5 ms·

There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice. As summarized by the Catechism of

There is the retributive argument, in which condign punishments play an important role in maintaining the balance of justice. As summarized by the Catechism of Trent, a Christian religious text of historical importance: "Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment [against killing] which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence." – Catechism of the Council of Trent, Part III, 5, n. 4 (1566) http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty http://j.mp/CatechismTrentDeathPenalty

mikeash 11y ago
True, but that argument is so bad that it hardly bears mentioning.
- tptacek 11y ago
  You say that, but the retributive argument played a very important role in the recent NPR IQ2 debate on capital punishment. It clearly has some weight.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    It's popular but it's still a bad argument. Cost, for example, is a good argument in itself, but just doesn't hold up against the facts in the real world. This contrasts argents which fall apart even before being presented with facts, like this.
aaronbrethorst 11y ago
Which has seemingly been rejected by bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-019.cfm http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-019.cfm
- tptacek 11y ago
  He wasn't making an argument from religious authority (that would be a dubious rhetorical tactic on HN); he was trying to capture a historical justification for capital punishment, and it happened to come from a period of time in which the Catholic church played an outsized role in public policy. For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment. Its a little more nuanced than that: the Catholic Church holds that capital punishment by the competent authorities of the state can be justified by certain circumstances, however, for quite some time, the dominant view of the hierarchy has been that the circumstances in which it is justified are never, or nearly so, present in the modern world, and that as such, while capital punishment is permitted in the abstract, it is never, or nearly so, justifiable in practice in the modern world.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way". I think another way to say this would be that the words "capital punishment" have two different meanings, and in the meaning we use for public policy discussions, the Church opposes it categorically.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way". I think it is a mistake to view the recent change as a change in the interpretation of the "only possible way", so much as a change in the understanding of what effective tools are available to the state. The opposition is generally not categorical in the way that, e.g., the opposition to direct abortion is categorical, but prudential in that it considers the actual conditions that obtain in the world and the options that are realistically available. A good example of this is Pope John-Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (emphasis added)
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Of course this relies on the axiomatic assumption that the "civil authorities" (which in religious contexts generally refers to government) are legitimate in their being "entrusted with power of life and death" and as the "avenger of crime". This is a subject of much contention.
jayess 11y ago
Not sure why you're being downvoted, but the retributive theory of justice is certainly a prime argument for any kind of punishment. Any criminal justice 101 text will review retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. I think the historical view has been much more on the retributive side of the scale, but the world seems to be rightfully recognizing that restorative justice is more effective, humane, and reasonable.
dragonwriter 11y ago
While that quote uses the phrase "legitimate avenger of crime", the justification it gives -- that the punishments "give security to life by repressing outrage and violence" is not the retributive theory of justice, but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek to do so by creating fear of punishment.)
- michaelsbradley 11y ago
  Actually, the Catechism text encapsulates both retributive and deterrence arguments, though I would argue the text bears the former more strongly. The key is to see the "outrage and violence" part not only with respect to potential violence (which might be deterred in view of capital punishment) but also the natural repercussions of injustices left festering when civil authority fails to inflict fitting punishments on wrongdoers.

mikeash 11y ago

True, but that argument is so bad that it hardly bears mentioning.

tptacek 11y ago
You say that, but the retributive argument played a very important role in the recent NPR IQ2 debate on capital punishment. It clearly has some weight.
- mikeash 11y ago
  It's popular but it's still a bad argument. Cost, for example, is a good argument in itself, but just doesn't hold up against the facts in the real world. This contrasts argents which fall apart even before being presented with facts, like this.

aaronbrethorst 11y ago

Which has seemingly been rejected by bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the pope. http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-019.cfm http://www.usccb.org/news/2015/15-019.cfm

tptacek 11y ago
He wasn't making an argument from religious authority (that would be a dubious rhetorical tactic on HN); he was trying to capture a historical justification for capital punishment, and it happened to come from a period of time in which the Catholic church played an outsized role in public policy. For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > For anyone unclear on this: the Catholic church vigorously opposes capital punishment. Its a little more nuanced than that: the Catholic Church holds that capital punishment by the competent authorities of the state can be justified by certain circumstances, however, for quite some time, the dominant view of the hierarchy has been that the circumstances in which it is justified are never, or nearly so, present in the modern world, and that as such, while capital punishment is permitted in the abstract, it is never, or nearly so, justifiable in practice in the modern world.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way". I think another way to say this would be that the words "capital punishment" have two different meanings, and in the meaning we use for public policy discussions, the Church opposes it categorically.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > The Church historically justifies capital punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor", and for several decades the Church has taken the reasonable and strict interpretation of the words "only possible way". I think it is a mistake to view the recent change as a change in the interpretation of the "only possible way", so much as a change in the understanding of what effective tools are available to the state. The opposition is generally not categorical in the way that, e.g., the opposition to direct abortion is categorical, but prudential in that it considers the actual conditions that obtain in the world and the options that are realistically available. A good example of this is Pope John-Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (emphasis added)

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Of course this relies on the axiomatic assumption that the "civil authorities" (which in religious contexts generally refers to government) are legitimate in their being "entrusted with power of life and death" and as the "avenger of crime". This is a subject of much contention.

jayess 11y ago

Not sure why you're being downvoted, but the retributive theory of justice is certainly a prime argument for any kind of punishment. Any criminal justice 101 text will review retribution as opposed to rehabilitation. I think the historical view has been much more on the retributive side of the scale, but the world seems to be rightfully recognizing that restorative justice is more effective, humane, and reasonable.

dragonwriter 11y ago

While that quote uses the phrase "legitimate avenger of crime", the justification it gives -- that the punishments "give security to life by repressing outrage and violence" is not the retributive theory of justice, but instead a utilitarian view akin to general deterrence in that the purpose of the punishment is to prevent greater harm by modifying the behavior of others in the community (but distinguishable from it, in that it does not seek to do so by creating fear of punishment.)

michaelsbradley 11y ago
Actually, the Catechism text encapsulates both retributive and deterrence arguments, though I would argue the text bears the former more strongly. The key is to see the "outrage and violence" part not only with respect to potential violence (which might be deterred in view of capital punishment) but also the natural repercussions of injustices left festering when civil authority fails to inflict fitting punishments on wrongdoers.