Punishment must fit the crime

[CrossofChrist]

According to Catholic teaching, must the punishment always be proportionate to the crime, or can it be lessened if there is a legitimate reason?

I would think it could be since our punishment we deserve because of sin (hell) is basically transformed so we can go to heaven. But like with any topic I will submit to the judgment of the Church.

Thoughts?

 

[Bradski]

According to Catholic teaching, must the punishment always be proportionate to the crime, or can it be lessened if there is a legitimate reason?

If it’s lessened because there is a legitimate reason, then is it not still proportional?

 

[Ender]

If it’s lessened because there is a legitimate reason, then is it not still proportional?

Not necessarily. If the reasons are unrelated to the nature of the crime, like the response that might erupt if the proper punishment was imposed, then, no, the punishment would not be proportional. The likely effect of the punishment on the community must also be considered.
*Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many **followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to **death together with the wicked. *(Aquinas)
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Not necessarily. If the reasons are unrelated to the nature of the crime, like the response that might erupt if the proper punishment was imposed, then, no, the punishment would not be proportional. The likely effect of the punishment on the community must also be considered.
*Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many **followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to **death together with the wicked. *(Aquinas)
Ender

Thank you

 

[Bradski]

Not necessarily. If the reasons are unrelated to the nature of the crime…

How can the reasons be unrelated? No crime stands alone without concern of extenuating circumstances.

You could say that killing someone is a crime. That’s not always the case, but if we decide that it is a crime, then there are a myriad of different circumstances that would warrant a punishment proportional to the circumstances.

 

[Ender]

How can the reasons be unrelated? No crime stands alone without concern of extenuating circumstances.

The possible or likely response of a person’s supporters to the extent of the punishment someone might receive is totally unrelated to the nature of the crime he committed, yet the likely reaction is something that should be considered. The primary reason for the current objections to the use of capital punishment is that it is assumed to contribute to a “culture of death” and to be harmful to the cultures that employ it. The argument in this case is not whether executions are just punishments, but whether they solve more problems than they cause.

Ender

 

[HelenRose]

Read Luke 12:35-49. Vigilant and Faithful Servants.

The last few verses of that story: Luke 12:47-48
“That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.”

This tells me that the crime is important but the punishment will depend on the culprit’s intent.

 

[Bradski]

The possible or likely response of a person’s supporters to the extent of the punishment someone might receive is totally unrelated to the nature of the crime he committed, yet the likely reaction is something that should be considered.

It should? Are you suggesting that punishment should be proportional to people’s reaction to the crime? How odd.

 

[Ender]

It should? Are you suggesting that punishment should be proportional to people’s reaction to the crime? How odd.

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that in some few cases there may be situations external to the crime that ought to be considered in sentencing. The general rule is that the punishment must (not may) be proportionate to the severity of the crime.
*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
There are, however, exceptions.

Ender

 

[mikekle]

*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
​

Well, thats awful convenient, not to mention, it can be drastically abused and misinterpreted in variety of ways.

Ive always sort of felt something must be wrong if secular authority (govt) and the church ‘get along’ so well.​

 

[Ender]

Well, thats awful convenient, not to mention, it can be drastically abused and misinterpreted in variety of ways.

Everything can be abused. Any concept of a just punishment can be taken to extremes. That speaks to the abuse of authority, not to the proper nature of punishment. What in your mind justifies any punishment? What does the church teach are the proper objectives of punishment? What is the primary objective? What allows us to say this level of punishment is just, but that level is too harsh and this other one is too lenient?

Ive always sort of felt something must be wrong if secular authority (govt) and the church ‘get along’ so well.

It would certainly be wrong for the church to adopt secular morals, but it hardly seems a problem when the reverse is true.

Ender

 

[mikekle]

Everything can be abused. Any concept of a just punishment can be taken to extremes. That speaks to the abuse of authority, not to the proper nature of punishment. What in your mind justifies any punishment? What does the church teach are the proper objectives of punishment? What is the primary objective? What allows us to say this level of punishment is just, but that level is too harsh and this other one is too lenient?
It would certainly be wrong for the church to adopt secular morals, but it hardly seems a problem when the reverse is true.

Ender

Well, the term ‘punishment’ must first be defined…what should a punishment be for an adult for commits a crime…locking them away for a certain period of time is our current method, but what are the results? Many who complete their ‘punishment’ only learn better criminal skills and gain better contacts by going to prison, and commit other crimes once they get out…so locking them away in a place has not worked that well.

Fines and fees have also been tried, for lesser crimes, like traffic, but again, how many years has this been the method…what are the results…people still commit these crimes, even though there is a fine…so that has not worked that well either.

Maybe we need to figure out what a punishment should really be and what we intend to accomplish thru the punishment? Obviously you cant keep doing the same thing over and over, year after year and expect different results…that will NEVER happen.

 

[Bradski]

What I’m saying is that in some few cases there may be situations external to the crime that ought to be considered in sentencing.

I can’t think of any. Can you give me an example?

 

[Ender]

I can’t think of any. Can you give me an example?

JPII opposed the use of capital punishment because he felt it contributed to a Culture of Death. Despite the fact that the church has for 2000 years recognized that States have a moral right to employ such punishments, JPII felt it was better not to use it. Writing about this, Cardinal Dulles said:*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.
*If a punishment does more harm than good it ought not be used.

Ender

 

[Bradski]

JPII opposed the use of capital punishment because he felt it contributed to a Culture of Death. Despite the fact that the church has for 2000 years recognized that States have a moral right to employ such punishments, JPII felt it was better not to use it. Writing about this, Cardinal Dulles said:*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.
*If a punishment does more harm than good it ought not be used.

Ender

A good point. Can’t argue with that. In fact, I’d support it.

 

[BornInMarch]

When someone says “the punishment must fit the crime”, what they usually mean is “the punishment must not be disproportionately draconian when compared to the crime”.

For example, punishing a thief by forcing them to pay either part or all of the cost of the item they stole is a punishment that fits the crime. Punishing a thief by cutting off his hands and branding the word “thief” on his forehead with a hot iron is a punishment that does NOT fit the crime.

Erring on the side of mercy is always preferable to erring on the side of punishment. It was William Blackstone who said it is better for ten guilty men to go scot-free than for even one innocent man to be wrongly punished. In fact, the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is a cornerstone of every civilized nation’s justice system.

 

[Ender]

When someone says “the punishment must fit the crime”, what they usually mean is “the punishment must not be disproportionately draconian when compared to the crime”.

It means neither disproportionately severe nor disproportionately lenient. Neither condition is just.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.

*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, wherefore it is written (Prov. 13:24): “He that spareth the rod hateth his son.” But the virtue of vengeance consists in observing the due measure of vengeance with regard to all the circumstances. *(Aquinas ST II-II 108,1)

Erring on the side of mercy is always preferable to erring on the side of punishment. It was William Blackstone who said it is better for ten guilty men to go scot-free than for even one innocent man to be wrongly punished. In fact, the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt is a cornerstone of every civilized nation’s justice system.

Not convicting an innocent person is not an example of mercy. Nor is mercy always appropriate.*There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. *(Aquinas ST II-II 67,4 ad 1)
Ender

 

[djames99]

“According to Catholic teaching, must the punishment always be proportionate to the crime”

Yes. (2 Cor 2,6). … and in justice, sentencing should include the compensatory portion as well. These are punishments because the crime also caused disruptions which would otherwise not have happened. All other additions need to be pronounced at sentencing as well, because justice itself needs to be monitored. A pronouncement of 50$ dollar fine may seem just, but if the system makes unfair additions not pronounced, then justice is not served. It makes it impossible to monitor the fairness of the sentencing by the citizens.

These days it’s common to add to sentencing discreetly which is a travesty.

A sentence that is commuted in some way is a mercy. This is allowed and not uncommon in out Christian tradition. Sometimes offenders deserve a break. One time offenses may deserve second chances,etc. The American fathers of confederation were keen in establishing a new nation based on Vatell’s principles for this very reason.

(see Emer de Vatell, Wikipedia)

“171. Degree of punishment.
We shall only make one observation, which is connected with the subject in hand, and relates to the degree of punishment. From the foundation even of the right of punishing, and from the lawful end of inflicting penalties, arises the necessity of keeping them within just bounds. Since they are designed to procure the safety of the state and of the citizens, they ought never to be extended beyond what that safety requires. To say that any punishment is just since the transgressor knew before-hand the penalty he was about to incur, is using a barbarous language, repugnant to humanity, and to the law of nature, which forbids our doing any ill to others, unless they lay us under the necessity of inflicting it in our own defense and for our own security. Whenever then a particular crime is not much to be feared in society, as when the opportunities of committing it are very rare, or when the subjects are not inclined to it, too rigorous punishments ought not to be used to suppress it. Attention ought also to be paid to the nature of the crime; and the punishment should be proportioned to the degree of injury done to the public tranquillity and the safety of society, and the wickedness it supposes in the criminal”.

Interestingly, “occult compensation” can be sought to compensate for excessive punishment, that is, punitive measures that are over and above what is considered typical
in that society. For instance a person stealing a pencil does not deserve a sentence of 10 years, etc. Usually the justice system makes it difficult for the offender to be successful in this. Often they are told to seek regress through the Human Rights Commission.

 

[Ender]

“According to Catholic teaching, must the punishment always be proportionate to the crime”

Yes. (2 Cor 2,6)…

If the punishment *always *had to be proportionate to the crime there would be no place for mercy, but since we know that mercy can sometimes be justified it must be true that that the punishment does not always have to be proportionate to the crime.

Ender

 

[djames99]

** If the punishment *always *had to be proportionate to the crime there would be no place for mercy, **

 It would seem mercy, or lack thereof, is an active participant throughout the judicial process. The punishment is the product of a process of good conscience, which mercy played an active part. 

Charity is the supernatural infused virtue infused by God into the will, by which we love God for Himself above all things, and our self and neighbor for His sake. It is the “queen of all virtues,” the one that unites all the other virtues and makes their actions meritorious.

The virtue of justice perfects the rational appetite or will.

At discernment of a proper sentencing, the virtue of Charity, by a well disposed judge, may through the act of mercy, express a degree of benevolence to the offender. The mercy is to the degree of compassion the Holy Spirit desires. The degree of benevolence may play a part in rendering the appropriate punitive measures. In other words, the appropriate measures may be a product of the act of mercy indirectly of a well disposed judge. The virtue of right justice is dependant on one's charity.    

So it follows that an immoral judge could render an unfair verdict because he is ill disposed. 

In the case of an offender who has received his just due, one finds the motive of compassion in order to alleviate another's burden through the spiritual works of mercy. It seeks not the condition of deserving, but is motivated through compassion of love of neighbor. The act desires to forgive and comfort the past offender.

Christ extended mercy and forgave Dismas, even though his temporal debt was paid, nor were the populace of Sodom deserving of the mercy of the bargaining on their behalf that was being played out for them.