Question for anti-death penalty advocates

[marci]

The protection of society is one of the four aims of punishment but it is not the primary one. The primary goal is to “redress the disorder caused by the offense.” That is, the primary goal is justice, not protection.
All punishment is punitive, all sins deserve punishment, and it is the duty of the state to inflict a punishment proportional to the severity of the crime.

Aquinas (II/II 158 1 ad 3) “It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; … when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister” as stated in Romans 13:4.”
This is backwards: it is justice that demands not simply punishment but punishment equal to the severity of the sin, and for some sins the only just punishment is the life of the sinner.

Ender

This is what I was referring to when I said the church has “changed” it’s view of the DP. And it’s not just Aquinas.

It seems to me that JPII took the justification from “vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice” to “only for the protection of society”.

This turn has taken the “punitive” aspect completely out of the debate and embraced the “protection of society” argument to the forefront. Since this the ability of further crime is severly limited in the penal system (at least in the states) it, by nature of the argument, deems the DP almost impossible to implement. (although the ability to harm other inmates and guards is very real and plausible, and they are part “society”)

This is the problem with JPII “protection” argument. It throughs out a milenia of the punitive teaching on the DP

What do you think?

 

[Ender]

And, yet, Justice does not rule out Mercy.

Absolutely true, but your argument against the death penalty (and JPII’s) makes no mention of either justice or mercy; all that is considered is the protection of society. I’m happy to discuss justice and mercy but it is important to note that, if protection is the highest concern, then both justice and mercy are of secondary concern. This means if we decide something is necessary for our protection we may impose punishments that are both unjust and merciless.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me that JPII took the justification from “vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice” to “only for the protection of society”.

This is true and it represents a major shift in the focus of the Church’s teaching. Understand, though, that this “teaching” is the prudential judgment of JPII; it is not doctrine and it is not binding on Catholics to assent to it.

This is the problem with JPII “protection” argument. It throughs out a milenia of the punitive teaching on the DP

I agree. What is being lost is a real understanding of the relationship between sin and punishment; what Paul VI said in Indulgentiarum doctrina: “It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice.”

We have come to believe that punishment itself is wrong, that forgiveness cancels the obligation of the debt of sin, unaware that the debt of sin - which only punishment can pay - remains even after the sinner has been forgiven. It is further often believed that the obligation of mercy should be automatically granted to everyone, the repentant and unrepentant alike, in every circumstance. A lot of this stems from a lack of appreciation for the concept of justice.

Ender

 

[OnlineHarvest]

Which is why the Catholic Church does not teach it is intrinsically wrong.

Yet, before that God set a mark on Cain so he would not be harmed. The death penalty is not intrinsically wrong, but it is clearly not commanded for ALL cases of murder either. God showed clemency, and we can too.

Nor would I. But there are many case which ought to.

Two things-- first GOD is the author of life and therefore He can command it to be taken. Absolutely true.

But, you are wrong about it not being abbrogated. Christ himself stated “you have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’, but I say…”

First, God can and does take life but in the OT it was granted to the authority of men to take responsibility for it.

Second, that verse was being misused. All that verse means is that the punishment should fit the crime, whereas these people were creating unfair punishments. We see from the examples below that Christ did not abrogate the truth of the death penalty.

And, no one has argued that the State has no authority to apply the death penalty. The question isn’t whether or not they have the authority but whether or not they should exercise it.

That is not what we always here. And besides, there is a far greater cry for no death penalty AT ALL.

This part of your post doesn’t make any sense.

In other words, you answered this above. It was about the distinction between the death penalty as being instrically evil or just and merely selectively applied. Many cry out for the former.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

This is an honest question. for those of you who do not believe in the DP, where does your feeling come from?

**Logic first. The death penalty does not deter. This has been proven again and again, thus the DP is merely punative. Christianity as I read it does not allow for this. Second, when the state executes, it involves me as a citizen against my will. Third, we have so many hundreds of documented cases of innocent people having been convicted that it is an abomination to even consider doing it given our apparent faulty judicial system. **

Do you believe it is just plain old murder?

**Sure do. **

Do you believe that it would be acceptable if the person had the ability to murder additional people? (fellow inmates, guards)

**nope, making flimsy excuses only encourages people to twist themselves into the exception. **

Do you simply “feel sorry” for the person?

**sure I feel sorry for any who has lost such control of him/herself that they have done such a heinous thing. **

What do you think?

**I think the Church will increasingly find that CP should be abolished as it has been in much of the civilized world. It’s another US embarassment. **

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… It seems the criteria and the reason for church santion of state imposed death penalty has changed the last 4 or 5 decades.

I disagree. The Catholic Church has always held that capital punishment, under certain conditions, can be just. It has also always held the view that capital punishment, under other conditions, can be evil. So, what has changed?

The current *Catechism of the Catholic Church *states:

**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.”

If one looks back many decades, one can find the same teaching. For instance, the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The infliction of capital punishment is not contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the power of the State to visit upon culprits the penalty of death derives much authority from revelation and from the writings of theologians. The advisabilty of exercising that power is, of course, an affair to be determined upon other and various considerations. Catholic Encyclopedia (1909) - “Capital Punishment”]

Before that, Fr. Giovanni Battista Beccaria (1716-1781), in his text Crime and Punishment states that, unless “a nation is on the verge of recovering or losing its liberty; or in times of absolute anarchy” then the death penalty is unjustified.

So it seems the Church’s position remains the traditional view, articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas as: “The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state.” (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146.)"

The debate is not whether civil authorities can execute criminals justly, but whether the conditions for doing so are met. That has always been a matter of debate since even before Jesus Christ suffered the death penalty.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

**I think the Church will increasingly find that CP should be abolished as it has been in much of the civilized world. It’s another US embarassment. **

I was just looking up some references for that subject on another thread, this may save some time for others

Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty
usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/

Vatican paper condemns death penalty as affront to human dignitycatholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0700736.htm

A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death A paper calling for the end of the death penalty priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/penaltyofdeath.pdf

 

[Ender]

The death penalty does not deter. This has been proven again and again…

It has been alleged again and again; it has certainly not been proven, but deterrence is only one of the four purposes of punishment, and not the primary one at that, so even if it didn’t ever deter anyone this would still not be an argument against its use.

… thus the DP is merely punative. Christianity as I read it does not allow for this.

Christianity not only allows it, it demands it as a matter of justice. This in fact is the strongest argument for the death penalty: it is the only punishment severe enough to satisfy the demand that the punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the sin.

*“The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin.” * (Exeunte iam anno - Leo XIII)

we have so many hundreds of documented cases of innocent people having been convicted that it is an abomination to even consider doing it given our apparent faulty judicial system.

Since the resumption of the death penalty in 1973 there are 4-8 reasonably good cases that can be made that an innocent man was executed. Over that same period of time at least 1000 innocent people have been killed by killers who served time and were released from prison. (The actual estimates are 30-60/yr; I used the lower number.) There is no perfect solution; innocent people will die whichever decision is made but I would like to hear the argument defended that it is preferable to have 1000 innocents killed rather than 8 innocents executed.

Ender

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pope John Paul II summarizes the Catholic view, here:

“the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” (Evangelium Vitae, 56)

Sounds awefully similar to what Fr. Giovanni Battista Beccaria wrote in the 18th cent.

 

[1ke]

Understand, though, that this “teaching” is the prudential judgment of JPII; it is not doctrine and it is not binding on Catholics to assent to it.

Neither is Aquinas.

 

[1ke]

In other words, you answered this above. It was about the distinction between the death penalty as being instrically evil or just and merely selectively applied. Many cry out for the former.

It cannot be the former. God’s Truth does not change.

It can be selectively applied or never applied, if we choose.

 

[pete_29]

**I think the Church will increasingly find that CP should be abolished as it has been in much of the civilized world. It’s another US embarassment. **

As a correctional officer it comforts me that you think my life is a flimsy excuse.

 

[LeahInancsi]

One good thing about the death penalty is that it encourages murderers to confess in an attempt to avoid the death penalty. Without it, these murderers would take their chances with a jury because the state has nothing to “deal” with. I would hate to see it abolished for this reason.

 

[didymus]

This is an honest question. for those of you who do not believe in the DP, where does your feeling come from?

Do you believe it is just plain old murder?

No. Capital punishment is not murder any more than a soldier killing in battle or a cop in the line of duty.

Do you believe that it would be acceptable if the person had the ability to murder additional people? (fellow inmates, guards)

Even if you could guarantee that the condemned will never kill again he may deserve to die.
For me the death penalty has nothing to do with deterrence (since that is highly questionable) nor even stopping the condemned from killing again (though that certainly works).
It is* punishment* – there are some crimes so horrible that no other punishment will suffice.

Do you simply “feel sorry” for the person?

What do you think?

 

[thistle]

One good thing about the death penalty is that it encourages murderers to confess in an attempt to avoid the death penalty. Without it, these murderers would take their chances with a jury because the state has nothing to “deal” with. I would hate to see it abolished for this reason.

There is NOTHING good about the death penalty. It is neither a deterrent to violent crime nor an inducement to confession as you seem to think.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

As a correctional officer it comforts me that you think my life is a flimsy excuse.

Oh please give me a break. I’m sure that there are plenty of non-murders who are serving lengthy sentences that can be just as dangerous or threatening. If your fear is that great, you should look for another occupation. That would be a strange argument indeed, that we should continue with CP to “protect” the correctional officers" from possible danger.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It has been alleged again and again; it has certainly not been proven, but deterrence is only one of the four purposes of punishment, and not the primary one at that, so even if it didn’t ever deter anyone this would still not be an argument against its use.

Please point to a study that says the DP deters murder.
Christianity not only allows it, it demands it as a matter of justice. This in fact is the strongest argument for the death penalty: it is the only punishment severe enough to satisfy the demand that the punishment be commensurate with the gravity of the sin.

**I simply don’t agree. While everyone is touting how God demands killing he also required 'sanctuary towns" **

*“The impartial and unchangeable justice of God metes out reward for good deeds and punishment for sin.” * (Exeunte iam anno - Leo XIII)

Since the resumption of the death penalty in 1973 there are 4-8 reasonably good cases that can be made that an innocent man was executed. Over that same period of time at least 1000 innocent people have been killed by killers who served time and were released from prison. (The actual estimates are 30-60/yr; I used the lower number.) There is no perfect solution; innocent people will die whichever decision is made but I would like to hear the argument defended that it is preferable to have 1000 innocents killed rather than 8 innocents executed.

**I think you better try to prove that as well. I believe the figure is in the hundreds. In any case, I don’t think the Church allows for your “proportionality” argue. Ends do not justify means. Our entire system is based on "it’s better that 100 go free than an innocent man be convicted. " I believe OW Holmes is the writer of that little statement. **

Ender

 

[dconstruct]

I do not support the death penalty because its primary function is vengeance, not justice.

If you would desire to take INDIVIDUAL vegeance upon someone who has wronged you, then any ethicall or moral repercussions would fall on you and you alone. When you institutionalize the death penalty, the moral repercussions are felt by the entire society that chooses to murder in the name of the state.

Basically, if you want vengeance, then why don’t YOU go exact vengeance for yourself (and justify it to God, yourself) instead of implicating me in your misguided choice to indulge “eye for an eye” rather than “loving your enemies.”

 

[SpiritMeadow]

One good thing about the death penalty is that it encourages murderers to confess in an attempt to avoid the death penalty. Without it, these murderers would take their chances with a jury because the state has nothing to “deal” with. I would hate to see it abolished for this reason.

Having represented a few dozen people accused of murder, I can tell you your claim is not reflected in the real world. Confessions do not occur to avoid the death penalty, that has almost always already occured prior to the prosector coming into the case or the defense attorney for that matter. The type of crime has no impact as I understand it on what type of person confesses or why.

People decide to plead guilty to crimes in order to avoid more severe penalties, but surprisingly it happens across the board pretty evenly, but drops as the penalties increase. It probably happens the least in murder or other capital crimes, simply because to a young person, a 30 year sentence feels like life anyway. They tend not to be able to see the actuality of their situation.

 

[LeahInancsi]

There is NOTHING good about the death penalty. It is neither a deterrent to violent crime nor an inducement to confession as you seem to think.

It’s obvious that it’s not a deterrent to violent crime and I never said that it was.

What makes you think it’s not an inducement to confession?