Punishment Part II

The focus on crime in biblical times was not so much on the individual as it was on the community. Corporate responsibility was central to the Hebrew understanding of crime. Crime was a crisis in biblical times. The major function of the courts in those days was restoring Shalom (peace). Helping people re-establish their covenant with God and one another was at the heart of justice. When an execution was necessary it was for the restoration of the covenant and for the re-establishment of Shalom. In Exodus 21, God’s emphasis was on restitution and restoration, not vengeance and punishment.

In the New Testament, Jesus clearly states that justice should be based on principles of forgiveness and reconciliation. Jesus ask those who have been victimized by crime for a forgiving response to prevent them from being poisoned in spirit (Luke 15:11-32; Matthew 20:1-16). In Luke 15:11-32, Jesus teaches generosity of spirit in the “Parable of the Lost Son.” Jewish law valued life over property and valued the individual over punishment. Jesus forgave the maniac, the prostitute, the adulteress, and the tax extortionist. The failure to forgive could damage one spiritually. Forgiveness is more for the one forgiving than the one forgiven; God will deal with the one in need of forgiveness. That is the true message of Romans 12:9 “’Vengeance in Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.” God is saying to us, “You let it go. I will take care of it.”

In Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Exodus 21:12-14 and Numbers 25:6-34, it mentions the six “Cities of Refuge” provided by the judicial system of that day which were centrally located and could be reached by well-built roads so the individual could reach the temple quickly. Both Israel and its neighbors recognized a person’s rightful need of protection from revenge. Individuals who were falsely accused, committed accidental manslaughter or other serious unintentional offences were to go as soon as possible to the alter in the temples of these “Cities of Refuge” where they were kept from harm until the matter went to court. Individuals who committed serious offences such as premeditated murder and/or rape were not permitted into these cities, if reliable witness and proof was established at the time of the crime.

Restorative justice is a gospel response to conflict and crime, and its goal is to heal the wounds of both the offender and victim. Restorative justice advocates restitution rather than retribution and strives to understand crime. It challenges us to examine the root cause of crime in order to break the cycles of crime. Restorative justice is not about blame, punishment or forgetting. It is about remembering, telling the truth, repenting, forgiving, healing and changed behavior. Its goal is to heal the wounds of both the victim and the offender. The offender must acknowledge responsibility for the crime committed, ask for forgiveness, make restitution and give future evidence of behavior change. Victims must find a way to forgive the offender and ask God for healing. Forgiveness is not something the victim does for the benefit of the offender. Rather, it is the process of the victim letting go of rage, suffering and pain of the injustice to resume living without oppressive thoughts of violation and victimization. However, punitive secular justice has its place as a deterrent to the ungodly because in reality most criminals remain unrepentant.

Our present day justice system encourages anger, rationalization, denial of guilt and responsibility, powerlessness, and dehumanization. Morality starts with a respect for the dignity of all, and the current criminal justice system displays a lack of respect to individuals it serves. Depersonalization is built in every fabric of prison life, and for that matter, the military as well. In today’s criminal justice system, a balanced approach is needed. I am not only talking about a restorative justice system that allows the justice system and government agencies to improve their capacity to protect the community and ensure accountability of the offender, but I am talking about a balanced approach that includes educational and psychological evaluation of the offender to guide incarcerational placement according to the severity of the crime and the psychological ability to be restored. Offenders who commit premeditated capital offences (murder and rape) with “adequate witness” and “irrefutable evidence” should be candidates for the death penalty. The words “adequate witness” and “irrefutable evidence” are powerful words, and they should put enormous pressure and responsibility of the judicial system to “get it right.” Sadly, in our present day judicial system, “adequate witness” and “irrefutable evidence” is not consummated for reasons, including no witness, questionable witness, no evidence, questionable evidence, case variables and courtroom injustice.