Prison and torture
What may be done to someone who has done wrong?
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. Cf. DS — Denzinger–Schönmetzer (Enchiridion Symbolorum).
In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
In order to protect the common good, the lawful public authority must exercise the right and the duty to inflict punishments according to the seriousness of the crimes committed Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266.. The State has the twofold responsibility to discourage behaviour that is harmful to human rights and the fundamental norms of civil life, and to repair, through the penal system, the disorder created by criminal activity. In a State ruled by law the power to inflict punishment is correctly entrusted to the Courts: “In defining the proper relationships between the legislative, executive and judicial powers, the Constitutions of modern States guarantee the judicial power the necessary independence in the realm of law”. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Association of Judges (31 March 2000), 4: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 92 (2000) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (2000), 633.
Punishment does not serve merely the purpose of defending the public order and guaranteeing the safety of persons; it becomes as well an instrument for the correction of the offender, a correction that also takes on the moral value of expiation when the guilty party voluntarily accepts his punishment. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266. There is a twofold purpose here. On the one hand, encouraging the re-insertion of the condemned person into society; on the other, fostering a justice that reconciles, a justice capable of restoring harmony in social relationships disrupted by the criminal act committed. In this regard, the activity that prison chaplains are called to undertake is important, not only in the specifically religious dimension of this activity but also in defence of the dignity of those detained. Unfortunately, the conditions under which prisoners serve their time do not always foster respect for their dignity; and often, prisons become places where new crimes are committed. Nonetheless, the environment of penal institutions offers a privileged forum for bearing witness once more to Christian concern for social issues: “I was ... in prison and you came to me” (Mt 25:35-36).
The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind. In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”. John Paul II, Address to the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva (15 June 1982), 5: L'Osservatore Romano, English edition, 26 July 1982, p. 3. International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances. Likewise ruled out is “the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial”. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Association of Judges (31 March 2000), 4: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 92 (2000) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (2000), 633. Moreover, it must be ensured that “trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in a real injustice”. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Association of Judges (31 March 2000), 4: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 92 (2000) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (2000), 633. Officials of the court are especially called to exercise due discretion in their investigations so as not to violate the rights of the accused to confidentiality and in order not to undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Since even judges can make mistakes, it is proper that the law provide for suitable compensation for victims of judicial errors.
The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence' on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 27: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 87 (1995) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (1995), 432. Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267. Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267. The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 56: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 87 (1995) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (1995), 464; cf. also John Paul II, Message for the 2001 World Day of Peace, 19: AAS — Acta Apostolicae Sedis (official gazette of the Holy See)Volume 93 (2001) at vatican.va — scanned PDF (2001), 244, where recourse to the death penalty is described as “unnecessary”. The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.