Teaching on the Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shakuhachi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender . . .
As I said, the only requirement for every punishment is that it be just. The question of whether it provides protection is irrelevant to that determination.
Click to expand...
And as I said, “justice” and “rendering someone unable to cause harm”, are NOT mutually exclusive.

.

I think you weakened your own argument when you decided to veer from the teachings of the Church instead of attempting to harmonize the teachings.

.

Cathoholic . . . .
The perpetrator MUST be “rendered unable to cause harm”.
Click to expand...
Ender . . . .
I disagree with this.
Click to expand...
.

The Catholic Church . . . .
CCC 2265a Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
Click to expand...
NOT CCC 2265a Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. But the defense of the common good’s ONLY requirement for every punishment is that it be just, but we implicitly refuse to recognize that justice is in harmony with rendering an aggressor unable to cause harm.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
It ALSO deals with requiring “ that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm ”.

They are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
Your position would allow preemptive killing of someone who is not an immediate threat. Is that really a position you want to support? Are you saying that we may impose an unjust punishment if that is what is necessary to protect ourselves from a criminal?

If the choice is between an unjust punishment that protects, and a just punishment that does not protect, which should we choose? Is it possible to justify ever choosing the former?
 
Cathoholic said:
You RE-DEFINED my premise to include tax evasion (the ONLY finding from the state. Not that he wasn’t a threat. But that the state did not find him a threat. At least in the sense that he was rendered incapable of causing “harm”.)

You will argue, “Well Capone DID cause harm!” (And I would agree with you.)

But you and I do not get to decide the people that cannot be rendered incapable of continuing harm. That is not the purview of churchmen either.

It is the place of the state to make such determinations.
Click to expand...
Suppose the State decided that Capone was a continuing threat. Would that justify executing him for the crime of tax evasion? My question is very straightforward: if a person is deemed a threat, does that justify executing him regardless of what crime he has been convicted of committing? Indeed, if the state is required to render an unjust aggressor unable to cause harm, and the “unjust aggressor” title can be applied to someone who is considered a legitimate threat, then we should be able to execute such threatening people whether or not they have committed any crime at all. After all, if we can execute criminals because they represent legitimate threats, why cannot we execute non-criminals on the same basis?
Cathoholic said:
And as I said, “justice” and “rendering someone unable to cause harm”, are NOT mutually exclusive.

I think you weakened your own argument when you decided to veer from the teachings of the Church instead of attempting to harmonize the teachings.
Click to expand...
No, they are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they synonymous, and I am raising the question about when “rendering someone unable to cause harm” is in fact an injustice. Which takes precedence: justice or security? Pick one.
 
Last edited:
Ender . . .
Your position would allow preemptive killing of someone who is not an immediate threat.
Click to expand...
That is false.

It allows the Government to take someone who has ALREADY caused “harm” and determine if they CONTINUE to be an “immediate threat”. If they ALREADY committed harm it is no longer “pre-emptive”.

.

Ender . . .
Which takes precedence: justice or security? Pick one.
Click to expand...
I don’t have to “pick one”.

They are harmonious.

This is WHY I agree with the Catechism and you have stated “I disagree with this”.

.

Ender . . .
Suppose the State decided that Capone was a continuing threat. Would that justify executing him for the crime of tax evasion?
Click to expand...
Ender.

You are contradicting your own question.

You implied the state “convicted” him of tax evasion. Not a “continuing threat”.

If Capone was convicted of murder, AND the state determined he was a “continuing threat” in regards to murder and the state determined the ONLY WAY the state could protect their own citizens in their view is capital punishment, this would be consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church.

If you are talking about protecting citizens from tax evasion, his sentencing was effective and just.

If you are talking about something else, you will need to clarify.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
It allows the Government to take someone who has ALREADY caused “harm” and determine if they CONTINUE to be an “immediate threat”. If they ALREADY committed harm it is no longer “pre-emptive”.
Click to expand...
Again, you confuse what is appropriate as punishment for those who have already committed a crime with what is appropriate as prevention against those who threaten to commit a future crime. This is why your comment about justice and security being harmonious is irrelevant. They are completely different considerations.

Punishment has four objectives: retribution, protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation. There can only be one primary objective, and it takes precedence over the others. So: which is the primary objective of all punishment?
If Capone was convicted of murder, AND the state determined he was a “continuing threat” in regards to murder and the state determined the ONLY WAY the state could protect their own citizens in their view is capital punishment, this would be consistent with the perennial teaching of the Church.
Click to expand...
This misses the nature of my question. If the state determined he was a “continuing threat” in regards to murder etc, would the state be justified in executing him whether he was convicted of murder or tax fraud? If you say yes, then you violate of the teaching (in 2266) that the punishment must be comparable to the severity of the crime, but if you say no then you reject your interpretation of 2265 that the “defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” justifies such an action.
 
Ender . . . .
Again, you confuse what is appropriate as punishment for those who have already committed a crime with what is appropriate as prevention against those who threaten to commit a future crime.
Click to expand...
This is a false dichotomy.

There is a third option.
  • Already committed a crime
  • Prevention against those who threaten to commit a future crime
  • Already committed a crime AND have Government determination of those who threaten to commit a future crime of this ALREADY guilty person
    .
Ender . . . .
If you say yes, then you violate of the teaching (in 2266) that the punishment must be comparable to the severity of the crime, but if you say no then you reject your interpretation of 2265 that the “ defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm .” justifies such an action.
Click to expand...
This is another false dichotomy. If you want I will unpack it later (but not now).
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
They are completely different considerations.
Click to expand...
I think that the Church recognizes the right of the state to punish criminals, which is why it isn’t addressed in relationship to the death penalty in the Catechism.
 
MikeInVA said:
I think that the Church recognizes the right of the state to punish criminals, which is why it isn’t addressed in relationship to the death penalty in the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Yes, the church definitely recognizes that it is the state and the state alone that has the right (and the responsibility) to punish criminals. That said, the issue is still unaddressed. The state has the obligation to apply just punishment to crimes as well as the obligation to “render unjust aggressors unable to cause harm.” Which obligation takes precedence if they are in conflict?

This was why I used Capone as an example: he was clearly a danger to society having committed any number of murders in the past with no expectation that his future behavior would be any different. Having been convicted of tax evasion could the state have legitimately executed him?

Answering yes puts the obligation to protect society first; answering no puts justice in sentencing first. I can’t get Cathoholic to make a choice, but perhaps you would like to give an answer.
 
Ender . . .
. . . he (Al Capone) was clearly a danger to society having committed any number of murders in the past . . .
Click to expand...
Then the state has a duty to prove that fairly before considering capital punishment.

And if they did, fine.

But they didn’t even attempt it.

And you do not carry out capital punishment for “tax evasion”. And nobody says you should (so I will not argue that point but assume it).
 
Ender said:
Answering yes puts the obligation to protect society first; answering no puts justice in sentencing first. I can’t get Cathoholic to make a choice, but perhaps you would like to give an answer.
Click to expand...
I think the Catholic answer is (or at least was until recently) that he should not have been executed as punishment; however, execution would be warranted if it was the only way to prevent him from injuring others, e.g. by continuing to direct killings as leader of his crime organization.
 
MikeInVA said:
I think the Catholic answer is (or at least was until recently) that he should not have been executed as punishment; however, execution would be warranted if it was the only way to prevent him from injuring others, e.g. by continuing to direct killings as leader of his crime organization.
Click to expand...
First, thank you for answering that question because it illustrates a very serious point: the typical interpretation of the previous version of 2267 has led to a severe misunderstanding of the nature of punishment. Because it tied the use of capital punishment to the need for security (and simply ignored the obligation of justice) it did imply exactly what you said: that the state would have been justified in executing Capone for tax evasion if that was the only way to prevent him from resuming his murderous ways.

That assumption, however, is not correct. Execution is not a just punishment for the crime of tax evasion so it would have been wrong to execute Capone even if that was the only way to prevent him from returning to his old ways, deadly as they were. Nor does the concept of societal self-defense allow his preemptive execution. We may properly respond to direct threats, but not to suspected ones.

There is no moral obligation that every punishment provide for the protection of society. The only objective of punishment that we are morally obliged to satisfy in every case is that it be just. The primary objective is always “to redress the disorder caused by the offense”, and this requires a punishment “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.”

The state is no more justified in executing murderous criminals for petty crimes than they would be to just scoop them up off the street and execute them without bothering to convict them of anything. I think 2267 (1997) created a lot of confusion about this.
 
Ender . . .
Because it tied the use of capital punishment to the need for security . . .
Click to expand...
This is a partial truth Ender.

It ties it not to “the need for security”, but recognizes the legitamacy of self-defense.

There can be a lot of things you do for “security” that may be quite different than “self-defense”.

I think the premises of the argument need to be accurately stated, if the discussion is to be fruitful.

By the way. I have no issue with your calls for “justice”.

I think that is reasonable and appropriate.

But as this doctrine on capital punishment develops (and all the discussion we’ve had on this issue the past 40 years or so suggests meaningful development is coming), we will see a recognition of the parallel union of “justice” AND “self-defense” taken into consideration as the Church approaches when capital punishment is, and is not licit.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Last edited:
(I was re-reading the thread or at least parts of it.)

Ender . . .
Yes, that this “position” is in fact a prudential opinion is pretty much the only reasonable conclusion.
Click to expand...
Excellent point here Ender.

I totally agree with this.
 
Last edited:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church:
  1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Click to expand...
 
Everyone knows what the catechism says; the debate is over what it means. Take for example the claim that “the death penalty is inadmissible”. Does that mean it is intrinsically evil? If it doesn’t mean that then nothing has really changed and there are circumstances where its use is justifiable - where it is in fact not inadmissible. If it is intrinsically evil, however, then the church has taught serious error since her inception: we would have to accept that she supported evil for her entire existence.

How about this: “Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost…”. The seems to be a claim that it is only now, after 2000 years, that the church is finally aware of the full extent of a person’s dignity, something that was entirely missed by every Father and Doctor of the Church as well as the 265 popes who preceded Francis. That’s a disturbing thought if that’s what is being suggested.

As I said, we can all read what is written; it is understanding the implications that is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Morality, which is based on truth, does not change with time or place. It should be obvious that no pope can either invent or change what is true, so it cannot be that what was true and moral yesterday can be false and immoral today. If something was true in the past it cannot be false now, so if life sentences are condemned as immoral today, as is implied by the pope’s comments, then either the church erred in the past by allowing it, or Francis errs today by condemning it. There are no other choices.

If he has been caught committing blasphemy in public more than twice, he is to be compelled to stand for a whole day in front of the entrance of the principal church, wearing a hood signifying his infamy; 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)
Click to expand...
It looks to me like blasphemy is committed all the time in contemporary American movies. The holy name of Our Lord is being used quite often and Roman Catholics do not seem to be too worried about it. At least I don’t see any move to boycott those movies.
 
Ender said:
The seems to be a claim that it is only now, after 2000 years, that the church is finally aware of the full extent of a person’s dignity, something that was entirely missed by every Father and Doctor of the Church as well as the 265 popes who preceded Francis. That’s a disturbing thought if that’s what is being suggested.
Click to expand...
Yes. When people were being burned alive at the stake, and with this happening in Europe and in the papal states, was the infallible Roman Catholic Church aware of the dignity of a human being?
 
AlNg said:
It looks to me like blasphemy is committed all the time in contemporary American movies. The holy name of Our Lord is being used quite often and Roman Catholics do not seem to be too worried about it. At least I don’t see any move to boycott those movies.
Click to expand...
The question of whether capital punishment or life in prison are ever proper is different asking whether they are appropriate in a particular instance, so condemning the use of a life sentence in cases of blasphemy says nothing whatever about its appropriateness in other cases. I cited the Fifth Lateran Council to make two points: first, that life sentences were nothing new but have existed for centuries, and second that the church has recognized their validity. Whatever is true of their judgments in applying it in particular cases does not transfer to the truth of the doctrine that permitted its use.
Yes. When people were being burned alive at the stake, and with this happening in Europe and in the papal states, was the infallible Roman Catholic Church aware of the dignity of a human being?
Click to expand...
Again you condemn the application of the doctrine as an excuse to condemn the doctrine itself. My objection still stands: if it is only this year that the church has finally come to understand the full dignity of man then every Father and Doctor of the church plus every pope and Magisterium prior to this one misinterpreted Scripture and taught that something sinful was in fact acceptable. Even of those who didn’t directly address the issue the best that can be said is that they failed to correct this grave error.

Either that or the new change to the catechism represents a prudential judgment about the application of the doctrine rather than a repudiation of the doctrine itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top