* 2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment **proportionate to the gravity of the offense.** Punishment has the primary aim of **redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. **When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, **has a medicinal purpose:** as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67 * And from NewAdvent: Occult Compensation *"Then respect for law and order demands that **the authority of the law should be invoked **whenever it is possible and recourse to established justice does not involve difficulties and losses out of all proportion with the gain to be derived". * It is an unrealistic portrayal. The norm is typical that a prisoner is sentenced for a light sentence, the condign portion, and finds himself in the hands of biased maniacal prison officials who beat him mercilessly, or goad him into self incriminating circumstances to paint him as belligerent. The prison term becomes a gauntlet. For this the catechism recommends the case of compensation from the nation in which the offender now takes issue with, advises that he can only do so under certain conditions, and should be assessed by the same institution who are now in conflict of interest. It presumes a normal state of relations still exists between them. The situation from this point should shift over to chapters on war, not the stated above. This is because: 1/The offender cannot find regress in the institution that now proves it is in breach of moral law, and is now in conflict of interest if it does hear the case. The nation becomes a defendant, not a judge. It is not a case of civil administration in a simple dispute between it and a citizen. 2/ The action applied to him of the practice of legislated non proclaimed perpetual punishment effects the jurisdiction of national rights. A temporary loss for punitive measures is a norm in a society, a permanent one would sever his citizenship, since there are no varying sets of constitutions that define less than the full complement of rights. The people themselves have defined his citizenry through their constitution, and the closest it can legally come to implement legislation that permanently rescinds those rights, is to restore the rights after he has paid his debts. There is an implied return to a previous state, that is, the constitutional defined state. This doesn't happen now at least in the western democratic systems, only a semblance of it, and there exist today a whole class of citizenry that are not aware of their real state. He becomes officially an exile in a foreign nation. The relationship has ended, and the nation allows him to decide for himself what his
recourse is and what allegiances he can make. It is astounding that the constitutional loss just mentioned would not be evident by the Vatican, since the Judicial Institutions themselves officially recommend offenders seek regress through the Human Rights Commission, not the courts of “his” nation as the Catechism assumes would occur.
But we don't get the sense it is aware of this, like it's concrete knowledge of the issue of abortion. In this chapter it still feels there is something to repair, and the nation is simply being a bad boy on occasion and needs to be awaken now and then. It doesn't realize that some unprecedented actions are employed that tamper with fundamental rights, and now the subject concerned can avail himself to alternate measures.
For reflection, in particular 170 & 171: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerich_de_Vattel