When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used?

[Marty_E]

So why is it impossible that that be reflected by the law?

Because mercy is unique to the individual while justice is blind.

Abolishing the death penalty as a sentence in civil law… is not abolishing justice. It makes a law that reflects justice and mercy.

You’ve got mercy and justice wrapped around your axle in a way that makes a mockery of both of them.

If I commit an offense that deserves A but you as the ruler pardon me and I receive B, you have performed an act of mercy.

If we change the law so that everyone who deserves A gets B, then in the case where the individual clearly does not deserve or merit mercy, and retributive justice demands A, then I am recipient of B which is an injustice, not mercy. You haven’t established mercy, you’ve destroyed justice.

The notion of retributive justice involves setting the scales. The notion of mercy, which is personal, involves tipping the scales.

When all who deserve A get B, and none can get A, we have bad law, not mercy.

We in turn incorporate this knowledge into the natural justice to more perfectly serve the common good.

Then it’s no longer justice under Natural Law, it’s some utilitarian equation under whatever it is you think is “the common good”.

Augustine and Aquinas constantly referenced the cause of ‘the common good’ in their treatment of justice. It was never eliminated or trumped by an idea of divine retribution.

Both Augustine and Aquinas taught orthodox beliefs about retributive justice. The common good involved is that human society requires a just State. When the law is arbitrary and capricious and justice is not served, adherence to laws deteriorates, and in extreme cases people take the law into their own hands.

I don’t believe you could state that “justice should be blindly administered by the State”. It’s Lady Justice that wears the blindfold, not the State.

Lady Justice is the personification of the justice which the State should provide by just laws, justly enforced, fair trials, sentences commensurate with the crimes, and a scrupulous adherence to fairness.

She represents the highest of human virtues.

Justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in relations with his fellow-men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others, to give each man his due. That’s why Justice is blind, which she could not be if she were to administer mercy.

In all that she asks of us, we are to strive for what serves the common good. Aquinas says… “It is in this sense that justice is called a general virtue. And since it belongs to the law to direct to the common good, as stated above (I-II, 90, 2), it follows that the justice which is in this way styled general, is called “legal justice,” because thereby man is in harmony with the law which directs the acts of all the virtues to the common good. “

Right. A society based on mercy rather than justice would essentially have no law.

It makes sense that if a general law is damaging the relationship of one to another, it is no longer serving the common good and is unjust. The State has a duty and a right to make laws that serve the common good. This is justice.

No, justice is giving to each what is his due. Look it up.

The damaging of the relationship of one to another is called “crime”, which is why we need a system of justice.

Your other comments related to the Card. Dulles article regarding retribution, that you had earlier cited in your own argument.

Cardinal Dulles cited an argument, he didn’t make the argument.

You simply have a skewed understanding of natural law here. Death as a penal sentence has served a purpose in the societies of our species. It was never an absolute necessity of justice like air or food is to human life (although it may have appeared so by the natural lack of knowledge).

I hesitate to point out that you’re making a utilitarian, not Natural Law, argument here.

Justice in the Natural Law involves what is due. If we commit a crime deserving A, justice is giving us A. It is giving us A regardless of what else it may do or some imagined good - singular or common.

It is an absolute necessity of retributive justice, which involves this setting of the cosmic scales to the extent that humans may do, that the State have the power to assess a penalty commensurate with the offense.

That is justice in Natural Law.

.

 

[LongingSoul]

I hesitate to point out that you’re making a utilitarian, not Natural Law, argument here.

Justice in the Natural Law involves what is due. If we commit a crime deserving A, justice is giving us A. It is giving us A regardless of what else it may do or some imagined good - singular or common.

It is an absolute necessity of retributive justice, which involves this setting of the cosmic scales to the extent that humans may do, that the State have the power to assess a penalty commensurate with the offense.

That is justice in Natural Law.

.

How do we know what A is? By what measure? What imparts A to us?

 

[Marty_E]

How do we know what A is? By what measure? What imparts A to us?

Human beings have an innate sense of justice. Everyone with children has heard a child exclaim “that’s not fair!”.

In addition we have an innate sense of the proportion of an offense. Every society treats murder more harshly than exceeding the speed limit while driving a motor vehicle.

In a general way, then, all human societies have a hierarchy of offenses ranging from the minor infraction to the capital crime.

They may differ as to place, as to time, and as to culture. Spying in wartime for your country’s enemy is a greater offense than doing the same in peacetime.

A society which lives in plenty is more likely to construct prisons for long-term prisoners than one which is subsistence and nomadic.

Crimes against the helpless, such as children and the elderly, are generally treated more harshly than similar crimes against others.

The competent authority for determining what is a crime and the punishment is the Legislator. In ancient times that was the King. In the Catholic Church it is the Holy Father. In this county it is the Congress and the various lesser legislatures at the state and local levels.

From a moral standpoint this authority is not unlimited. For example, a Legislator which permits abortion violates a fundamental principle of the Natural Law, the right to life. Augustine would call such a law invalid and unenforceable, which morally it is.

As Catholics we try to inform both other citizens and the Legislator as to the requirements of the Natural Law as determined with right reason in the making of laws and the levying of punishments. The Church, in turn, informs us.

.

 

[LongingSoul]

Human beings have an innate sense of justice. Everyone with children has heard a child exclaim “that’s not fair!”.

In addition we have an innate sense of the proportion of an offense. Every society treats murder more harshly than exceeding the speed limit while driving a motor vehicle.

In a general way, then, all human societies have a hierarchy of offenses ranging from the minor infraction to the capital crime.

They may differ as to place, as to time, and as to culture. Spying in wartime for your country’s enemy is a greater offense than doing the same in peacetime.

A society which lives in plenty is more likely to construct prisons for long-term prisoners than one which is subsistence and nomadic.

Crimes against the helpless, such as children and the elderly, are generally treated more harshly than similar crimes against others.

The competent authority for determining what is a crime and the punishment is the Legislator. In ancient times that was the King. In the Catholic Church it is the Holy Father. In this county it is the Congress and the various lesser legislatures at the state and local levels.

From a moral standpoint this authority is not unlimited. For example, a Legislator which permits abortion violates a fundamental principle of the Natural Law, the right to life. Augustine would call such a law invalid and unenforceable, which morally it is.

As Catholics we try to inform both other citizens and the Legislator as to the requirements of the Natural Law as determined with right reason in the making of laws and the levying of punishments. The Church, in turn, informs us.

Human beings have an innate desire for justice but their personal sense of justice is very biased. I would have heard my children say “that’s not fair!” thousands of times as they were growing up. Rarely was their sense of “fair” accurate. That’s how it is for all of us. How do we know what’s fair or not if we don’t pool our perspectives? You can’t know what anothers needs and rights are to determine justice, without hearing from the individuals or those that represent them. To determine what is fair simply from what I know of life, no matter how perfect or holy I feel myself to be, isn’t justice.

The fact that many countries in the world feel that capital punishment isn’t humane in the light of our times, has arisen out of the pooling of many human factors. Our greater sensitivity to the dignity of our neighbours including criminals. A more organised and efficient penal system that affords the public a greater sense of security. Great witnesses of unconditional love and forgiveness like StJPII and Mother Teresa. All these things and more have gone into formulating the laws. If you are saying that no, capital punishment is actually the just punishment for certain crimes and none of these factors can alter that ‘truth’, what other authority is their to appeal to? You concluded that the Church informs us… but the Church is informing us that capital punishment should be abolished. What alternative authority is there to appeal to?

 

[LongingSoul]

The competent authority for determining what is a crime and the punishment is the Legislator. In ancient times that was the King. In the Catholic Church it is the Holy Father. In this county it is the Congress and the various lesser legislatures at the state and local levels.

Oh the other thing is that the Catholic Church does not ascribe civil punishments for crimes at all. That is the domain of the legitimate authority… the State.

 

[Marty_E]

Oh the other thing is that the Catholic Church does not ascribe civil punishments for crimes at all. That is the domain of the legitimate authority… the State.

The entire Code of Canon law, including all of its punishments, has a single Legislator, the Holy Father.

.

 

[Marty_E]

Human beings have an innate desire for justice but their personal sense of justice is very biased.

As the drive to abolish capital punishment illustrates.

How do we know what’s fair or not if we don’t pool our perspectives?

Solomon did not “pool our perspectives” but was renowned for justice.

Justice in one sense exists as almost a Platonic reality, a perfect form that we can sense but not encompass. It lifts us to a higher level by setting the bar.

When we begin to “pool our perspectives” we begin to see the Holocaust, abortion, and all the rest because Original Sin has impaired our ability to perceive what is just.

The fact that many countries in the world feel that capital punishment isn’t humane in the light of our times, has arisen out of the pooling of many human factors. Our greater sensitivity to the dignity of our neighbours including criminals. A more organised and efficient penal system that affords the public a greater sense of security. Great witnesses of unconditional love and forgiveness like StJPII and Mother Teresa.

I would argue the other direction. As our sense of justice has become impaired we no longer see that in some cases the only appropriate punishment is capital punishment. It’s a symptom of decline and is accompanied by the legalization of abortion, homosexual “marriage”, drugs, divorce, and all the rest.

We avoid the hard things, we seek the easy path, we fail to see that there are crimes that cry to heaven for justice and demand the ultimate punishment.

No nation which permits abortion can congratulate itself for being humane because it abolished capital punishment.

If you are saying that no, capital punishment is actually the just punishment for certain crimes and none of these factors can alter that ‘truth’, what other authority is their to appeal to? You concluded that the Church informs us… but the Church is informing us that capital punishment should be abolished.

No, it is not.

It is certain Catholic teaching that the State has the right to levy the death penalty.

No Catholic can be bound in conscience to advocate the unqualified abolishment of the death penalty.

At such time that we reach a point where a Heinrich Himmler, a Timothy McVeigh, or their like cannot face the death penalty, we have reached a point where we have gutted our justice system.

.

 

[Ender]

If we change the law so that everyone who deserves A gets B, then in the case where the individual clearly does not deserve or merit mercy, and retributive justice demands A, then I am recipient of B which is an injustice, not mercy. You haven’t established mercy, you’ve destroyed justice.

You mention here a key point that is usually overlooked in discussions about mercy: it is not universally deserved. It is not something that should be granted to everyone, therefore there is no argument that capital punishment should not be used because we should be merciful. It is clear that mercy can be abused to the detriment of justice.Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded (Aquinas)

When all who deserve A get B, and none can get A, we have bad law, not mercy.

Just so.

Justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in relations with his fellow-men. It disposes us to respect the rights of others, to give each man his due. That’s why Justice is blind, which she could not be if she were to administer mercy.

The argument that mercy obliges us to oppose capital punishment is a bit disingenuous in that it requires the admission that, if life without parole is the merciful punishment, execution must be the just punishment. After all, if LWOP was the just punishment, where is the mercy in applying it? One can only claim to be merciful by applying a lesser punishment than justice demands, but those who make this argument never seem able to admit that capital punishment is the just punishment for certain crimes.

It is an absolute necessity of retributive justice, which involves this setting of the cosmic scales to the extent that humans may do, that the State have the power to assess a penalty commensurate with the offense.

It is also church doctrine.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty ***to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. (CCC 2266)
Ender

 

[Marty_E]

The argument that mercy obliges us to oppose capital punishment is a bit disingenuous in that it requires the admission that, if life without parole is the merciful punishment, execution must be the just punishment. After all, if LWOP was the just punishment, where is the mercy in applying it? One can only claim to be merciful by applying a lesser punishment than justice demands, but those who make this argument never seem able to admit that capital punishment is the just punishment for certain crimes.

Exactly so. You put it much better than I have.

.

 

[Ender]

How do we know what’s fair or not if we don’t pool our perspectives?

I don’t think the church looks to the behaviors of nations in formulating her teachings on what is or is not “fair”. That so many of the nations which abolished capital punishment also legalized abortion makes this approach more than a little suspect.

Our greater sensitivity to the dignity of our neighbours including criminals.

The logic of this argument is that if we are only just now recognizing man’s dignity the church failed in this regard until, what, 1995?

A more organised and efficient penal system that affords the public a greater sense of security.

A “sense” of security is not the same thing as actual security, and that sense of security actually seems misplaced.

Great witnesses of unconditional love and forgiveness …

The problem here is that forgiveness is conditional, and those who do not satisfy the conditions are to be neither forgiven nor shown mercy.

If you are saying that no, capital punishment is actually the just punishment for certain crimes and none of these factors can alter that ‘truth’, what other authority is their to appeal to?

It is the church which has said that the death penalty is the just punishment for certain crimes.The enormity of this sin is manifest from many and weighty passages of Holy Scripture. So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide. *(1) Gn 9:5-6 *
(Catechism of Trent)
It may be argued that its use is at times unwise, but not that it is unjust.

the Church is informing us that capital punishment should be abolished.

Several popes have asserted that its use (currently) is unwise. Prudential judgments are not doctrines.

Ender

 

[Marty_E]

The problem here is that forgiveness is conditional, and those who do not satisfy the conditions are to be neither forgiven nor shown mercy.

That raises the issue of inappropriate forgiveness.

Jesus forgave sinners.

Jesus forgave sinners who acknowledged they were sinners and repented.

His forgiveness included the admonishment to go and sin no further.

He didn’t go about forgiving unrepentant sinners willy-nilly.

It is wrong-headed to suggest that handing out “mercy” indiscriminately fulfills some Christian precept.

.

 

[Paleocon]

When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment (execution) be used as a punishment for a crime?

Should rapists/pedophiles be executed?
Should murderers be executed?
Should war-criminals, mass murderers, or those who commit genocide or other crimes against humanity be executed?

Why or why not?

It is my opinion that the death penalty should be legal for all of those things, but that its application in particular cases should be left to the prudent assessment of a judge.

 

[Ignatius]

When, if ever, should Capitol Punishment be used

Here is a great explanation The Church teaching on Capitol Punishment: harvestingthefruit.com/deathpenalty/

There is much more in The Catechism as well.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **