Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?

[Ender]

Yes, Church teaches Death Penalty has two justifications
(1) retribution (Catechism of Council of Trent)
(2) to protect the public (recent CCC)

No, the church teaches that punishment has four objectives: retribution, protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence, and of those only one can be primary. That one has not in fact changed. It is defined by the catechism, and has not been altered by any of the changes.

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

That is, the primary objective of punishment was, and still is, retribution.

Only (2) was modified by recent Pope Francis change, not (1). Thus, (1) is still valid Catechism justification for DP.

It’s not really clear what, if anything, has changed…but, again, the OP doesn’t want this to become the topic of this thread, but, as I said above, retribution is still, and always will be, the primary objective of punishment. It is nothing less than a matter of justice.

I’m not confusing anything. I’m asking Ender for clarity.

Then I’ll make this perfectly clear. No.

 

[Rau]

It is nothing less than a matter of justice.

The punishment may be just, but an act to deliver it may be immoral Ender.

 

[Ender]

The punishment may be just, but an act to deliver it may be immoral Ender.

Any act is immoral if done for an immoral reason; this is nothing unique to capital punishment.

Punishment is legitimate as an act of justice. Retribution is rendering to one according to what his actions deserve, whether that be reward or punishment. A just penalty is one that is of commensurate severity with the crime, and the church has always recognized that death is a just penalty for the crime of murder.

Whether that penalty should be applied in particular situations is a judgment. There are two bases on which one could oppose capital punishment: that it is always unjust, or that it is conditionally unwise. It seems that most of the western nations other than the US feel the punishment is unjust by its nature, which is a position contrary to church doctrine.

 

[Rau]

My point stands.

 

[Annie]

How can the act of “delivering” the punishment be (presumably inherently) immoral?

 

[OneSheep]

The question is, why do those who govern the United States of America and its constituent parts pursue a policy of retaining the death penalty while those who govern most of the other countries in the world pursue a policy of abolishing it?

I think that the answer to your literal question is that we march to our own drum. Americans who support the death penalty couldn’t care less whether some other nation has outlawed it, because Americans see valid reasons for keeping it, just as there were those in other lands that found valid reasons but were finally outnumbered.

The underlying question, I think, is why we have it in the first place. When a person does something egregious, our conscience is triggered and we desire to punish. Our mind automatically dehumanizes the perpetrator, they become of negative value, expendable, less than human. We see their disposal as something good, of value to society, but these are simply cognitions that express the underlying resentment (hate). While our religion tells us to forgive, the value of forgiveness is not upheld in our society.

In short, we want to kill those who do great evil because it is our nature. What Jesus does is invite us to transcend our nature and forgive.

 

[Rau]

How can the act of “delivering” the punishment be (presumably inherently) immoral?

An act / instance of CP would be immoral if:

• pursued for an ill purpose (intention);
• pursued despite having made a judgement that it will cause more harm than good.

 

[Ender]

When a person does something egregious, our conscience is triggered and we desire to punish.

Do you not recognize that sin deserves punishment? Yes, we should desire punishment because it is a matter of justice. It is sin and sin alone that deserves punishment. It is in fact an obligation of government to punish those who “does something egregious.”

While our religion tells us to forgive, the value of forgiveness is not upheld in our society.

The obligations of the state are very different from those of the individual. The individual is called on to forgive, but the state has a duty to punish even as that right is forbidden to the individual.

In short, we want to kill those who do great evil because it is our nature. What Jesus does is invite us to transcend our nature and forgive.

You either misunderstand the nature of justice or dismiss its importance. Nowhere in the gospels or in all of scripture is it suggested that one who sins does not deserved to be punished. Quite the opposite:

On the contrary, It is written (Isaiah 3:10:11): "Say to the just man that it is well; for he shall eat the fruit of his doings. Woe to the wicked unto evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given him. (Aquinas, ST I-II 21,3)

 

[OneSheep]

Do you not recognize that sin deserves punishment? Yes, we should desire punishment because it is a matter of justice.

Good Morning. The word “deserve” in that question is a expression of the desire to punish, just as chimpanzees have a desire to punish those in their communities that do something bad. That we call it “justice” is putting the desire into a cognitive framework.

It is in fact an obligation of government to punish those who “does something egregious.”

I agree. However, as the CCC states, punishment is meant to have a medicinal effect, to protect society as well as help the sinner repent from his ways. Do you remember our previous discussions?

What is the purpose of justice? I thought that when you saw the answer to that question, things might become more clear.

The obligations of the state are very different from those of the individual. The individual is called on to forgive, but the state has a duty to punish even as that right is forbidden to the individual.

The “state” is made of people. Every person in the state is called to forgive, especially if they are involved with the person, involved in the perpetrator’s punishment.

Nowhere in the gospels or in all of scripture is it suggested that one who sins does not deserved to be punished.

Maybe you have forgotten the story of the adulteress? The prodigal son? Both of these cases involved people that “should” have been punished according to some rule or mores. Yet, since the purpose of punishment is medicinal, God saw that no additional punishment of those types was necessary. Again, the use of the word “deserve” there expresses desire to punish.

All people deserve salvation.

"If anyone hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge that person. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.

John 12:47

 

[Ender]

The word “deserve” in that question is a expression of the desire to punish, just as chimpanzees have a desire to punish those in their communities that do something bad. That we call it “justice” is putting the desire into a cognitive framework.

The word “deserve” describes the relationship between sin and punishment. It is what is required by justice and is what the church teaches.

The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; (Aquinas ST I-II 19,9)

A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. (Pius XII)

However, as the CCC states, punishment is meant to have a medicinal effect, to protect society as well as help the sinner repent from his ways.

The rehabilitation of the sinner is indeed one objective of punishment, but it is only a secondary one. The primary objective is retribution.

The “state” is made of people. Every person in the state is called to forgive, especially if they are involved with the person, involved in the perpetrator’s punishment.

The minister of the state is obligated to punish, something that is forbidden the individual; those are very different roles and cannot be treated as if they were the same.

For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whence the Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance; just as from the fact that the law said, “Thou shalt love thy friend,” they infer that it is lawful to hate enemies; but Christ teaches that these are misinterpretations of the law, and that we should love even our enemies and not resist evil, but rather that we should be prepared, if necessary, to turn the other cheek to him who strikes one cheek. And that Our Lord was speaking to private citizens is clear from what follows. For Our Lord speaks thus: “But I say to you not to resist evil, but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, etc.” (St Bellarmine, De Laicis)

the use of the word “deserve” there expresses desire to punish.

It expresses the true relationship between sin and punishment.

Nothing but sin deserves punishment. (Aquinas ST I-II 76,2)

The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust."

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way? unless, of course, I deserve it." (C.S. Lewis)

 

[OneSheep]

(Aquinas ST I-II 19,9)

Thank God we’ve come a long way since Aquinas!

Revelation unfolds. Yesterday, Aquinas, today, the death penalty no longer allowed.

This is the Spirit working in the Church. I cannot convince you of that.

It will also be the Spirit that changes the hearts of people, that when they want someone to die for their sins, they will instead forgive. The cross stands as an antithesis to retribution; Jesus forgave.

I wish you well.

 

[Crocus]

Who decides what is deserved, and what criteria is used to decide what the penalty?

 

[Ender]

Thank God we’ve come a long way since Aquinas!

So much for the church’s teaching on truth being eternal. I think it is just this failure to recognize the relationship between sin and punishment - that the former deserves the latter - that has led to much of the opposition to capital punishment in particular, and to punishment in general. And the church has not come a long way since Aquinas; this is what she teaches today. Sin demands punishment. But let’s see just how far from Aquinas we’ve come…

2006 The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. (Aquinas ST I-II 21,3)

It will also be the Spirit that changes the hearts of people, that when they want someone to die for their sins, they will instead forgive. The cross stands as an antithesis to retribution; Jesus forgave.

If Jesus forgave everyone, and the “cross stands as an antithesis to retribution” then who is in hell? Who even would be in purgatory? Why is repentance necessary? I have often referred to harmful arguments used against capital punishment, and this is a very good example of what I mean. In order to oppose the death penalty this destroys the relationship between sin and punishment, and of justice itself. It calls into question some of the most basic teachings of the church.

This is the Spirit working in the Church.

No. This is a repudiation of the most ancient of church doctrines.

211 The divine name, “I Am” or “He Is”, expresses God’s faithfulness: despite the faithlessness of men’s sin and the punishment it deserves

1472 These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

 

[Ender]

Who decides what is deserved, and what criteria is used to decide what the penalty?

The church has clearly defined the general standard:

2266 Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.

She has also, for two millennia, indicated that death is a penalty commensurate with the severity of the crime of murder. The application of a particular punishment for a particular crime is left to the discretion of the state for the same reason the determination of going to war is ultimately theirs to make:

2309 The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

This much is known to be true inasmuch as the church - which includes virtually all the Fathers, Doctors, popes, and magisteria for 2000 years - taught it: death is a just penalty for the crime of murder.

 

[Crocus]

The application of a particular punishment for a particular crime is left to the discretion of the state

What aptitudes/qualifications must the state require of applicants to the position of executioner?

 

[Ender]

What aptitudes/qualifications must the state require of applicants to the position of executioner?

I don’t have a clue, but if this is a meaningful concern to you you might want to investigate the history of Vatican City and the Papal State’s executioners. That might provide some insight.

 

[Crocus]

That’s pretty old isn’t it?
Do states have similar requirements today that you know of?

 

[Ender]

That’s pretty old isn’t it?
Do states have similar requirements today that you know of?

All of this goes to the prudential aspects of applying the penalty. My investigation and interest has been almost exclusively into what the church has said on the morality of the punishment itself.

 

[Crocus]

What must the Church say about the effect on the psyche of the appointed executioner?

 

[Ender]

What must the Church say about the effect on the psyche of the appointed executioner?

“The church” doesn’t need to say anything. If she’s not said anything before this there’s no reason to suspect she needs to address it now. Again, this is a prudential matter, not a moral question.