escape with lethal electric fences (etc.) that don’t fall asleep.

I wonder how many people you believe escaped from the dungeons and galleys of old. I see no reason whatever to believe that prisoners are less dangerous today than they were in the past and several reasons to believe that the reverse is true.

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

So if there is no death penalty, there is no deterrent for criminals. Prisons? They are a joke. Thugs serve little to none of their sentences.

If there is no real deterrent for deviant behavior, then what should be done?

Well, no, actually, Korean prisons are about as bad as Japanese prisons, and yakuza slang for those involves various Buddhist conceptions of hell. And yakuza aren’t exactly prissy.

Here, though, yeah, there really isn’t much of a case to make for our prison system; the worst guys basically run the joint. It’s important to remember that the only part of what the Pope said about capital punishment that can be taken as infallible, is also obvious—that executing people when you don’t have to is bad. No kidding; I’m glad we have the Apostolic See to offer these important insights . But whether you do have to is a matter of prudential judgment, no matter what the seamless-garmenters say. I think America certainly has to—I’d actually change the law so you get exactly one appeal, and then you’re executed immediately. The fact that, even in Texas, a death row inmate is more likely to die of old age is, I think, the real reason it’s difficult to assess the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

It’s important to remember that the only part of what the Pope said about capital punishment that can be taken as infallible, is also obvious—that executing people when you don’t have to is bad.

Be careful here. I’m not sure we disagree on anything but it’s important to be clear and the phrase “when you don’t have to” … isn’t. If this means “when it is not needed by justice” then I agree, but if it means “when it isn’t needed to protect society” then I would disagree. It is justice, not protection, that determines what punishment is needed.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

Then end of the fifth commandment is the preservation of life but this is not the primary end of punishment. The primary objective of punishment is retribution and it does seem to distort the meaning of that section of the Catechism of Trent to claim that the criminal’s life is protected by the ends of the fifth commandment when we have just read that his execution is an act of paramount obedience to that commandment. Once again, how can both be true?
This expresses a basic misunderstanding of the nature and objectives of punishment. The primary objective of punishment is retribution - justice - which requires that the severity of the punishment applied be commensurate with the severity of the crime. The protection of society is a valid objective of punishment but it (along with rehabilitation and deterrence) is a secondary objective and a punishment is just if it satisfies the obligation of justice with regard to severity and without regard to protection. Whether or not a punishment provides protection says nothing whatever about whether the punishment is just; protection is not a requirement of justice.
This is debatable and it is this claim I was referring to when I said there was an opinion in the catechism. The evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems is not a moral concern; it is at best an informed guess. I happen to disagree with it but that’s beside the point - the point being that this opinion cannot be taken as doctrine and we have no obligation to assent to it.
I wonder how many people you believe escaped from the dungeons and galleys of old. I see no reason whatever to believe that prisoners are less dangerous today than they were in the past and several reasons to believe that the reverse is true.

Ender

I disagree with your interpretation.

Professio Fidei
…
With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.
…
I can’t dance around that.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is justice, not protection, that determines what punishment is needed.

That’s contrary to the Catechism of Trent.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Catholicism teaches “no death penalty”
“Death penalty” = protestant

 

[1holycatholic]

Catholicism teaches “no death penalty”
“Death penalty” = protestant

Not exactly. The Catechism teaches that the death penalty can be a just punishment when necessary to protect human life.

You can’t say very much that’s definitive about Protestants. Many Protestants are against the death penalty, many are for it.

 

[Hastrman]

That’s contrary to the Catechism of Trent.

Not to mention reason; there are several other considerations that enter into any matter like this, including “whether we actually have the resources and organization to maintain this prison system” and “what is the effect of any particular death-penalty policy on cultural attitudes toward life”. Neither of those, nor any of the other issues (including retributive justice and defending society) is as simple as the “kill 'em all let God sort 'em out” and “no executions ever under any circumstances” camps would like them to be.

 

[Ender]

That’s contrary to the Catechism of Trent.

Hardly, but it would be helpful if you would cite the section of Trent you think it contradicts. You might find it difficult to do inasmuch as even the current catechism recognizes that it is retribution, not defense, that is the primary objective of punishment:

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

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not to mention reason; there are several other considerations that enter into any matter like this, including “whether we actually have the resources and organization to maintain this prison system” and “what is the effect of any particular death-penalty policy on cultural attitudes toward life”. Neither of those, nor any of the other issues (including retributive justice and defending society) is as simple as the “kill 'em all let God sort 'em out” and “no executions ever under any circumstances” camps would like them to be.

There are valid reasons why the death penalty should not be applied in specific situations, but these are situation dependent and are not relevant to the larger issue which is whether the death penalty is not only proper but often necessary as a matter of justice regardless of whether it is needed for the protection of society.

Ender

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Jharek I don’t think anyone here is going to disagree with you on that - thanks for the straw man. That being said, I think it is obvious the direction the Church is headed in on the issue.

I believe the Church’s position is that in some cases, it is still a necessary tool for protecting society at large. But progressive advances in therapy for the psychologically and socially troubled, together with those in incarcerative technology, render it less necessary than it once was, at least in this country, and more of a last resort. 2267, CCC, and Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, 56.

 

[Ender]

I believe the Church’s position is that in some cases, it is still a necessary tool for protecting society at large. But progressive advances in therapy for the psychologically and socially troubled, together with those in incarcerative technology, render it less necessary than it once was, at least in this country, and more of a last resort. 2267, CCC, and Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae, 56.

The problem is, however, that the Church (prior to EV #56) never tied the use of capital punishment to the question of whether it was needed for protection. It had always been accepted as a requirement of justice.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

Hardly, but it would be helpful if you would cite the section of Trent you think it contradicts. You might find it difficult to do inasmuch as even the current catechism recognizes that it is retribution, not defense, that is the primary objective of punishment:

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

Ender

I’ve already posted the relevant section. I disagree with your private interpretation and I must side with the Magisterium.

 

[Ender]

I’ve already posted the relevant section. I disagree with your private interpretation and I must side with the Magisterium.

Please, the section you posted didn’t even address the question, which, as I pointed out was directly addressed by the current catechism. There is simply no doubt about what the Church sees as the primary objective of punishment, and that is retribution, not protection. That is what the Church teaches today and has consistently taught from the beginning. Section 2266 does not contradict Trent, the problem is with 2267 which corresponds to neither and directly contradicts 2260. 2267 is an absolute shambles.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

Please, the section you posted didn’t even address the question, which, as I pointed out was directly addressed by the current catechism. There is simply no doubt about what the Church sees as the primary objective of punishment, and that is retribution, not protection. That is what the Church teaches today and has consistently taught from the beginning. Section 2266 does not contradict Trent, the problem is with 2267 which corresponds to neither and directly contradicts 2260. 2267 is an absolute shambles.

Ender

I suggest you contact your bishop and let him know you think the Church teaches error. :coffeeread: