PRE-THANKSGIVING COMMENTS ON CAPITAL PUNSIHMENT

Thanks to Rick, Tom, and Patrick for their comments.

This is what I have learned from E. Christian Brugger, who wrote his book—Capital Punishment and Roman Catholic Moral Tradition (Notre Dame, 2003)--under the watchful eye of no less a master than John Finnis.

1. The traditional position of the Roman Catholic Church has been that one may never intentionally kill an *innocent* human being.

2.  John Paul II’s position was more radical: One may never intentionally kill a human being. The “innocent” has dropped out.

3.  Why may one never intentionally kill any human being (according to John Paul)? Because to do so is to act contrary to the charity we are called to have for every human being.

4. To execute a criminal under a system of capital punishment is intentionally to kill a human being—something that John Paul’s position does not allow. (Intentionally to kill a human being--and, so, to execute a criminal--if it is not necessary to do so for reasons of self-defense is not to treat the human being lovingly.)

5.  The Church’s (i.e., the magisterium’s) position on capital punishment is in a state of transition—and, as it now stands, is incoherent. The      Catechism tells us that the state may use capital punishment only if      necessary to do so for reasons of self-defense. Why incoherent? Because to engage in a legitimate act of self-defense is never intentionally to kill a human being, but to execute a criminal is always intentionally to kill a human being.

As I said, this is what I learned from Brugger’s book. I wish that Rick, Patrick, Tom, and I—and anyone else interested—could read the book together in a discussion group. What a fruitful discussion that would be!

As Rick knows, my own views on capital punishment do not presuppose that John Paul was right in his belief that one may never intentionally kill a human being. But that’s a story for another day.

Finally, about the retributive theory of punishment. I stand by what I said in my earlier posting. Having read Patrick’s posting, it seems that I stand with Michael Moore on this.

But let’s move past that point to the following inquiry: I assume that Rick and Patrick do not believe that the retributive theory of punishment could justify torturing a criminal (i.e., torturing him as punishment, not as a method of interrogation). Why, then, should we think that the retributive theory could justify executing a criminal? Is it because torturing him necessarily violates his inherent dignity but executing him does not? (If so, it would seem that the inherent dignity of every human being is a limit on what would otherwise be justifiable according to the retributive theory, yes?) But why does executing him not violate his inherent dignity?

Rick’s suggestion (in an e-mail to me) is this: “[An adequate] justification [for capital punishment is] supplied by the need to communicate adequately the magnitude of [the convict’s] wrong and to redress the disorder caused by his offense.” But I suspect that few of us would agree that of the available punishments for even the most depraved crimes, only capital punishment can “communicate adequately the magnitude of the wrong and redress the disorder caused by the offense.” Have all the jurisdictions that have forsaken capital punishment—Michigan, for example, or England—thereby forsaken their only means of communicating adequately the magnitude of the wrong and of redressing the disorder caused by the offense? Is that a plausioble position? Is it plausible to believe that the only way to restore the disorder caused by some heinous murders is by killing—executing—the murderers? Isn’t it at least as plausible to believe that killing the murderers obscures the magnitude of the wrong they did rather than communicates it, by obscuring the value of human life—of every human life? That is the position of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their recent statement of opposition to the death penalty.

So, I agree with Michael Moore and disagree with Rick and Patrick on the retributive theory of punishment. But even if I were to agree with Rick and Patrick on that issue, I would still disagree with their claim that the retributive theory of punishment can justify capital punishment.  I agree with the bishops' (implicit) claim, in their recent statement, that it cannot.

(Only my friends will appreciate the irony of my defending the bishops against Rick and Patrick.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Michael