The death penalty-motivated by revenge?

[Hobbes42]

I have been considering the motivations for a majority of death penalty cases, and upon turning the idea over and over in my head it seems that many are based on revenge.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut?

This is not to say that cases in which a prisoner is actually dangerous to other inmates and the public if left alive are of this type.

(I’m aware that there have been many threads on this matter, but seeing as how ‘necroposting’ is disallowed on this forum I figured I would avoid necromancy and leave them in the ground )

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Revenge is not a Christian concept. Self defense is. Arguments for the limited use of capital punishment based on deterrence or the protection of society have been the traditional Catholic view.

 

[Mulligan2]

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. In some states the governors (mostly Republican) seem to have an unseemly fascination with the death penalty. Rick Perry comes to mind. However, there are some criminals - who as a result of their extremely violent and callous actions - have essentially forfeited their right to exist in society in any way. So I’m not opposed to it in all circumstances. I just think it should be used as rarely as possible, and only for the worst of the worst.

 

[Cricket2]

The death penalty is suppose to be a last measure of protecting citizens from those who would continue to kill others and for whom no other means of restricting their activities would be possible. So those who murder with intent and planning, or acts of self defense fall into this category for me.

I am not opposed to the death penalty under these kinds of circumstances or in such cases like a serial killer. I really do not think there is a better protection of the innocent in cases like this. Other violent crimes can be addressed with very long sentences or life terms. For example, I strongly believe that those who molest children or rape others should get a life sentence. I see no evidence of them being successfully rehabilitated.

 

[Brendan]

I fail to see how it is ‘revenge’. The State and the Court system are not the ones harmed, but the action and authority is theirs

If it was the relatives of the victims inflicting the death penalty, then I might agree with you, but it is not.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I fail to see how it is ‘revenge’. The State and the Court system are not the ones harmed, but the action and authority is theirs

If it was the relatives of the victims inflicting the death penalty, then I might agree with you, but it is not.

Exactly. In fact, revenge isn’t a defense for killing someone. Even in the heat of a conflict, one’s right to use force ends as soon as the other person ceases to be a threat.

The court is not extracting revenge. It is administering justice in accordance with the laws set by the legitimate government. The intention of which is impersonal and independent of the emotion of the particular case. That punishment which has been deemed appropriate for specific offenses in order to set the standard for what conduct is acceptable, be a dissuasion for others, and promote a sense of justice within society.

 

[Cone]

I have been considering the motivations for a majority of death penalty cases, and upon turning the idea over and over in my head it seems that many are based on revenge.

Any (name removed by moderator)ut?

This is not to say that cases in which a prisoner is actually dangerous to other inmates and the public if left alive are of this type.

(I’m aware that there have been many threads on this matter, but seeing as how ‘necroposting’ is disallowed on this forum I figured I would avoid necromancy and leave them in the ground )

There are three traditional justifications for the death penalty, all of which are morally valid, in my opinion.

First, incapacitation. By executing a murderer, you prevent him from committing further harm.

Second, deterrence. By executing a murderer, society sends a clear message that it doesn’t tolerate murder.

Third, retribution, also known as manifest justice. There is a human need to punish criminals in proportion to their offense. It is a tradition which has its roots in the Old Testament. (An eye for an eye.)

Pope John Paul II spoke against the death penalty on the grounds that our prolife position should be a “seamless web,” so as to prevent collateral attack on the anti-abortion argument. I accept John Paul’s position, and I no longer consider myself an advocate for the death penalty. But from a clear, rational moral analysis, I can find no fault with it.

 

[porthos11]

There are three traditional justifications for the death penalty, all of which are morally valid, in my opinion.

First, incapacitation. By executing a murderer, you prevent him from committing further harm.

Second, deterrence. By executing a murderer, society sends a clear message that it doesn’t tolerate murder.

Third, retribution, also known as manifest justice. There is a human need to punish criminals in proportion to their offense. It is a tradition which has its roots in the Old Testament. (An eye for an eye.)

Pope John Paul II spoke against the death penalty on the grounds that our prolife position should be a “seamless web,” so as to prevent collateral attack on the anti-abortion argument. I accept John Paul’s position, and I no longer consider myself an advocate for the death penalty. But from a clear, rational moral analysis, I can find no fault with it.

Actually, the traditional Catholic teaching is that retribution is first. The prime purpose of capital punishment (or any punishment, be it fine, jail or execution) is just that - to punish, i.e. to deprive the offender of a certain good or inflict a degree of suffering) in retribution and proportionate to the crime committed.

The Church has always held that the death penalty is a form of justified killing and that states have the right to inflict it on those who deserve it. Further, she has defined that the execution of a guilty person is not a violation of the Fifth Commandment, but is in fact in “paramount obedience” to it by redressing wrong and defending life.

It is in more modern times that the Popes have called for restraint. It is certainly fine for Catholics to oppose the imposition of the death penalty or even to call for its abolition. It is, however, also wrong for Catholics to call the death penalty inherently immoral, or to lump it with inherently immoral practices like abortion and euthanasia (it is wrong because it would imply that the Church has changed a moral teaching, which is not possible).

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, the traditional Catholic teaching is that retribution is first. The prime purpose of capital punishment (or any punishment, be it fine, jail or execution) is just that - to punish, i.e. to deprive the offender of a certain good or inflict a degree of suffering) in retribution and proportionate to the crime committed.

The Church has always held that the death penalty is a form of justified killing and that states have the right to inflict it on those who deserve it. Further, she has defined that the execution of a guilty person is not a violation of the Fifth Commandment, but is in fact in “paramount obedience” to it by redressing wrong and defending life.

It is in more modern times that the Popes have called for restraint. It is certainly fine for Catholics to oppose the imposition of the death penalty or even to call for its abolition. It is, however, also wrong for Catholics to call the death penalty inherently immoral, or to lump it with inherently immoral practices like abortion and euthanasia (it is wrong because it would imply that the Church has changed a moral teaching, which is not possible).

Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians. As Cardinal Avery Dulles states in his First Things article…

*Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. *

 

[Robert_Filmer]

Except for the family of the victim, why would anybody be motivated by revenge?

They only hurt the victim and his family/friends.

 

[porthos11]

Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians. As Cardinal Avery Dulles states in his First Things article…

*Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. *

Eye for an eye is not about vengeance, it’s actually a restriction. The Lord is commanding the Israelites to limit the punishment to only the degree of the crime, hence eye for eye, not life for eye.

Yes, there can be a vengeance aspect to punishment, and this is not what the Church wants. But the retributive aspect in itself is moral and is in fact the prime purpose of punishment. It does apply to Christians, based both on Scripture and Tradition.

Scripture: Romans 13: 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
Tradition: Pope Pius XIIEven in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.
Tradition: Council of TrentThe power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

All of these are from the Christian era and as you can see, the punishment of the guilty is paramount. Feel free to agree that states should not impose the death penalty for any reason, be it human frailty, the risk of a miscarriage of justice, current modern mindsets, or even just a simple opposition to the taking of another human life. It’s perfectly fine to oppose capital punishment on these grounds.

But the moment you state that retributive punishment is not Christian, or the death penalty is itself inherently immoral, then this is contrary to the timeless teaching of the Catholic Church, because the Church cannot change a teaching on morals.

 

[LongingSoul]

But the moment you state that retributive punishment is not Christian, or the death penalty is itself inherently immoral, then this is contrary to the timeless teaching of the Catholic Church, because the Church cannot change a teaching on morals.

Justice has roots in natural law and therefore common sense can recognise certain value in certain circumstances, in a death penalty in regards to the common good. Other than radical pacifists, I haven’t heard anyone claim that punishment is not in line with Christianity.

What Christians who understand the position of our Popes are saying, is that we as human beings can’t defer to divine retribution as the justification for a death penalty, when it goes against all that is godly ie. the dignity of the human being. The prohibition against revenge. The proscription against divine judgement by human beings.

 

[porthos11]

What Christians who understand the position of our Popes are saying, is that we as human beings can’t defer to divine retribution as the justification for a death penalty, when it goes against all that is godly ie. the dignity of the human being. The prohibition against revenge. The proscription against divine judgement by human beings.

This statement goes against Romans 3 and the Council of Trent as given above. Scripture clearly states that the authority of the state to wield the sword is God-given. Trent clearly states that the death penalty is in paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, unless you want to repudiate the teaching of the Church, it must be held that capital punishment is not against the dignity of the human being, but in fact upholds it.

 

[LongingSoul]

This statement goes against Romans 3 and the Council of Trent as given above. Scripture clearly states that the authority of the state to wield the sword is God-given.

Trent clearly states that the death penalty is in paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment. Therefore, unless you want to repudiate the teaching of the Church, it must be held that capital punishment is not against the dignity of the human being, but in fact upholds it.

Yes it conforms to the precepts of the Fifth Commandment when it is used justly. That is, when it serves as a legitimate defense of the common good as per the states mandate and authority. It becomes an unworthy punishment outside those conditions.

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."68

 

[Hobbes42]

I should say that the instances where it seems revenge is involved is when there are emotional, angry appeals to have the person killed. I would prefer that all legal proceedings would not involve emotion at all. The law ought to be cold and rational. Ice cold. So cold, it’s at 0 Kelvins. Deep frozen.

 

[Ender]

Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians.

This is actually an old heresy.One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St. Bellarmine)

As Cardinal Avery Dulles states in his First Things article…
Retribution by the State has its limits …

That retribution has limits certainly doesn’t mean it has no purpose at all.

*The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance. *

That the nature of punishment is misunderstood doesn’t actually change its nature of its validity. Perception is not reality and the church’s doctrines are not based on how they are perceived by the public. The church recognizes the validity of retributive punishment.when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. (Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Revenge is not a Christian concept. Self defense is.

Vengeance is forbidden to the individual but it is the obligation of the state. It is based on the concept of retributive punishment and of justice itself whereby we are rewarded or punished based on our actions.

Arguments for the limited use of capital punishment based on deterrence or the protection of society have been the traditional Catholic view.

The traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment is that it is based on divine law. Deterrence and protection (along with rehabilitation) are all valid objections of punishment, but they are also all secondary and, by themselves, cannot determine the appropriate degree of punishment. It is retribution - retributive justice - that is primary and determines what punishment is appropriate.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul View Post
Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians.

To make the charge of heresy you will need to specify my crime. Where in my statement or any statement that I’ve ever made, do I espouse the position taken by the Anabaptists and Trinitarians referred to by St Bellarmine?

I’ve decided to take the less accusatory approach to your tactics and assume a fundamental ignorance rather than a malice against the Church.

 

[Ender]

To make the charge of heresy you will need to specify my crime.

Heresy is a false belief. It is not an act therefore there can be no crime.

Where in my statement or any statement that I’ve ever made, do I espouse the position taken by the Anabaptists and Trinitarians referred to by St Bellarmine?

*Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians. *
The Anabaptists et al held that the right of capital punishment should not be held among Christians. You have agreed with that position and have now taken it one step further to oppose retribution itself, which is in fact the basis for justice and is the primary objective of all punishment.

I’ve decided to take the less accusatory approach to your tactics…

“…and assume a fundamental ignorance rather than a malice against the Church.”

I appreciate the attempt but I’m not sure this demonstrates much progress.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The Anabaptists et al held that the right of capital punishment should not be held among Christians. You have agreed with that position and have now taken it one step further to oppose retribution itself, which is in fact the basis for justice and is the primary objective of all punishment.

For quite a while now we have have had concise and clear language to define the moral relativism of the extreme liberal/progressive attitudes that undermine the teachings of the Church. Pope Francis has now given us language to define another real scourge trying to tether the Church to world of the “traditionalists” and “intellectuals” when he spoke of their “hostile inflexibility”. As soon as we read the words, everyone knew what he was referring to… except the very sufferers of the disease themselves.

Anyway, back to the accusation of heresy.

To use todays language, the Anabaptists and Trinitarians held the position that capital punishment was intrinsically evil. That position is what defined their heresy. The Church in teaching on the application of capital punishment stresses that it is not intrinsically evil in the way of abortion and euthanasia but that it in the current climate it is unnecessary and destructive to the common good.

The Church itself abolished the sentence from its judicial law in 1969 during a century that saw most Christian countries dispense with it as not in keeping with civil justice in our times. So unless you are claiming that the Church is heretical, we can be assured that the movement to abolish capital punishment in light of current conditions, is perfectly in keeping with Christ.