Following my last post on this topic, one reader justly described the proposed change to the Catechism’s text on the death penalty as “confusing.” One cause of confusion is its failure to acknowledge that there are two different reasons for punishment: the protection of society, and retribution, aka “Paying the guy back.” (The hackneyed phrase “paid his debt to society” is a colloquial reference to retribution.)
Regarding the protection of society, as I hinted before, I still wonder whether even modern society is safe enough to warrant the abolition of the death penalty. From a common good standpoint, I suspect it remains necessary in many parts of the world.
Of retribution, I am willing to believe that modernity may render void its ability to justify anycivil punishment at all. But if retribution is passé, it is passé not because society is too good for it, but because we are not good enough; for it seems unquestionable that retribution is legitimate in principle. Thus, as one commenter (Mark Hausam) noted, retribution may be inadmissible, because...
Read the rest at the Register.
No comments:
Post a Comment