Question about the death penalty

[Verbum_Caro]

TOME, and others,

The issue that I am bringing up is that it seems to me that there is often an appeal to “self-defense” (or defense of another) to justify the death penalty. The difficulty is that classically killing in self-defense is justified under the principle of double effect – but the imposition of the death penalty seems to violate the principle of double effect.

The solution? The death penalty is not self-defense (strictly construed). The death penalty is justified, rather, on the basis of natural law and the rights and duties of a lawful authority to punish grave offenses.

Aquinas seems to be making the distinction:

For instance see II-II, 64, 3 "Whether it is lawful for a private individual to kill a man who has sinned?

it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. . .Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.

Contrasted with II-II, 64, 7 “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?”

Nothing hinders one act from having two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention. Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental. . . .Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. . . . But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above, it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity.

The first instance (death penalty) Thomas speaks about the lawfulness of directly killing an evildoer – that only those who have proper authority can do so. This doesn’t seem to be an appeal to double effect or to self-defense.

In the second instance Thomas speaks about, on the other hand, actual self-defense. This is justified under a principle of double effect. Thomas explicitly states that the private individual cannot intend to kill, that only public authorities can whether it be in self-defense (and referring the act to the common good) or in the imposition of the death penalty, or in war.

Thoughts?
VC

 

[TOME]

VC
I think a key word or words here is “Common Good” of a society or state. Man is a social being and this makes living in a society necessary for the proper existance of humans. The ultimate goal of society is to create the environment which allows for the perfection of the individual or to put it another way to promote the “Common Good”. Evil doerers, by their actions impeed or prevent society’s properfunction thus society has the right to protect itself from such aggression that goes against its very nature, in other words to protect itself from those forces which hinders it perfection. Thomas does draw the analogy of society being like a well functioning body. If a part of the body becomes deseased and could cause the who body to parish then it is justifiable to cut off the desaesd part in order to protect the whole.
This is how the death penalty can be tied into the concept of self defense - it is a means society can use to protect itself from total corruption that could kill the body (society) from within. Just as an individual has the right to protect himself from an unjust aggression which threatens his life, society has the same right to self defense to protect itself from the unjust aggression that threatens its life. Also, because a just society is the sum of the total of its individuals, working together for the common good, what effects the individual affects the whole of society.

If the DP is a means of a society exercising it right to self defense against its own members who by their action threaten that society’s life, then the principle of double effect does come into play. And I think this also is at the basis of the differences of
convictions on the morality of a society’s exercising its right of self defense through its exercise of the DP.

This also leads to such questions such what is the main intent of a society’s use of the DP? If the main intent is punishment then does the principle of double effect indicate that there is a proper proportionality (one life for another) or is there a disporportionality, namely the destruction of two human lives when the death of the murderer will not bring back to life the one murdered. Can the willfull destruction of a human life be justified when other means of punishment and possible repentance are available? Given the lenght it takes for a murderer to be tried sentenced and the appeals process what if the murderer has a true metonia is perfectly contrite, and has received the Sacrament of Reconcilation does this person still fall into the category of an evil doerer that society has the right to kill or has this person become an innocent person? If the nature of the State is to create the well ordered society which permotes the perfection of the human nature of its individuals, then how is acting merely to avenge the death of an individual promoting the "Common G

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Can the willfull destruction of a human life be justified when other means of punishment and possible repentance are available?

Catechism of the Council of Trent states in the Fifth Commandment section: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. .

Given the lenght it takes for a murderer to be tried sentenced and the appeals process what if the murderer has a true metonia is perfectly contrite, and has received the Sacrament of Reconcilation does this person still fall into the category of an evil doerer that society has the right to kill or has this person become an innocent person?

Pope Pius XII, (A.A.S., 1952, pp. 779ff.):Even when it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death, the state does not dispose of the individual’s right to live. Rather, it is reserved to the public authority to deprive the criminal of the benefit of life, when already,** by his crime, he has deprived himself of the right to live**.
Unless he condemned determines a way to undo his crime in the temporal realm, his life is still forfeit by the crime itself. An individual going to Reconciliation and getting one’s “own house” in order is no more a reason to compel the State to lift the death penalty than it is to lift a prison sentence, as both are punishments it can legitimately inflict irregardless of the status of the prisoner’s soul.

If the nature of the State is to create the well ordered society which permotes the perfection of the human nature of its individuals, then how is acting merely to avenge the death of an individual promoting the "Common G

There’s the rub, as based on clear and readily available prior Catholic teaching, avenging crime is an equally legitimate reason - on its own - for the state to exercise the death penalty.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Yet this is another strawman. I agree with both of the points you are arguing against. This type of murder is often called manslaughter, as opposed to murder in the first degree…

Your comment has made me curious suppose you were in charge of the capital punishment process how would you instruct the others? What would be the exact standard you would use?

 

[estesbob]

A clue for you: pnewton is a multi-decade employee of the Texas Department of Corrections; a place I’ll reach my 12-year mark with in a few weeks. We both know what “maximum security” ***REALLY ***means, and that it is not nearly sufficient to keep the innocents safe from the incorrigibles as some bishops seem to think, especially with some judicial interpretations of inmate rights that prevent us form actually preventing those who will never be released from causing further harm.

Touche! Not to be too nosey but are either of you at Huntsville or Gatesville?

 

[guanophore]

You may excuse what you read any way you like. It remains the clear desire of 2 popes and the USCCB specifically that this barbaric practice be stopped. i am unable to understand why one would wish to go against the Church’s beliefs on this issue, just because technically you can. And I would point out that the USCCB makes this issue just as critical as abortion. It is intrinsically evil.

Since I corrected the OP and correctly stated Church teaching I believe, the point of your post in reminding people that they can still be “for” the death penalty is strangely odd.

By saying this, you are also saying that God’s instructions to the Jews to stone people to death is intrinsically evil.

So God commands His chosen people to engage in behavior that is intrinsically evil.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Touche! Not to be too nosey but are either of you at Huntsville or Gatesville?

I am in Huntsville (its in my profile), working for the administrative section of the prison schools. My office is on one of the older maximum security facilities, and I’ve made site visits to about 3/4s of the state prison units (there are ~115 of them here).

Last night pnewton corrected me as to where he worked, he’s actually with a very large (1000 bed) county lockup, but I did have his amount of experience right. I’d thought he was with TDC since I knew he worked corrections at a big facility and we have a cluster of facilities in his immediate area.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If I’m going back to Vatican II like you keep claiming, explain why it is you that is refusing to consider even the original wording of the new CCC on these sections - wording that I fully accept - considering that came out a couple of decades after Vatican II? That alone makes if clear who is picking and choosing and who isn’t, and that the dividing line between us is not Vatican II but the release of EV.

If you are claiming that two popes have formally taught that the state is no longer the legitimate authority to decide when to administer the death penalty, and that it can no longer do so to avenge crime I need a citation. If not, I need a retraction for again falling back to this accusation that those who actually follow the written law of the Church are somehow “rejecting” it be not ceding to a presumption you are making.

It is only NOT “Black letter law” if someone rejects the majority of the citations I provided back in post 46. It appears you do.

This is patently false. You’ve been repeatedly claiming that anyone who didn’t accept a presumption you are reading into EV was rejecting the teaching of the Church, and acting as if merely making that accusation exempts you from backing up the presumption you are basing the accusation on.

And you drift even further into personal accusations to try to clamber back up on the high horse you’ve been using as your excuse to avoid backing up the presumption behind your claims…

First you try to use a lack of action against the USCCB on a non-heresy as a reason to try to trifle me off, but when I point out where the Vatican has taken formal action to suppress a document one of their committees released I’m suddenly degenerating them for using that as an illustration of where the Vatican intervenes and where it does not after you were the one trying to make a case of the lack of action in the first case that you were attempting to overstate. Make up your flip-flopping mind already on this.

A prayer said during the Tridium outside of Mass was edited to remove a reference to the “perfidious Jews”; attempting to heal a rift by removing insulting language and using a more caring approach is a far, far cry from claiming the primary mission of the New Testament is “theologically inappropriate”.

I am not the only one who has given up trying to make sense of your position. I have as I said before, nothing more to add. You apparently have a desire to continue supporting the Death Penalty. I believe you have worked out a personal interpretation that allows you to do so. I will not adopt it, and I doubt many others will either, unless, like you they prefer to argue for its continued use.

Your attempt to vilify the USCCB is not unusual here. That seems to go along with condemning priests and religious for being improperly taught. What in fact is going on, is a very very conservative element making every attempt to try to convince the unknowing that their version is correct, thus they hope, pushing forward their agenda of returning the Church to a position they personally believe is more pure. I am not convinced, nor are most Catholics I trust.

Saying, that, I respect that you have an opinion different from mine. There is no point in continuing on this issue. Perhaps we will find common ground elsewhere.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

A clue for you: pnewton is a multi-decade employee of the Texas Department of Corrections; a place I’ll reach my 12-year mark with in a few weeks. We both know what “maximum security” ***REALLY ***means, and that it is not nearly sufficient to keep the innocents safe from the incorrigibles as some bishops seem to think, especially with some judicial interpretations of inmate rights that prevent us form actually preventing those who will never be released from causing further harm.

Thank you…You have finally explained what I needed to know. End of issue.

 

[pnewton]

Your comment has made me curious suppose you were in charge of the capital punishment process how would you instruct the others? What would be the exact standard you would use?

Two criteria. First, to have actually commited a murder, not contributed to one, but to have pulled the trigger, so to speak. This shows capacity. Second, to have a propensity to commit murder again, showing an on-going danger to society. This could be either a second murder, a history of other violence, or the member of a group in which he has pledged to kill. This second idea eliminates the majority of those who commit murder.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Agreed. Yet this is another strawman. I agree with both of the points you are arguing against. This type of murder is often called manslaughter, as opposed to murder in the first degree.

While I agree that a good deal of interfamily murder is reduced to a lessor offense, certainly not all is nor possibly most. At least from my experiences most were drug related or family related. The point is that the justification of the DP being to deter others, it simply has never been proven applicable. Rather than being a strawman, which is thrown around here a lot meaninglessly, it is directly on point, for it removes that as excuse for continuing its use.

I do know what maximum security means, yes Now to the point about the constitution. The Supreme Court has expanded the definition of cruel and unusual punishment to the point that some prisoners will never be able to be kept safely from commiting more murder without violation their “rights.” Some who are granted by the courts the right to correspondance to the outside, the right to have visitors, the right to media, the right to be rehabilitated, will use those rights to continue a life of violence. The FBI thought they could shut down Nuestra Familia by identifying the heads and moving them to federal facilities all over the country. New leaders have arisen and old leaders have used their separation to spread their violence all over the country now. These are people who are in the most extreme lock-down allowed by the constitution and still they order murders and organize criminal activity.

I just happen to believe that innocent people should be protected from their violence. I also believe that other criminals, most of who still have a great deal of good in them, deserve to be able to do their time without threat, intimidation and murder from the more violent.

I very much understand your position, given your occupation. I hope you remain safe doing such a difficult job.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

By saying this, you are also saying that God’s instructions to the Jews to stone people to death is intrinsically evil.

So God commands His chosen people to engage in behavior that is intrinsically evil.

Not at all, please reread John 8. Jesus did not rebuke God then nor is anyone doing that here. In the OT people believed they could and should kill out sin by killing any who were sinners, Jesus did not agree. Remember he did not tell them they could not kill her, he said let those free of sin cast the stone. His words are fitting today with more than 100 exonerated from death row.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

By saying this, you are also saying that God’s instructions to the Jews to stone people to death is intrinsically evil.

So God commands His chosen people to engage in behavior that is intrinsically evil.

Well I certainly don’t think I’d read it that way. And I think it’s rather a huge leap in any case. You might want to take the question to the USCCB and see what they say. But usually I don’t translate the OT punishments as carried over in the NT as such. Much as divorce was allowed in Moses time, but God apparently felt we had matured as humans by the time of Jesus and could handle the burden. Maybe he feels the same about the Death Penalty, that banning it as dozens of others countries have, most all democracies for sure, reflect his belief that we have grown beyond the need to eliminate people by execution. It’s thought of as barbaric…but of course, given that we have what, nearly 2 million in prisons suggests something is badly wrong in America.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am not the only one who has given up trying to make sense of your position. I have as I said before, nothing more to add. You apparently have a desire to continue supporting the Death Penalty. I believe you have worked out a personal interpretation that allows you to do so. I will not adopt it, and I doubt many others will either, unless, like you they prefer to argue for its continued use.

Saying, that, I respect that you have an opinion different from mine. There is no point in continuing on this issue. Perhaps we will find common ground elsewhere.

 

[SoCalRC]

There’s the rub, as based on clear and readily available prior Catholic teaching, avenging crime is an equally legitimate reason - on its own - for the state to exercise the death penalty.

No, the ‘rub’ is that we have an apostolic Church, we believe in the Gift of Authority.

When traditions and teachings seemignly collide, we look to the Magesterium to correctly interpret and resolve. We have a long standing tradition regarding the death penalty. However, we also have the Second Vatican Council’s pronouncement about the inalienable rights of the human person. The two teachings can potentially collide, given the extensive application of “right to life” given by the Second Vatican Council.

Pope John Paul II, as Vicar of Christ, put the two teachings in proper context to one another. His teaching was then adopted into the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a ‘collegial’ effort, hence carrying great weight).

So, for Catholics, our Faith’s stance on capitol punishment is clear. Turning to older documents and self interpreting them when the Magesterium has spoken clearly and more recently on the matter does not ‘prove’ a different Catholic teaching, it is simply a form of Calvinism, an attack on the primacy of the Church and its aposotlic authority.

Copies of the Catechism prior to 1913 made a distinction between an animated and non-animated fetus. And Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory XIV both specifically pronounced that abortions before ensoulment were not murder. Would it then be reasonable to argue that the Catholic Church considers early abortions a lesser sin? Of course not, starting with Pope Pius IX we simply corrected or understanding of multiple teachings.

If you want to disagree with Rome, fine. It is not my place to judge you. But I see no point in arguing that your opinion is more Catholic than the Pope’s. That would be at odds with the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (see the First Vatican Council).

 

[estesbob]

I am in Huntsville (its in my profile), working for the administrative section of the prison schools. My office is on one of the older maximum security facilities, and I’ve made site visits to about 3/4s of the state prison units (there are ~115 of them here).

Last night pnewton corrected me as to where he worked, he’s actually with a very large (1000 bed) county lockup, but I did have his amount of experience right. I’d thought he was with TDC since I knew he worked corrections at a big facility and we have a cluster of facilities in his immediate area.

I used to have a house on lake livingston(still have 6 lots in harbor Point). I havent been to the huntsvile prison much since they moved the exectution time to 6PM.

I ran into a guy once who told me he was from gatesville. i told him there are only two reasons people ended up in gatesville and he didnt look like a soldier! He ;laughed and told me he used to be the President of a bank there.

 

[Ender]

This is how the death penalty can be tied into the concept of self defense

Punishment has four purposes: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. Protection (self-defense) is the only one of the four addressed by 2267. Regrettably it is not the primary purpose of punishment so you end up in the situation where it is now morally permissible to execute someone based on what he may do while it it no longer permitted to execute him based on what he has actually done.

This also leads to such questions such what is the main intent of a society’s use of the DP?

The primary purpose of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the sin - retribution.

If the main intent is punishment then does the principle of double effect indicate that there is a proper proportionality (one life for another)…

The state has the right and duty to apply a penalty proportionate to the seriousness of the crime.

… or is there a disporportionality, namely the destruction of two human lives when the death of the murderer will not bring back to life the one murdered.

No punishment will restore the life of the murdered person; does this mean that no punishment should be applied?

Can the willfull destruction of a human life be justified when other means of punishment and possible repentance are available?

Other punishments are available but no other punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime of willful murder.

what if the murderer has a true metonia is perfectly contrite, and has received the Sacrament of Reconcilation does this person still fall into the category of an evil doerer that society has the right to kill or has this person become an innocent person?

No matter how contrite the sinner he is still guilty of the crime and that still requires punishment in order for the debt to be paid. Nor even does forgiveness cancel the debt.

Ender

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I am not the only one who has given up trying to make sense of your position. I have as I said before, nothing more to add.

If you really had nothing more to add, you would have either dropped the conspiracy theory bit or addressed the gaping logical hole in your accusations to that effect so far. However, you have done neither. Repeatedly accusing someone of being part of a conspiracy in lieu of coming up with a citation for your presumptions is a pure and simple personal attack.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If you want to disagree with Rome, fine. It is not my place to judge you. But I see no point in arguing that your opinion is more Catholic than the Pope’s. That would be at odds with the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church (see the First Vatican Council).

Accusing someone of trying to be “more Catholic than the Pope” is judging them, especially when your reason for making that accusation in the first place is that you cannot actually find a instance of Church teaching to back up your presumption that the Church has formally revoked the State’s authority under natural law to utilize the death penalty for punishment. It has not done so. It CANNOT do so. End of story if theological truth is unchanging and the Catholic Church never formally teaches error.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I think he is just confused. This is his post to me (but it may be a standard post)

Originally Posted by SpiritMeadow
I am not the only one who has given up trying to make sense of your position. I have as I said before, nothing more to add. You apparently have a desire to continue supporting the Death Penalty. I believe you have worked out a personal interpretation that allows you to do so. I will not adopt it, and I doubt many others will either, unless, like you they prefer to argue for its continued use.

Saying, that, I respect that you have an opinion different from mine. There is no point in continuing on this issue. Perhaps we will find common ground elsewhere.

If you really had nothing more to add, you would have either dropped the conspiracy theory bit or addressed the gaping logical hole in your accusations to that effect so far. However, you have done neither. Repeatedly accusing someone of being part of a conspiracy in lieu of coming up with a citation for your presumptions is a pure and simple personal attack.