Harms of Remitting Capital Punishment

Harms of Remitting Capital Punishment

Introduction

Categorical remission of capital punishment brings more harm than good for three reasons. First, it puts the question of justice to a backseat behind the consequences of capital punishment. This consequentialist philosophy undercuts the reality of law and morality. Second, it causes confusion in citizens regarding justice, life, morality and punishment. By using language in an imprecise way, we are miseducating society on the true meaning of these terms. Third, it causes a lack of justice. Not punishing people for their crimes is wrong. Not because of the consequences of the lack of punishing, but by the lack of a just penalty.

In this paper, I will explain the natural law basis for capital punishment, and describe these three harms in detail. 

Natural Law Basis for Capital Punishment

“Man is a political animal. He who by nature and not by accident is without a state is either a bad man or above humanity.” Man lives in community with other people. The state, then, follows naturally from the social inclinations of human beings, and the needs that they need to procure for themselves. These communities are ordered towards certain goods, depending on what the men in that society aim at. If there are good men, society can thrive and men can be perfected. If there are vicious men, society will be lawless, and men will be beast-like. The determining factor, then, in the quality of a society is its justice. “Justice is the bond of men in states, for the administration of justice, which is the determination of what is just, is the principle of order in political society.” 

Not only do men gather in societies, but they need to have a leader. Aquinas thinks this is true cosmically, anthropologically, and socially. Just as the body must be governed by the soul, the social animal must be governed by an authority. The leadership of the nation is a cause of the justice of the society. “So fundamental is the duty of public authority to requite good and evil in deeds that natural law philosophers consider it paramount function of the state.” Aquinas puts it this way: “If, therefore, a multitude of free men is ordered by the ruler towards the common good of the multitude, that rulership will be right and just, as is suitable to free men. If, on the other hand, a rulership aims, not at the common good of the multitude, but at the private good of the ruler, it will be an unjust and perverted rulership.”

“Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits.” Punishment is due to someone who disturbs the just order. It is owed to the community on account of the wrongs that the person has inflicted on that community. Aquinas even classifies this as a unique virtue: vengeance. He notes that as long as the avengers intentions are just, vengeance is well ordered. These punishments need to come in appropriate degrees. Someone who steals should receive a greater penalty than someone who jaywalks, because they have done more damage to the common good. This punishment must only be carried out by a legitimate authority. 

While it would seem that the capital part of of capital punishment is what most objectors find troublesome, I think a case could be made that it is the punishment part of the phrase. As Ralph McInerny comments on his students who oppose the death penalty, “what I detected, rightly or wrongly, was an animus against punishment as such.” 

With this groundwork laid, let’s consider how categorically rejecting capital punishment causes harm on society. The first harm is that it makes justice in society to be radically utilitarian. In this way it is severed from the nature of human persons and the state. The second harm is that this rejection damages the meaning of our moral language in significant ways. This has effects on education, morality and law. The third harm is that this rejection causes actual injustice in society. 

Utilitarian Justice

The first harm on society from total rejection of capital punishment is that any reason for this rejection stems from secondary elements of the discussion. As stated above, capital punishment is natural to society on account of justice. Crimes deserve punishment, and capital crimes deserve capital punishment. This is the primary reason for the death penalty, it is necessary for a just society. To reject capital punishment as intrinsically evil is to make justice primarily focused on the consequences of punishment, rather than its justice as such. 

Many objections to capital punishment focus on these secondary aspects. Some object that it is playing god to execute souls who are guilty of crimes, because only God can take life. Some object that it causes a bloodthirsty society. Others argue that it doesn’t successfully deter crime. Others argue that we don’t need it anymore because we can keep them in prison for life. Still others hold that it fosters a society that is unforgiving. Lastly, some argue that capital punishment ends a soul’s possibility for rehabilitation. 

While there are counterarguments to these positions, and surely counterarguments to those counterarguments, all of this is secondary to the fact that capital punishment is just. By allowing a society to reject capital punishment as intrinsically evil, that same society implicitly is placing a utilitarian notion of justice over natural notions of justice. Instead of being concerned with doing the just thing, and ordering society justly, we are trying to reap the best consequences we can through our legal system. Ironically, this is the position that is playing god in this debate. By trying to order society based on consequentialist arguments and ignoring justice, we see pride rearing its ugly head. 

This damages society because the law is a teacher. The law tells its citizens something about morality, because the law is meant to make men good. Repealing capital punishment categorically conditions people to think that punishment must have good consequences to be justified. This is not true. If a person who is punished does not rehabilitate, and society is not made better for the payment of punishment, it doesn’t change the fact that justice demands that punishment be paid. It is like working for a day’s wage of $100, and being paid $50, and the boss telling you, “at least you had fun.” That was not the purpose for the day’s labor. The side effects do not change the purpose of the action. In the same way, the consequences of lightening punishment (if they even are beneficial), do not outweigh the objective need for a punishment that fits the crime.  

Terminological Confusion

One of the central thesis of Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue is that our moral vocabulary has been emptied of meaning. When people talk about questions related to moral philosophy today, terms are thrown out that are clearly not agreed upon by both sides. Taking the issue of same sex marriage as an example, its not uncommon to see both sides use the terms love, marriage and sex in different ways, but leave the points unaddressed. Without a common use of language, how are we able to dialogue? The issue of capital punishment has this phenomenon in a sharp way as well. It is interesting that people that are Pro-Life tend to support Capital Punishment, whereas people who are Pro-Abortion are against Capital Punishment. I take the strangeness of this fact to point to the confusion on moral terms today.

With this in mind, I think that one of the harms of a categorical rejection of capital punishment is that there is a further obscuring of the relevant terms of moral philosophy that are pertinent to this debate. I think there are three terms that are especially muddied by this debate: life, punishment, and justice. 

As mentioned above, there seems to be some cognitive dissonance on life issues. How can a person be both Pro-Life and support the death penalty? Does this mean that they don’t truly think that life is valuable? Wouldn’t it be more consistent to protect the life that is more recognizable as living? Questions like these have made the term life to be very unclear in moral discourse. Rather than trying to recognize the term as actually corresponding to reality, it is now weaponized by political factions trying to get particular issues passed. The claim that capital punishment is intrinsically evil has made serious contributions to muddying the meaning of the term life. 

The second term that has been damaged by the move to call the death penalty intrinsically evil is punishment. This is because by having gradually increasing penalties for crimes that are in keeping with those crimes, but then not penalizing certain crimes to the degree they should be punished calls into question the notion of punishment. It makes it seem like punishment is an arbitrary tool of the state, not a work of justice and repair for a community that has been harmed. 

The third term that has suffered damage as a result of this movement is the term justice. As described above, justice is not seen as a utilitarian ideal, not in keeping with a shared human nature. The term justice is thrown out a lot today in regards to economics and rights. Hardly ever do you hear the term justice in regard to duty towards God, Country or family. I think that law and punishment is one of the clearest examples of seeing the meaning of the term justice. We are owed certain things from society, but we also owe society a certain conduct. If we fail to live up to that conduct, then the state needs to hold us responsible and accountable. By nixing the punishment for our worst crimes, we lose out on perhaps the clearest vision of justice that there is. It’s no wonder there is such little meaning to such an important term. 

The loss of meaning of these fundamental terms has effects on morality, education, and law. Without language of the terms that form the backbone of society and moral life, other lesser goals replace them.

One may wonder why it matters if words are harmed, if it saves human lives. As MacIntyre describes these terms if they are stripped of their objective meaning, they become tools for emotivists. To people without a formation in moral philosophy, they are told that there is actually no objective moral law, but only subjective whim. The management of our emotional states as individuals, in conformity with the arbitrary laws that are passed down to us, makes up the totality of the moral life. Since there is no objective morality, education can focus on making us career ready. In this view of education, the purpose is now to make man productive, rather than good. Men should be able to sit still, follow instructions, and operate on a well regimented schedule. Since we are in a democracy, law also will be affected. Since lawmakers come from the populus, and the populus votes for leaders and laws, the moral philosophy of the subjects will be represented by the laws of that country. 

Injustice

The third harm inflicted by categorical rejection of capital punishment is that it is actually unjust. By refusing to punish someone for wrongs they have inflicted on the community is evil. If I steal $100 from my neighbor, I have wronged him. He is owed that $100, and society is owed some form of retribution from me. To pay less than the amount I stole, or to not be given a punishment in keeping with that crime would be evil. The same is true for capital crimes. To not punish individuals who commit these heinous crimes is contrary to justice. 

Conclusion

In this paper, we have covered three different harms inflicted by a total remission of capital punishment. First, that to remit capital punishment on account of secondary elements of the discussion causes society to view justice as utilitarian rather than natural. Second, that it contributes to the bankruptcy of moral vocabulary in our society. Third, that it causes actual injustice in society. By not punishing criminals to the full extent of their crimes is an act of injustice. Having punishments that fit crimes is important for the maintaining of a just society. To ignore this fact is contrary to justice and has devastating consequences on society. 

While discussions within Catholicism have leaned away from Capital Punishment in recent years, its clear that this is not a matter of dogmatic teaching. This has to fit under the purview of prudential judgement. It is clear that capital punishment is just, in the same way that all punishment is just. The position that we need to categorically reject capital punishment as intrinsically immoral, not only causes harm on individuals and society, it is also false.