The Death Penalty, a new twist

[Verbum_Caro]

I am not so certain.
The Catechism makes it very clear that the primary motivation should be protection.

I think it needs to be read in conjunction with (or, alternatively, understood in light of the principles I described in my prior post):
2266 . . . Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. . .
It seems to me that even if 2267 is read as a limitation on the use of the death penalty, that doesn’t mean that the primary end of the death penalty (or any other penalty) wouldn’t be retributive – for the reasons I describe in my first post.

In other words, it seems the question wouldn’t be “should death be imposed in order to protect society” but rather “does the punishment of death fit the crime, and should the punishment be imposed to protect society from this man.”

Without the threshold question of “does his crime merit death”, imposing death to protect society from a possible future harm would seem to be unjust, wouldn’t it?

VC

 

[vz71]

In other words, it seems the question wouldn’t be “should death be imposed in order to protect society” but rather “does the punishment of death fit the crime, and should the punishment be imposed to protect society from this man.”

Without the threshold question of “does his crime merit death”, imposing death to protect society from a possible future harm would seem to be unjust, wouldn’t it?
VC

The catechism is quite clear. And the clarity can be read in the posts above that quote it.
The only reason to introduce the death penalty is to insure the defense of lives from an unjust aggressor. Since that is the only reason given, then that must be the primary motivation. Indeed the only motivation is that which is given.

Something you may want to think about here.
Try to find a scenario that fits in with 2267 of the catechism in which the crime itself does not fit the imposition of the death penalty.
I cannot.

It appears to me that attempting to word in this ‘crime fits the punishment primarily’ language in compromises the teaching already before us.

 

[Ender]

The Catechism makes it very clear that the primary motivation should be protection.

Section 2267 in the Catechism which addresses capital punishment should never have been included; it really is just a mess. Your statement is a reasonable assumption - based on 2267 - but it isn’t correct. If you read 2266 you will see that* “the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”* That is, it is retribution (justice) that must be satisfied before all other objectives, not protection.

But looking back at the original post, the DA is apparently against the death penalty but wants to keep it as a bargaining tool. I doubt this is a morally justifiable position. As soon as the death penalty is introduced as a bargaining chip, the motivation behind the death penalty ceases to be for the protection from an unjust aggressor. And thus the penalty ceases to be just.

What the DA is saying is that having the death penalty provides tangible benefits. It may or may not be true that it provides additional protection … but if more executions led to greater safety then the logic used in 2267 would not only allow but morally require increased executions. As Verbum Caro observed, if protection was the primary objective then a society could impose all manner of unjust punishments so long as the result was a safer citizenry.

Ender

 

[vz71]

As Verbum Caro observed, if protection was the primary objective then a society could impose all manner of unjust punishments so long as the result was a safer citizenry.

Ender

That is not what the catechism says.
The catechism says: “…if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

‘safer citizenry’ may or may not fit that criteria.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The only reason to introduce the death penalty is to insure the defense of lives from an unjust aggressor. Since that is the only reason given, then that must be the primary motivation. Indeed the only motivation is that which is given.

But there is a problem here, isn’t there? Giving a reason to use the death penalty, or setting a condition upon its use, doesn’t describe its primary end, does it?

vz71:

Something you may want to think about here.
Try to find a scenario that fits in with 2267 of the catechism in which the crime itself does not fit the imposition of the death penalty.
I cannot.

But that is the point. If you mean you cannot imagine a just scenario, then you too would seem to hold that a threshold consideration is that the crime (already committed) fits the imposition of the death penalty.

But if you mean you can’t imagine *any *scenario, I’ve already suggested one: A man guilty of attempted murder who is likely to try to murder again. Imposition of the death penalty would presumably be unjust, wouldn’t it?

But, contrast him with an actual murderer who likely to try to murder again. What sets the two apart other than the actual crime they are being punished for? Both threaten society equally (all other things being equal). Therefore, it would seem, that the threshold question is whether or not death is an appropriate retributive punishment. Hence retributive punishment is the primary end of the death penalty, and in fact, of all punishment. We only punish the guilty, and we never exceed the punishment they are due – regardless of the other ends that may be obtained by punishing them.

My point is that a primary end is indispensable. Some just punishments might not address rehabilitation, or be effective deterrents, or protect society from an aggressor – but all punishments must be retributive to be just.

vz71:

It appears to me that attempting to word in this ‘crime fits the punishment primarily’ language in compromises the teaching already before us.

I understand that concern, I think. However my post was in response to Newbie which mentioned the Church not imposing the death penalty as punishment (i.e retribution) but rather as a means to protect society. But I think I’ve shown, or at least raised cogent reasons, why the death penalty wouldn’t have as its primary end protection of society.

VC

 

[vz71]

But there is a problem here, isn’t there? Giving a reason to use the death penalty, or setting a condition upon its use, doesn’t describe its primary end, does it?

No, but setting up only one condition for which it can be used provides us with the motivation for the usage.

But that is the point. If you mean you cannot imagine a just scenario, then you too would seem to hold that a threshold consideration is that the crime (already committed) fits the imposition of the death penalty.

What I said was that I cannot find a scenario in which that paragraph of the catechism is applicable, but the crime does not suit the penalty.
I made no mention of just or unjust.

But if you mean you can’t imagine *any *scenario, I’ve already suggested one: A man guilty of attempted murder who is likely to try to murder again. Imposition of the death penalty would presumably be unjust, wouldn’t it?
But, contrast him with an actual murderer who likely to try to murder again. What sets the two apart other than the actual crime they are being punished for? Both threaten society equally (all other things being equal). Therefore, it would seem, that the threshold question is whether or not death is an appropriate retributive punishment. Hence retributive punishment is the primary end of the death penalty, and in fact, of all punishment. We only punish the guilty, and we never exceed the punishment they are due – regardless of the other ends that may be obtained by punishing them.

Your scenario’s do not work.
You appear to assume only one punishment available, but there are many ways to keep a murderer off the streets.
Actually, I would argue here that the death penalty is only justified in these cases if the criminal is a direct threat to the lives of people, and there is no other way to remove the threat.

My point is that a primary end is indispensable. Some just punishments might not address rehabilitation, or be effective deterrents, or protect society from an aggressor – but all punishments must be retributive to be just.
I understand that concern, I think. However my post was in response to Newbie which mentioned the Church not imposing the death penalty as punishment (i.e retribution) but rather as a means to protect society. But I think I’ve shown, or at least raised cogent reasons, why the death penalty wouldn’t have as its primary end protection of society.

My concern is in adding language to something that already provides all that is necessary for the given subject. In adding the language, you introduce more complexity, and introduce wiggle room for those that want to circumvent the teaching.

Let’s assume there is language placed concerning the punishment fitting the crime to make it ‘just’ for a second.
And let us assume that we have captured a criminal that has raped and murdered 5 year old girls…let’s just say 50 of them.
And let us assume that he is convicted, and we can put him in jail forever. No parole, no release, no escape…forever.

Now because he is no longer a threat to life, it is not justifiable to put him to death.
But given the ‘punishment fits the crime’ we suddenly have room to wiggle.
Surely his being left alive when he has raped and murdered so many is unjust.
So we should put him to death…right?

It is too much wiggle room to allow.

Also consider another issue created when trying to ‘make the crime fit the punishment’…does it really make up for the crimes he has committed?
We still end with an unjust sentence.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Actually, I would argue here that the death penalty is only justified in these cases if the criminal is a direct threat to the lives of people, and there is no other way to remove the threat.

My point, however, is that in the above the criminal must have committed a crime worthy of death in the first place. Do you not agree?

VC

 

[Amolibri]

The Church not imposing the death penalty as punishment
Huh? I knew this would bring out many of the pro-life EXCEPT folks…but since when does the church impose the death penalty. Maybe I missed something.

 

[vz71]

My point, however, is that in the above the criminal must have committed a crime worthy of death in the first place. Do you not agree?

I’m not certain there is a crime worthy of death.

Criminals that must be put to death for the safety of all, yes.
Crimes that require death, no.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m not certain there is a crime worthy of death.

Criminals that must be put to death for the safety of all, yes.
Crimes that require death, no.

But, again, which criminals can be put to death for the safety of all? You rightly limit it to criminals – because we can’t put an innocent person to death for the safety of all – but *which *criminals? Any criminal that threatens the safety at all? Or only certain criminals who threaten the safety of all?

Thanks for the discussion,
VC

 

[vz71]

But, again, which criminals can be put to death for the safety of all? You rightly limit it to criminals – because we can’t put an innocent person to death for the safety of all – but *which *criminals? Any criminal that threatens the safety at all? Or only certain criminals who threaten the safety of all?

I make no distinction based upon the crime.
If the criminal must be put to death to protect the lives of others, then that is what must be done.

 

[Della]

The Church not imposing the death penalty as punishment
Huh? I knew this would bring out many of the pro-life EXCEPT folks…but since when does the church impose the death penalty. Maybe I missed something.

The Church doesn’t impose anything on anyone. It merely says that this is a matter for the state to decide, with several reservations added.

Not all killing is evil. As I stated before it is the intention that can be right or wrong. Even with abortion, if a procedure must be done to save the mother’s life that inadvertently takes the life of the fetus, it is regrettable but not murder, as is deliberate abortion.

We Catholics must go by what the Church teaches not what some people want it to teach or think it teaches. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up as knowing better than the Church, which I don’t think you or anyone else here is advocating.

 

[vz71]

I knew this would bring out many of the pro-life EXCEPT folks…

The church teaching *is *pro-life EXCEPT.
The distinction is the protection of innocent life from an unjust aggressor.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I make no distinction based upon the crime.
If the criminal must be put to death to protect the lives of others, then that is what must be done.

No distinction at all? That’s interesting. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I think you’ve mentioned elsewhere that a murderer who is incarcerated for life but who has the ability to threaten or endanger another’s life through commands issued during his incarceration could, indeed, be legitimately put to death. Is that a fair assessment?

If so, would this apply to any criminal, who, although incarcerated demonstrably threatens another’s life while incarcerated? If not, why not?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Cracker_Mom]

The Church doesn’t impose anything on anyone. It merely says that this is a matter for the state to decide, with several reservations added.

Not all killing is evil. As I stated before it is the intention that can be right or wrong. Even with abortion, if a procedure must be done to save the mother’s life that inadvertently takes the life of the fetus, it is regrettable but not murder, as is deliberate abortion.

We Catholics must go by what the Church teaches not what some people want it to teach or think it teaches. Otherwise we are setting ourselves up as knowing better than the Church, which I don’t think you or anyone else here is advocating.

It’s a subject for a whole 'nother thread but if you read Sister Helen Prejean’s writings she surely goes beyond Church teaching re. the death penalty & is not orthodox in other respects.
I am not a fan of the death penalty in any way but have to acknowledge what the actual Catholic teaching is on the subject.For whatever reason, I generally find that Catholics who oppose the death penalty tend to misrepresent what the Catechism teaches about it & then may choose to disregard other Church teachings they find less easy to obey.

 

[vz71]

No distinction at all? That’s interesting. Perhaps you can elaborate.

I consider life a gift of God that we do not have the right to take away.
If it comes down to the life of others, then there really is no choice to be made.

I think you’ve mentioned elsewhere that a murderer who is incarcerated for life but who has the ability to threaten or endanger another’s life through commands issued during his incarceration could, indeed, be legitimately put to death. Is that a fair assessment?

It is fair, and I have made that distinction in other threads.
The teaching concerns the protection of life, it does not provide for how the aggressor works. If the aggressor can reach from behind cell walls to take lives, then obviosly we cannot protect the innocent from him by simply locking him away.
Death may be the only option.

If so, would this apply to any criminal, who, although incarcerated demonstrably threatens another’s life while incarcerated? If not, why not?

The lives of others must be protected from the criminal. If that requires the death of the criminal to protect them from the criminal, then so be it.

An interesting side note to this is that I see it entirely possible to utilize the death penalty against someone that has not succeeded in killing anyone.
One that we cannot stop from trying to kill people (wether or not they have succeeded) may end up being put to death if we have no other means of stopping them.

 

[Ender]

I made no mention of just or unjust.

Neither does 2267, which is a serious problem. As I pointed out, 2266 identifies the primary objective of punishment and it is retribution, not protection. Sin requires punishment; it is a matter of justice.

Let’s assume there is language placed concerning the punishment fitting the crime to make it ‘just’ for a second.

We don’t have to assume this; it is already part of the Catechism (2266): “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” Note that this is not just a right but an obligation; commensurate punishment is not optional.

It is too much wiggle room to allow.

It is the constant teaching of the church.

Also consider another issue created when trying to ‘make the crime fit the punishment’…does it really make up for the crimes he has committed? We still end with an unjust sentence.

No punishment “makes up” for a murder but surely you are not arguing that no punishment should be applied. A sentence is not unjust simply because it cannot undo the harm. It is unjust when it is not proportionate to the crime by being either too harsh or too lenient.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

An interesting side note to this is that I see it entirely possible to utilize the death penalty against someone that has not succeeded in killing anyone.
One that we cannot stop from trying to kill people (wether or not they have succeeded) may end up being put to death if we have no other means of stopping them.

Yes it is an interesting side note. I’d like to clarify your interpretation a bit more.

First, I want to understand how you envision this sort of thing. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that you might be talking of some imminent danger to the life of another. Are you? Or do you envision a careful (however speedy) process of adjudication, upon which the determination is made that such and such a person poses a serious threat (regardless of what brought them before the law in the first place)?

Thanks again,
VC

 

[vz71]

Yes it is an interesting side note. I’d like to clarify your interpretation a bit more.

First, I want to understand how you envision this sort of thing. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I get the feeling that you might be talking of some imminent danger to the life of another.

Not exactly.

If we know the criminal will attempt to kill, we have an obligation to prevent it.
Locking away the criminal forever is a great way to do this, but it may not be possible in all circumstances to do so.

 

[vz71]

No punishment “makes up” for a murder but surely you are not arguing that no punishment should be applied. A sentence is not unjust simply because it cannot undo the harm. It is unjust when it is not proportionate to the crime by being either too harsh or too lenient.

I am not arguing that at all.

I am arguing that taking a life should be the last resort.
Last as in there is simply no other choice available.