I guess that's part of the question at hand.
I fully agree. If it's not an act of justice, then I'm wrong. If it is an act of justice, then I'm right. :idunno:
Your hypothetical includes the State delegating so it's not the latter. If anything it would be the former.
Ok. So you grant the disjunction. Either:
1. She deserves it and the husband has the authority.
2. She deserves it, but the husband does not have the authority.
3. She doesn't deserve it.
I assert 1. You deny 1 and 2, leaving 3.
Let's look at her desert from different angles.
One reason she might not deserve it is because the crime itself is not proportionate to the penalty. Unfortunately, you can't claim this, since you have "Christian" under your screen name and avatar. Moses says that the crime itself is indeed proportionate to the penalty. In fact, this is true
a forteriori since Moses prescribes death for all adulterers, whereas this woman has all sorts of attendant aggravating circumstances in addition to the mere commission of adultery.
Another reason she might not deserve it is because of mental illness, immaturity or some such other thing which diminishes her culpability. I have no argument that this didn't hold in her case, but I see no reason to believe that it did. She was a grown woman, she was married and she apparently was sufficiently enough in her right mind to think to herself: "Gee, I should go out, meet this guy and move him in to my husband's house."
Nor is it plausible that she can claim ignorance that what she was doing was wrong, that she was indeed doing that wrong thing, etc. We further cannot appeal to societal conditions which would mitigate her guilt. One might perhaps excuse a fornicator in a country in which fornication is rampant. But adulteresses bringing their lovers into the households of their husbands?
Again, you might say she doesn't deserve it because she committed the act in a state of incontinence, was overwhelmed by her passions and perhaps might be able to be reformed. But you yourself have admitted that her actions proceeded from vice, not incontinence.
Again, if you wish to appeal to the generally bad moral condition of the country and that only serious social outliers should be given such harsh penalties, then I'll ask you how common it is for a woman to bring a lover into her husband's household.
I'm sure you can see where I am going with this. Turn the matter over any way you want. Why doesn't she deserve it? What could possibly diminish her merit for punishment?
And again, I'll ask you:
Does she not deserve to die at all?
Does she not deserve to die by beating?
Does she not deserve to die by her husband's hand?
Then I'll tell you:
Moses commanded that adulterers be put to death.
Moses commanded that they be put to death by stoning. What great difference is there between stoning and beating?
Moses commanded that they be stoned by the entire community. Was the husband exempted from the privilege?
And again, I'll appeal to the custom of the Romans and the Greeks. What great difference is there between beating a woman to death for adultery, on the one hand, and sacrificing her on the family altar to the household gods, on the other hand, for the same crime?
But again, you'll insist that it's not charitable for a husband to do this. And again, I'll ask you: Were the precepts of Moses contrary to charity? Was the husband exempt from the administration of the penalty?
And if you insist that Christians are bound by charity to love their wives, then I'll insist in return that all Christians are bound by the same charity to love their neighbors as themselves. How can a Christian engage in a just war, administer any civic penalties, etc.?
It's not. It intensifies my point. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that the State issues laws which are accompanied by the threat of punishment in order that those who are particularly and abnormally wicked might restrain themselves, having been educated by the law, and leave everyone else in peace, or else...
...If they won't do this? Well, I'll leave the rest for you to consider.
The woman's actions displayed a vicious and incurably wicked character. It's not particularly surprising that she murdered her husband. What do you expect from such a person?
As I said: what good could possibly come from letting her live?
What makes you say that vice is generally incurable?
It involves an error in the principles of practical reason. If you and I share the same principles, but disagree about a conclusion, I can persuade you based on our shared principles. But vicious people are so morally deranged in their character that even their principles are wrong, that they literally cannot be persuaded.
That's what makes them dangerous and naturally incapable of changing.
