Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[pnewton]

I find it a bit interesting that we are several posts in on this subject and (as far as I could tell) no one has brought up mental illness.

My understanding is that there is, in fact, a large number of the mentally ill in prison.

Prisons and jails are the number one provider of mental health services. Yes, there are options other than incarceration, but no one wants to fund care for the mentally ill.

I see the greatest tragedy of our incarceration nation as being the failed war on drugs. Addiction puts most people behind bars. It is a much greater issue than violent inmates. If we could seek alternative punishment, then money could be better spent keeping the more dangerous people locked up.

When I first read the title, I was shocked by the last part. However, on reflection, I wonder if we might not be too far from being able to allow greater freedom to those near the end of their lives, though after decades, inmates become too institutionalized just to cut loose. Technology is providing more solutions to monitoring and tracking every year.

 

[pnewton]

Some criminals deserve to be shot. They have no hope for SOCIAL redemption. We even put rabid dogs down.

People should never, ever be compared to an animal. Human dignity must be afforded all. Period. We dissent from this doctrine at peril to our soul.

 

[Ender]

CCC 2267 currently states “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. Not severity with severity or an eye for an eye.

It is CCC 2266 which directly addresses this point:*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.
*The church has always taught this.
*Punishment is proportionate to sin in point of severity, both in Divine and in human judgments. *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Could changing teaching on the death penalty be one of God’s surprises the Holy Father has talked about?

No.*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[Ender]

As a non-Catholic this is something that I’ve found quite attractive about Catholic social justice. Capital punishment is not in-and-of-itself immoral, but we must temper our execution of it (pun intended) based on what’s actually necessary to protect society at large. It seems to me that Catholic social justice has done a great job in identifying what ought to be the primary goal in sentencing: justice and protection. In other words, when capital punishment actually becomes punitive in nature it has lost its value as a social justice tool.

This was a very thoughtful response but it’s not quite accurate. The primary goal in sentencing is not justice and protection; it is justice. Protection is a secondary goal. I think modern societies have become uncomfortable with the idea that punishment can be deserved, not just to rehabilitate someone, to send a message to others, or even to protect society, but simply because it is merited by one’s actions.

C.S. Lewis gave a really excellent explanation of this.“According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal.”

• "I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal."*
• “The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”*
  Ender

 

[anthonymarie]

. . . A punishment is morally permissible when it is the just punishment for the crime . . .

That sounds a lot like “an eye for an eye”. My understanding had always been that we judge out of necessity not because we have the right to sit in judgement over our brother.

In that sense, presumably, the primary objectives of a state in punishing a criminal should be incapacitation and deterrent. Neither of these require killing the offender (at least in a wealthy developed country).

 

[Son_of_Niall]

A fulfillment of which aspect? The content or the so called “spirit”.

He’s certainly a throw back from that period but, as a friend of mine used to say, is there any period in history so outdated as the 60’s? This approach has been tried and found wanting. The biggest apostasy of any religion ever took place in our Church following reckless experiments and innovations after the council.

Really? Please elaborate.

 

[Ender]

As a person in a lot of experience in the law, but admittedly none in the criminal law, I think a commonly held Catholic view, which was more or less the one held by St. Pope John Paul II, was that the ability to retain the most dangerous prisoners had evolved to where the moral justification for the death penalty had ceased. That’s pretty evident if a person looks at the history of criminal punishment.

I would dispute this point. I’ve seen it asserted any number of times but I have yet to read of any study that actually supports this claim.

Originally, while there were jails, by and large society had very little ability to hold, feed, and care for prisoners, so there was not a good means of retaining the most violent offenders, or those with the most grievous offenses. So in those cases, you could look back and see where the death penalty was a type of self defense, or at least arguably so.

I suspect there were few people escaping from their sentences in Roman mines, slave galleys, or even castle dungeons. Life sentences were not uncommon even in those times.…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Fifth Lateran Council)

We do have the ability to retain and hold safely nearly any prisoner indefinitely…

Define “safely”. Put a number to how many additional murders may occur before we have to admit that we cannot “hold safely nearly any prisoner.”

Given that, the death penalty’s purpose of being self defense has passed, and it’s supposedly serving some other purpose, although what that is seems hard to adequately define.

That “other” purpose is actually rather easy to define as it is the primary purpose of all punishment: retributive justice.

Anyhow, given that, while the Church’s position that the death penalty is a proper penalty under some circumstances, finds it self in an era when those circumstances virtually never arise…

The belief that capital punishment is unnecessary for the defense of society is certainly open to doubt but, as it is a prudential judgment, we are free to make that determination for ourselves. It is wrong, however, to believe that it is only protection that validates the use of the death penalty.

If capital punishment was a just penalty in the past it is equally just today. It may or may not be wise in a particular case, but that is a prudential judgment, not a moral one. We have forgotten - or continue to ignore - what the church has taught on this subject. These punishments are fixed by divine law*.* (Aquinas)

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? (Pope St. Innocent I)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Just as the criminal exercises his free will in the commission of a crime, so must he face the consequence of the law and relinquish his liberty. It is not the state depriving one of his freedom, rather a person making a choice to go against the common good, thus surrendering his liberty.

And what is true of liberty is equally true of life.*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” * (Pius XII)
Ender

 

[anthonymarie]

Really? Please elaborate.

That would take a long time and be very off topic (and I have a funny feeling would therefore upset the moderators) but I recommend “Trojan Horse in the City of God” by Dietrich von Hildebrand.

 

[Ender]

I don’t believe we have the right to take a life unless it’s self defence.

I understand your position, but it clearly conflicts with what the church has always taught as shown by that citation from the Baltimore Catechism. Is the church wrong in what she taught?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The taking of human life which is soundly prohibited by the fifth commandment is not made an exception to that by the obligation to punish crime…

St. Augustine disagrees with you.*“The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice.” *(City of God, Bk I, Ch 21)

It is a sentence that’s ritual intent is primarily defensive.

There is no church teaching (at least prior to 1997) that suggests this. *All *punishment has justice as its primary purpose, not defense.

… there are claims that it is an intrinsic moral good.

There is no such thing as an intrinsic moral good - moral evil, yes; moral good, no.

Ender

 

[Trader]

After reading all 105 posts I would add a few of my own thoughts.

1. What about the duty of a just society to protect the innocent from those who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be dangerous? We have a high standard to prove someone is deserving of (name removed by moderator)risonment. Maybe we should also have a high standard to prove a criminal is safe to release. Not even God Himself forces someone to repent. How arrogant is it for us to claim we can rehabilitate all, most, or even a significant number of those who have chosen to commit serious crimes? Repentance is a possibility only if the sinner chooses to cooperate with God’s grace.
2. We already have alternatives to a life sentence for someone who is truly repentant and has changed the attitudes that cause serious criminal offences. They are pardon and commutation. I have seen no one here mention those possibilites.
3. As one of my best friends will be happy to tell you after retiring from 30 years in “corrections,” it is not possible even in the most developed countries to protect us and the people who work for us in prisons from the most dangerous criminals. Every year in America there are inmates serving long sentences who still manage to commit additional murders. This is proof that we cannot eliminate the death penalty in every circumstance and still carry out our duty to protect the innocent.
4. As Ender and a few other posters show every time this subject comes up, protection of the innocent is not the only reason for punishment. Justice requires proportionate punishment for offenses. Much of our prison population might not be there if they had learned that lesson at home when their values and attitudes were still being formed. Propotional punishment benefits both the offender and the victim. It is both just and merciful.

 

[Ender]

That sounds a lot like “an eye for an eye”. My understanding had always been that we judge out of necessity not because we have the right to sit in judgement over our brother.

Ministers of the State have the obligation to sit in judgment, just as they have the obligation to punish. It is really important to distinguish between the obligations of the State and those of the individual. Vengeance (properly understood) is forbidden the individual but is the duty of the State.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)

In that sense, presumably, the primary objectives of a state in punishing a criminal should be incapacitation and deterrent.

But this is not what the church teaches. She has always taught that the primary objective is retribution: retributive justice. Deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives but they are also all secondary.

Ender

 

[anthonymarie]

After reading all 105 posts I would add a few of my own thoughts.

1. What about the duty of a just society to protect the innocent from those who have been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be dangerous? We have a high standard to prove someone is deserving of (name removed by moderator)risonment. Maybe we should also have a high standard to prove a criminal is safe to release. Not even God Himself forces someone to repent. How arrogant is it for us to claim we can rehabilitate all, most, or even a significant number of those who have chosen to commit serious crimes? Repentance is a possibility only if the sinner chooses to cooperate with God’s grace.
2. We already have alternatives to a life sentence for someone who is truly repentant and has changed the attitudes that cause serious criminal offences. They are pardon and commutation. I have seen no one here mention those possibilites.
3. As one of my best friends will be happy to tell you after retiring from 30 years in “corrections,” it is not possible even in the most developed countries to protect us and the people who work for us in prisons from the most dangerous criminals. Every year in America there are inmates serving long sentences who still manage to commit additional murders. This is proof that we cannot eliminate the death penalty in every circumstance and still carry out our duty to protect the innocent.
4. As Ender and a few other posters show every time this subject comes up, protection of the innocent is not the only reason for punishment. Justice requires proportionate punishment for offenses. Much of our prison population might not be there if they had learned that lesson at home when their values and attitudes were still being formed. Propotional punishment benefits both the offender and the victim. It is both just and merciful.

This is a well thought out post but I disagree with number 4. Do any of really want justice? I’m not just being a hippy, Jesus told us to do unto we would have done unto us. I would be forgiven.

Of course if you just forgave criminals they would continue to commit offenses and others would follow. This where prevention and deterrence come in but they don’t require killing in a wealthy country.

 

[Ender]

Do any of really want justice?

I’m a pretty big fan of justice.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
This is not to suggest that punishments should not be conditioned by circumstances, or that mercy has no role, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that justice is something we should fear and oppose.

Ender

 

[anthonymarie]

Ministers of the State have the obligation to sit in judgment, just as they have the obligation to punish. It is really important to distinguish between the obligations of the State and those of the individual. Vengeance (properly understood) is forbidden the individual but is the duty of the State.

The state is answerable to us, if we would forgive, the state must forgive.

But this is not what the church teaches. She has always taught that the primary objective is retribution: retributive justice. Deterrence, protection, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives but they are also all secondary.

Do you have a source for that? It doesn’t sound consistent with Our Lord’s words:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven.

*(from Matthew 5) *

 

[anthonymarie]

I’m a pretty big fan of justice.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
This is not to suggest that punishments should not be conditioned by circumstances, or that mercy has no role, but I am very uncomfortable with the idea that justice is something we should fear and oppose.

Ender

There’s no use quoting 2266 without quoting the rest:

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."

I can only speak personally, but I’m pretty terrified of authentic justice:

Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.

(From Matthew 21)

 

[SuperLuigi]

It would help if he were to suggest another means.

Well, that’s the hard part now, isn’t it?

 

[Ender]

There’s no use quoting 2266 without quoting the rest: [2267]

Church teaching, including the catechism, cannot be understood by believing that one teaching trumps another; they all have to be incorporated into a coherent whole that allows for all of them to be satisfied. The church does not teach contradictory values.

2267 can not and does not rescind what was just said in 2266.

Ender