To be sure that all gentle readers know, we draw attention to the news that the legal saga of Fernando North has come to its conclusion. Sentenced to 70 years yesterday, he will spend the rest of his earthly life as a prisoner of the State of Ohio.
We affirm the courage and dignity of our friends, his victims, who testified at his sentencing. We also explicitly affirm their call for retribution, imperfect as it inevitably is in the human legal system. Justice is by nature retributive.
And "recovery" is by nature perpetual. Let's all continue to support our friends as God's Spirit enables us to do more than we are able to do.
16 comments:
What bothers me about this news story is that it makes no mention of when he will be eligible for parole.
And he will be eligible for parole. Barring a jail fight or early cancer or some other fortuitous event, he is young enough to get out of prison and go on another rampage.
Because of the media attention, the parole board may not let him out. But the prosecutor 20 years from now (which is my best guess when he will be eligiblefor parole) in Hamilton County is unlikely to be like Deters, and unlikely to care as much as Deters, and unlikely to wage a massive campaign to keep him behind bars.
Even though I understand that our justice system is intended to be retributive, is there no cause for restorative justice?
If parole should come to this individual, despite his horrific crimes, would it not be better for society, and possibly his victims, if he were able to be a productive member?
Does restoration require parole? Is the only place that a human can be productive outside the big house? Surely the most important restoration has nothing to do with whether a man is in prison or not. I believe that I have read a story somewhere about a man who claimed that he was free while in prison. Of course, he was free before he got to prison, and so prison didn't impinge on his freedom. Could Fernando North not become free in prison, and then remain free while remaining in prison?
I recall another story about a man who asked for forgiveness while acknowledging that the capital punishment that he was undergoing was entirely just. He wasn't magicked off his cross at that point, but he was given a pretty cool promise, and I'd estimate the impact of his dying words are far greater than anything that I'll do with my law-abiding, unimprisoned threescore and ten.
If restorative justice means that the criminal must acknowledge his criminality fully, would we not expect such a fully repentant criminal to expect to stay locked up forever for a truly awful crime? If parole were possible for such a man, would its possibility not lead us to question whether any demonstration of repentance was genuine? The human legal system, along with just about every other human institution, is miserable at discerning what is in a man's heart. Do we want to put such inherently impossible and enormously risky decisions in hands that will inevitably fail?
In The Shawshank Redemption (and those who haven't read Robert Jewett's superb sermon on that movie in one of his St. Paul and the Movies books surely need to), Morgan Freeman's character is finally deemed ready for parole when he acknowledges that he will never be truly "rehabilitated." That was a clever move on Stephen King's part, in a movie all about redemption and with a view of the same that is, in the end, provocative, flawed but with some worthy insights.
This is the problem with left-right dialogue: too many false choices in which the left claims the moral high ground but really claims the illogical and naive ground. To keep a man locked up for his entire natural life is not the opposite of seeking his restoration or acknowledging it if it comes. It is to reckon with the real nature of evil and the real nature of redemption, as well as with the ability of human institutions to deal with both.
Define "restorative justice." Justice is punishment. Restoration is the opposite.
Punishment is external and forced. Restoration is internal and voluntary.
Punishment is deserved, regardless of whether restoration has occurred or not.
Restoration is extraordinarily rare. Criminal recidivism is extraordinarily high. And parole by definition ignores the "debt to society" aspect of punishment.
Parole is a liberal experiment that has failed over and over, but liberals frequently return to the vomit and lap it up.
Define "restorative justice." Justice is punishment. Restoration is the opposite.
I'm not sure they are exactly opposites. Rather, I believe restoration can occur while "justice is being done." Simply because a person loses their freedom should not be a cause to assume they have no value whatsoever other than to "pay their debt to society."
Punishment is external and forced. Restoration is internal and voluntary.
Agreed. I am not so naive to assume that restoration will work for all.
Punishment is deserved, regardless of whether restoration has occurred or not.
Granted, an individual who commits a crime should face punishment. However, I do not believe that their criminal act should define them--which is often what occurs within the American justice system.
Restoration is extraordinarily rare. Criminal recidivism is extraordinarily high. And parole by definition ignores the "debt to society" aspect of punishment.
Recidivism is high and restoration rare, but these are facts not because opportunities for restoration are available, but rather that they are not.
In addition, about 50% of the U.S. prison population (less than 10% are for violent offenses such as murder), which is one of the highest for industrialized nations per capita, is made up of "white collar criminals." Granted, this case does not involve one of those criminals, but we are talking about the justice system as a whole. "White collar criminals" would be defined as those individuals who are serving time for minor drug offenses (or are victims of "3 strikes and your out" rules) and monetary crimes (fraud, burglary, etc). So, are we to assume that these individuals, who do have a high rate of recidivism, would not benefit from any sort of restorative process whereby they were able to learn a trade or better themselves in order to become a useful part of society?
Parole is a liberal experiment that has failed over and over, but liberals frequently return to the vomit and lap it up.
I find it interesting that you call parole a failure when many would call the prison system a failure.
An individual leaves incarceration having lived a regimented life with no freedom for personal choices and faces a world where he/she needs money to survive immediately. Now, if they have had no opportunity to grow personally (and vocationally) and are immediately discriminated against in the work place for their criminal history, is it any wonder that recidivism is high.
Wow! I said that there are too many false choices between left and right, and then Anonymous goes and proves my point in the very next comment! Dustin seems to be getting my point, however, at least much of it.
I personnaly say throw away the key and let him rot, but I'm not in the best mindset to be dolling out justice right now, but thats my humble opinion.
Dustin,
Thanks for defining restorative justice. It's all so clear now.
Inventing lofty sounding phrases doesn't do anything but sound like pure puffery. Prior examples: peace dividend, compassionate conservatism, affirmative action, and earned income tax credit.
Since you go on to say that restoration and justice can happen simultaneously, you admit my most fundamental point: they are two different things, completely independent of each other.
The prison system and the parole system have spent billions, if not trillions in the last 50 years, in "correctional" and "rehabilative" programs that have had very little, if any success.
Prisoners in most states get free college educations and free vocational training. There are numerous training programs for the transition back to normal life, inside prison, during parole, and after.
Recidivism is still extraordinarily high.
I find the simple assertions of the factless highly comical. My earlier post was conceptual, but based on the most basic of historical facts.
Dustin, you assert that these programs don't exist, that people just walk out of prison, that there isn't a multi-billion dollar system to "help" prisoners return to society. What????
That would be like asserting that there is no primary and secondary public education system in America, when in fact, the reality is that schools are everywhere, sucking up money, and largely failing at their primary mission.
There are relational programs (anger mgt, conflict resolution,etc.), job programs, skill programs, counseling, drug programs, housing programs. The list is endless.
Restoration can only be facilitated. Punishment can be implemented. The state is good (relatively speaking) at mandates. That's why God wanted the state in charge of justice here on earth. Nowhere do we find in the Bible or in history where the government is good at something it can't simply mandate and enforce.
Governments are good at force (which by the way makes them very, very dangerous). Restoration can't be forced. Churches are good at restoration. Christians are good at restoration (in 1 on 1 relationships).
Of course restoration can happen at the same time as punishment. Chuck Colson is an example. They aren't chronological opposites, but conceptual (external versus internal).
Who said the criminal act defines a criminal? They owe a debt. They should pay it. The state should make them pay it. And further, the state has an obligation to protect the public with meaningful punishment (as a initial deterrent, and the lost opportunity to commit crimes while they sit in jail). Letting people out early destroys both.
Your definition of "white collar" gives me a belly laugh. The next time I see a drug dealer at the office, I'll let you know. Sure the prisons are full of drug dealers, and the war on drugs is a colossal and expensive failure. It should be abandoned. But us putting them in prison up to this point has nothing to do with the kinds of behaviors and choices that got them there in the first place.
Felons tend to be discriminated against in the work place because they make terrible workers, and place extraordinary physical and financial risk on the employers. And they are short-timers, in part because they are likely headed back to prison soon.
I am all for compassion as individuals and the church as a whole reach out to individuals. I am all against the state wholesale letting people out of jail (before their punishment ends) and calling it compassion. It's not compassion. It's liberal lunacy. It's the government forsaking it's primary responsibility. It's the government trying to do (restoration) what it has demonstrated over and over that it cannot do well. And it's a slap in the face to former and future victims.
Anonymous,
I find it interesting that you have yet to identify yourself--what, no I don't find it all the interesting or surprising.
In addition, I think you paint with a broad neo-conservative brush which ignores the individual, regardless of whether they are a criminal or not, and you come off as someone who personally has a personal 'beef' with such things.
I've never asserted that criminals shouldn't "pay" for their crimes. Rather, I believe our criminal justice system is broken and a failure.
Parole isn't the reason recidivism is high--what's to stop a person from returning to a life of crime who served their full sentence rather than 2/3s. It's an illogical argument which doesn't ring true throughout.
We both can agree that the system is broken--we just have very different ideas as to what's wrong, why and what the solution is.
Oh, and I find your condescending tone so conducive to educated debate.
You've been reading too much of SWNID's writings.
Thanks for defining restorative justice.
Thanks for dodging the issue...
...and with that, I'll consider our conversation complete.
As complete as your definition
Dustin, you use "neo-conservative" like it's a badge of dishonor. Let us not forget such notables as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, one of the original neo-conservatives who is also at least beatified in the hagiography of the Democratic Party and its center-left constituency.
Let us also remember that "neo-conservative" is in present political taxonomy a referent to a particular approach to foreign policy, namely the idea that the US military can be used judiciously to promote American interests and security by overthrowing dangerous dictatorships and allowing democracy to replace them. How does that view of foreign policy affect a person's view of imprisonment?
We are reminded again of how difficult it is to apply labels to people. Once upon a time it was an insult to say, "Your mother wears army boots." I believe most people would see that as a compliment today, or at least they should.
SWNID,
The only problem being that "neo-conservative" didn't originate necessarily as simply a way to describe one way of "doing" foreign policy. That may be it's place in today's vernacular, but isn't necessarily historical. It wasn't simply limited to foreign policy, but also included positions on domestic and economic affairs.
Well, not really. When "neo-conservative" was first coined in the 70s, it referred not to a view but to certain people who held "conservative" views but had previously been New-Deal liberals. Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Patrick Moynahan would be examples. In that usage, it's the person, not the position that is neo-conservative.
More recently the term has been revived as a label both for a view and for those who hold it, namely the notion that the military should be used to overthrow hostile dictatorships and set up democracies. Hence, Iraq.
Of course, that point of view has now been so consistently ridiculed by the left that the term has become for the left a means of labeling a person or a point of view contemptible.
Your usage seems to reflect that. I'd say that a keen news editor would not let stand the term being applied to a viewpoint unless it was the one I explained, which has nothing to do with prisons.
Post a Comment