Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to imprison a man. An act which deals with undue matter is evil in its genus, as stated above (1.2, Question 18, Article 2). Now man, having a free-will, is undue matter for imprisonment which is inconsistent with free-will. Therefore it is unlawful to imprison a man.

Objection 2: Further, human justice should be ruled by Divine justice. Now according to Ecclus. 15:14, "God left man in the hand of his own counsel." Therefore it seems that a man ought not to be coerced by chains or prisons.

Objection 3: Further, no man should be forcibly prevented except from doing an evil deed; and any man can lawfully prevent another from doing this. If, therefore, it were lawful to imprison a man, in order to restrain him from evil deeds, it would be lawful for anyone to put a man in prison; and this is clearly false. Therefore the same conclusion follows.

On the contrary, We read in Lev. 24 that a man was imprisoned for the sin of blasphemy.

I answer that, In the goods three things may be considered in due order. First, the substantial integrity of the body, and this is injured by death or maiming. Secondly, pleasure or rest of the senses, and to this striking or anything causing a sense of pain is opposed. Thirdly, the movement or use of the members, and this is hindered by binding or imprisoning or any kind of detention.

Therefore it is unlawful to imprison or in any way detain a man, unless it be done according to the order of justice, either in punishment, or as a measure of precaution against some evil.

Reply to Objection 1: A man who abuses the power entrusted to him deserves to lose it, and therefore when a man by sinning abuses the free use of his members, he becomes a fitting matter for imprisonment.

Reply to Objection 2: According to the order of His wisdom God sometimes restrains a sinner from accomplishing a sin, according to Job 5:12: "Who bringeth to nought the designs of the malignant, so that their hand cannot accomplish what they had begun, while sometimes He allows them to do what they will." In like manner, according to human justice, men are imprisoned, not for every sin but for certain ones.

Reply to Objection 3: It is lawful for anyone to restrain a man for a time from doing some unlawful deed there and then: as when a man prevents another from throwing himself over a precipice, or from striking another. But to him alone who has the right of disposing in general of the actions and of the life of another does it belong primarily to imprison or fetter, because by so doing he hinders him from doing not only evil but also good deeds.

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod non liceat aliquem hominem incarcerare. Actus enim est malus ex genere qui cadit supra indebitam materiam, ut supra dictum est.

Sed homo, habens naturalem arbitrii libertatem, est indebita materia incarcerationis, quae libertati repugnat.

Ergo illicitum est aliquem incarcerare.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, humana iustitia regulari debet ex divina.

Sed sicut dicitur Eccli. XV, deus reliquit hominem in manu consilii sui.

Ergo videtur quod non est aliquis coercendus vinculis vel carcere.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, nullus est cohibendus nisi ab opere malo, a quo quilibet licite potest alium impedire. Si ergo incarcerare aliquem esset licitum ad hoc quod cohiberetur a malo, cuilibet esset licitum aliquem incarcerare.

Quod patet esse falsum. Ergo et primum.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Levit. XXIV legitur quendam missum fuisse in carcerem propter peccatum blasphemiae.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod in bonis corporis tria per ordinem considerantur. Primo quidem, integritas corporalis substantiae, cui detrimentum affertur per occisionem vel mutilationem. Secundo, delectatio vel quies sensus, cui opponitur verberatio, vel quidlibet sensum dolore afficiens. Tertio, motus et usus membrorum, qui impeditur per ligationem vel incarcerationem, seu quamcumque detentionem. Et ideo incarcerare aliquem, vel qualitercumque detinere, est illicitum nisi fiat secundum ordinem iustitiae, aut in poenam aut ad cautelam alicuius mali vitandi.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod homo qui abutitur potestate sibi data, meretur eam amittere. Et ideo homo qui peccando abusus est libero usu suorum membrorum, conveniens est incarcerationis materia.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod deus quandoque, secundum ordinem suae sapientiae, peccatores cohibet ne possint peccata implere, secundum illud iob V, qui dissipat cogitationes malignorum, ne possint implere manus eorum quod coeperant.

Quandoque vero eos permittit quod volunt agere. Et similiter secundum humanam iustitiam non pro qualibet culpa homines incarcerantur, sed pro aliquibus.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod detinere hominem ad horam ab aliquo opere illicito statim perpetrando, cuilibet licet, sicut cum aliquis detinet aliquem ne se praecipitet, vel ne alium feriat.

Sed simpliciter aliquem includere vel ligare ad eum solum pertinet qui habet disponere universaliter de actibus et vita alterius, quia per hoc impeditur non solum a malis, sed etiam a bonis agendis.