John Couey, cont'd

"What should we do with John Couey?," Rob asks.  He continues:

Public safety, deterrence, and perhaps restitution are fairly uncontroversial, but the role of retribution may be contested.  Rick asserts that "punishment is justified because and only to the extent that the criminal deserves it and it will redress the disorder introduced by his offense."  Michael Perry emphasizes that "[w]e are called to love--to treat with charity as well as with justice--even the most depraved criminal."

For what it's worth, it strikes me that the role of "public safety" and "deterrence" in justifying punishment -- as opposed to structuring and designing punishments -- are, or should be, controversial; and, my "assert[ion]" that punishments are "justified only to the extent that the criminal deserves it" should not be controversial.  I invoked desert and retribution -- i.e., respect for the constraints that human dignity imposes on punishment -- to limit punishment.  So, I don't think that Michael Perry and I disagree that we are called to "love" even the depraved criminal.  For me, the "love" that follows from human dignity means (among other things) that (a) punishment in excess of desert is impermissible, but also that (b) punishment consistent with desert is permissible.  I'm confident that Christian love -- the stance appropriate to persons -- does not rule out desert-based arguments (even if it does, of course, supply a reason for mercy). 

Rob then asks the excellent question:  "Putting capital punishment to the side and assuming that Couey is proven guilty, what is the proper role for retribution in Couey's punishment?"  A few thoughts:  A retributive punishment theory (one that -- properly understood -- is, in my judgment, consistent with Catholic teaching) would suggest, among other things, that: (a) Notwithstanding Couey's disgusting crimes, he may not be punishment more severely than he deserves; (b) it is possible for a responsible agent to deserve justly-structured punishment; (c) the wishes of Couey's victims' parents -- i.e., to see Couey "rot in hell" -- are not relevant to the question of Couey's moral desert; (d) the calculation of the appropriate punishment cannot be based on claims that he is an "animal," etc.; (e) that a punishment or response which effectively denied Couey's agency and responsibility would be unjust (including to Couey himself, as C.S. Lewis once argued); and (f) that a horrible crime like Couey's should prompt us to exercise particular care in responding, since it creates a serious danger that we might respond out of hate, rather than out of a proper desire to treat him justly.

Rick