I think you misunderstand, or I ineffectually communicated. Please read my prior posts (and perhaps respond to them?). The retributive end of punishment is not a condition, it is essential to all punishment. In fact, in everyday language when someone says “punishment” they mean, usually, retribution.
Correct.
And death is retributive how?
The Catechism reproduces the classic ends of punishment. Safety of others is an end of punishment. The Catechism is stating that the death penalty is punishment.
No it is not. It is specifying as a means of insuring the safety of others from a dangerous criminal.
The conditions of 2267 describe when the death penalty, as a form of punishment may or may not be used.
Correct, and my apologies.
I had meant to specify the conditions outlined in 2266 do not fit death.
I’m not sure, exactly, why you seem to be resistant to it? It doesn’t militate against your own views on the use of the death penalty (I don’t think?) nor does it militate against the Catechism’s conditions for the use of the death penalty. In fact, it preserves the very notion that the Catechism could have conditions on the death penalty instead of complete ruling it out (and, I might add, preserves your own notion that it could be used, or at least it preserves it as an moral option).
I have no problem changing views on a given topic, but I must have compelling evidence to support this change.
So far the long and short of the argument has been that the death penalty must be punishment because that is what it is.
I need to see the death penalty lined up within 2266 and an explanation of where exactly it fits.
If the death penalty isn’t punishment of the guilty than it is immoral under any conditions.
Well, if it is used to defend the lives of others from the criminal, I fail to see the problem.
Perhaps you object to what you perceive as the misuse of the death penalty, or perhaps you equate “punishment” with “revenge”, and because the death penalty should never be revenge you also wish it to not be punishment. But, again as I have outlined in my previous posts, if the death penalty isn’t punishment there is a grave moral problem in using it.
Not at all.
I just need to see it lined up with the conditions set forth for punishment.
Perhaps it might be beneficial to our conversation if you respond to one or two of my prior posts regarding the ends of punishment and why it is morally necessary to seek the primary end of retribution when seeking any other end?
A outlined in a previous post, death does not redress disorders, it is nor expiatory, it is not medicinal, nor does it contribute to correction.
If you can show me how it fits any of these, I will concede the point.
