The Coalition of the Swilling

I go to a Catholic law school and attended a forum yesterday about "Restorative Justice." The speakers weren't entirely clear about what they were talking about, mostly confining themselves to discussing how wonderful it was without saying what it was. Lots of kumbaya and tearful anecdotes about how criminals are reformed after these people's god-inspired efforts.

However, my friend who set up the forum told me more about how it works. Essentially, the idea is that the community and the victims and the guilty bastard all get together and decide to admit, forgive and restore the criminal to civilization. There might be incarceration for some period of time, but the focus is on returning them to society.

I'm not a chrisitian and I don't cotton much to the forgiveness factor. I asked what if the victim refuses to forgive and I was told another victim of a similar crime would do just as well. Well, there goes the entire concept of getting the victim involved.

The first power point slide had a quote that they meant to show as an example of justice gone amok. It said,

"It is right that society should hate a criminal, and treat him in such a way to demonstrate that hatred."

Or something to that effect.

I don't know how anyone can read of a crime such as this and not have a proper appreciation for that quote.

There is no punishment harsh enough for such an animal.

Every time I think of little Jessica it brings tears to my eyes.

Buried alive is too good for him. I'd rather just slow roast him alive.

I look forward to reports of his pending execution.

I think putting him in the general prison population would pretty much take care of things.

Mike, no argument from this Catholic. The idea that forgiveness of sin is identical to forgoing civil punishment for crime is a mistake. For one thing, a criminal who has come to realize the depth of his crime should also realize that he belongs in the hoosegow - or worse. As CS Lewis wrote, the Christian thing to do if one has committed murder is to give oneself up to be hanged; more recently there's the words of the great philosopher Barry Gibb: "Well, I did it to him, now it's my turn to die."

For another thing, God doesn't seem to forgo chastisement even though He's in the forgiving and redeeming business. All the talk about not hating the criminal is true; certainly God loves the criminal and offers the chance (in some cases, perhaps the only chance) to become a better person. But for every quote in Scripture about God sending His rain on the just and unjust alike, there's another about separating the wheat and the chaff. If sin wasn't serious, God would not have taken the measures He did to heal it; and refusal to see it as something that requires healing is to fail everyone involved - the victim and larger society most obviously, but even the criminal needs to have his crime taken seriously. Allowing the criminal to enjoy the fantasy that he's been railroaded or somehow unjustly treated for going to prison, while well-meaning dolts fawn and weep over his fate and rail against heartless "unforgiving" society, is about the surest barrier there is to helping him realize that he's done great evil and needs repentance.

We've lost the "restorative justice" of punishment fitting the crime, this guy needs a plastic bag over his own head.

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.

Forgive the sinner according to God's law, draw and quarter him according to (the original) Ceasar's law. No conflict whatsoever. Pacifistic Christians forget that Peter carried a sword in the presence of Jesus, and cut off the servant's ear in the garden. Jesus was no stranger to self defense, personal or societal.

John, I think you have entirely misrepresented the incident in the garden. Yeah, Peter carried a sword (probably a sicarii, although that is not mainstream) but the point of the story is that Jesus did not allow it to be used.

True Christians must be pacifists, as the religion was originally defined, but one thing they made clear from the beginning is that they need not forgive in all instances. If sins were held bound by the priests, then god would also hold it bound. If they were forgiven, then god would also forgive. Clearly, forgiveness was not always required. Nor should it be.

I lived in Northern California during the Polly Klaas kidnapping/murder, and the trial of Richard Allen Davis, the subhuman who did that to her. And I was amazed that there was a special part of the trial where the jury needed to determine whether or not "special circumstances" were involved, and if so, he could get the death penalty. I mean, there should be no question about it -- you mess with a kid, you die. Period, paragraph, which arm do you want the needle in?

I wish he'd been tried in Texas. If he were, he'd be dead by now.

"I was told another victim of a similar crime would do just as well."

Fuck that shit. It's cases like this that remind why I'm a prosecutor.

"And I was amazed that there was a special part of the trial where the jury needed to determine whether or not "special circumstances" were involved, and if so, he could get the death penalty."

You ALWAYS have to a penalty phase, and this is universal, not specific to California. Essentially the US Supreme Court has said that a state (or the feds) cannot legislate mandatory capital punishment for anything: due process requires that this be an individualized determination in each case. The jury always has to legally be able to decide on a punishment short of a death sentence.

"I wish he'd been tried in Texas. If he were, he'd be dead by now."

Or Virginia. They have the highest per capita number of death penalty cases, higher than Texas. But do keep in mind that Florida's number three.

You need to get working on that, dave.

But do keep in mind that Florida's number three.

Good.