The Death Penalty, a new twist

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

Ok. It seems then you don’t hold to a requirement of immanence. Let’s leave that aside for a moment (maybe to revisit it). Perhaps we should return to the Catechism passages from above and you can give us a clearer idea how your position fits into them?

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. 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. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party

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 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 nonexistent.”

I think the first question that comes to my mind is what do you make of the introduction: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined. . .”

Do you think you might elucidate upon:1. what “guilty party” means in this context,

1. and why their identity and/or responsibility would need to be determined, and
2. responsibility for what?
   Thank you!
   VC

 

[vz71]

Do you think you might elucidate upon:

1. what “guilty party” means in this context,

Guilty party would be the part responsible for the crime.

1. and why their identity and/or responsibility would need to be determined, and

Obviously to determine who needs punishment for the crime.

1. responsibility for what?

The crime.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Guilty party would be the part responsible for the crime.

Obviously to determine who needs punishment for the crime.

The crime.

And just to clarify, is “the crime” the crime which precipitated the incarceration?

VC

 

[vz71]

And just to clarify, is “the crime” the crime which precipitated the incarceration?

VC

Correct mostly. I am not going to discount the possiblity that an individual convicted properly of a crime does not seek revenge and thereby constitute an unjust aggressor.

But then, that would be a crime as well. And they would have to be tried and convicted properly for that as well.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks. Perhaps you can continue to help me understand your view.

The Catechism says

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

and “responsibility” above refers to responsibility for committing the principal crime. Why is it, would you say, that one must first verify a person’s guilt for the precipitant crime in order to have recourse to the death penalty?

Thanks for the continued discussion,
VC

 

[vz71]

The Catechism says and “responsibility” above refers to responsibility for committing the principal crime. Why is it, would you say, that one must first verify a person’s guilt for the precipitant crime in order to have recourse to the death penalty?

Were it not so, then the possibility exists for putting someone to death who has not committed a crime.

A crime would have to be committed to necessitate the punishment in the first place.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Were it not so, then the possibility exists for putting someone to death who has not committed a crime.

A crime would have to be committed to necessitate the punishment in the first place.

Ok. Two follow-up questions:

1. When you say “a crime would have to be committed to necessitate the punishment in the first place” do you mean by “the punishment” the death penalty?
2. Could you explain why one must commit a crime first before one may be put to death?

Thanks,
VC

 

[Newbie2]

Hi Newbie,

I think I understand the idea here, but the position has some difficulties if not clarified. The problem that arises is that if death is not imposed as punishment first and foremost – above any other collateral effects it might have --then it becomes quite horrible. This is because one would be putting to death someone who didn’t deserve it due to their crimes, but instead because one had no other way to protect society.

A thought experiment might be useful here. Imagine your situation where a government of a small country hasn’t the resources (overcrowding, etc) to safely incarcerate a murderer. You’ve proposed the death penalty above. But now imagine the same situation but the incarcerated is only an attempted murderer. Is the death penalty still an option? Why or why not? Let us assume that in both cases the perpetrator is equally likely to kill someone in the future.

We can see that in the second case the death penalty wouldn’t usually be suggested because attempted murder doesn’t deserve the death penalty, no matter what collateral benefit it provides (i.e. protecting society). Unless the penalty of death is somehow proportional to the crime committed it becomes an injustice.

Furthermore, if punishment isn’t the criteria and motivation for applying the death penalty, then strictly speaking, one could apply it to even lesser crimes if there were a collateral benefit.

In the above I’ve been using the term punishment in the sense I felt you intended it, as retribution (note: not revenge). But classically punishment is a general term which encompasses several ends: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society.So what I am really saying above is that all punishment must be founded upon retribution first in order to be just, whatever the other ends of punishment can be obtained.

What do you think?
VC

Sorry to jump in again late. The death penalty isn’t appropriate for attempted murder, IMHO, and most laws would seem to reflect that, although I’m sure there are exceptions. However, I suppose that the case could be made where there was a criminal who attempted murder again and again, and perhaps was “unfortunate” or maybe a better term “inept” at actually accomplishing the murder.

I’m not sure I fully understand your discussion of punishment, but the moral principle is that we do not have the right to take a criminal’s life as punishment for their crime, we do have that right if it is a last resort to keep them from killing someone else. Therefor, the scenario of the country with limited resources would be justified in using capital punishment in certain cirsumstances before the country with more resources, because the circumstances are such that the criminal has an opportunity that they will use (that is the operating assumption here) in the poor country while not in the rich country.

Similarly, capital punishment could become obsolete if there were (and this is getting into the realm of weird, I know ) “cryoprisons” like in some of the movies, where a criminal who was a threat to the guards, etc. could be put into cryostasis until, perhaps, in the future some sort of method of incarceration could be perfected where they could not be a threat but still be “unfrozen”. Bizzare concept, I know, but still meets the moral standard.

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.

That about summarizes it.

 

[Ender]

… the moral principle is that we do not have the right to take a criminal’s life as punishment for their crime

The only moral justification for executing someone as punishment for his crime is if the crime itself merits such a punishment, that is, for the punishment to be just it must be commensurate with the crime. We may not impose an unjust punishment for any reason but the Church has always held - and teaches today - that executions can be morally justified. That is: execution as a punishment is merited by certain crimes.

we do have that right if it is a last resort to keep them from killing someone else.

It is a perversion of justice to believe that it is unjust to execute someone for what he has done but just to execute him for what he may do. Where is the justice in executing a man for the threat he poses while at the same time holding that it would be improper to execute him for carrying out the threat?

Ender

 

[vz71]

The only moral justification for executing someone as punishment for his crime is if the crime itself merits such a punishment, that is, for the punishment to be just it must be commensurate with the crime. We may not impose an unjust punishment for any reason but the Church has always held - and teaches today - that executions can be morally justified. That is: execution as a punishment is merited by certain crimes.

The CCC says otherwise.

**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.

 

[vz71]

Ok. Two follow-up questions:

1. When you say “a crime would have to be committed to necessitate the punishment in the first place” do you mean by “the punishment” the death penalty?

No, I mean punishment. The CCC prescribes punishment suited to the crime.

1. Could you explain why one must commit a crime first before one may be put to death?

I am uncertain I understand the question,
Are you asking why someone must be found guilty of a crime before they can be punished for the crime?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Are you asking why someone must be found guilty of a crime before they can be punished for the crime?

No, I am asking why someone must be guilty of a crime before becoming a candidate for the death penalty.

Thanks,
VC

 

[vz71]

No, I am asking why someone must be guilty of a crime before becoming a candidate for the death penalty.

The CCC says so:

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.

Note the part I made bold, ‘the guilty party’s…’

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

execution as a punishment is merited by certain crimes.

The CCC says otherwise.

Actually, you quoted the part I was referring to:

*“the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty”

*I realize there is a caveat immediately following this but the fact that the Church justifies capital punishment in any circumstance whatever must mean that there are instances where execution is a just punishment. The only two explanations of the above quote are (1) execution is a just punishment but should only be used to protect society and (2) execution is an unjust punishment but can be used if necessary to protect society. I think the right answer is obviously the first one.

Ender

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The CCC says so

It certainly seems to.

But why, do you suppose*, *one must establish the guilt of someone before they are a candidate for the death penalty?

VC

 

[vz71]

Actually, you quoted the part I was referring to:

“the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty”

I realize there is a caveat immediately following this but the fact that the Church justifies capital punishment in any circumstance whatever must mean that there are instances where execution is a just punishment.

True enough, I can agree that there are instances where execution is required.
But that is not what you said.
What you said was

That is: execution as a punishment is merited by certain crimes.

And that is not supported by the statement in the CCC.
The CCC specifies that it is only acceptable when there is no other way to protect from the unjust aggressor.
That is not a condition derived of the crime, that is a condition derived of our ability.

 

[vz71]

IBut why, do you suppose*, *one must establish the guilt of someone before they are a candidate for the death penalty?

My apologies, but I am simply missing your question here.
It just does not appear to be making sense.

Why should someone be found guilty of a crime before being punished for the crime?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Why should someone be found guilty of a crime before being punished for the crime?

No problem! And perhaps I am the one who is having difficulty following.

Can you help me make sense of it? You’ve pointed out the section in the CCC that seems to indicate the guilt of an individual must be established before they become a candidate for the death penalty. I asked what you think the reason is.

Your response above seems to indicate that it is so because one must be guilty before being punished. But one of your prior responses seemed to indicate that the death penalty isn’t punishment.

If the death penalty isn’t punishment, why do you suppose one have to be guilty of a crime before being a candidate for the death penalty?

Thanks again,
VC

 

[vz71]

Your response above seems to indicate that it is so because one must be guilty before being punished. But one of your prior responses seemed to indicate that the death penalty isn’t punishment.

I understand.

Perhaps this will help…

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. 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. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

I underlined the part I believe pertinent here.
Death does not redress disorders, it is nor expiatory, it is not medicinal, nor does it contribute to correction.

One could almost view the death penalty as a failure on our part to be able to do anything else. It’s only use is when we cannot protect life in any other way.
This would appear to speak to our ineffectiveness to protect life rather then the crimes committed.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Maybe we can return to the post just above a bit later, but for now, I’d like to focus on this:

One could almost view the death penalty as a failure on our part to be able to do anything else. It’s only use is when we cannot protect life in any other way.
This would appear to speak to our ineffectiveness to protect life rather then the crimes committed.

Again, I’m not sure you have explained why the Catechism seems to insist that the guilt of the criminal be established before the death penalty is a possibility.

Why, if your goal is protecting life (and not punishing a criminal), must we establish the guilt of the criminal?

VC