Image via Wikipedia
Ra’s Al Ghul: “Gotham’s time has come. Like Constantinople or Rome before it the city has become a breeding ground for suffering and injustice. It is beyond saving and must be allowed to die. This is the most important function of the League of Shadows. It is one we’ve performed for centuries. Gotham… must be destroyed.”
And once more…….
Ra’s Al Ghul: “Justice is balance. You burned my house and left me for dead. Consider us even.”
As well as……
Ra’s Al Ghul: “If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart.”
Then, heed the words of Rachel Dawes, friend of Bruce Wayne.
Bruce Wayne: “My parents deserved justice.”
Rachel Dawes: “You’re not talking about justice. You’re talking about revenge.”
Bruce Wayne: “Sometimes they’re the same.”
Rachel Dawes: “No, they’re never the same. Justice is about harmony. Revenge is about you making yourself feel better, which is why we have an impartial system.”
EXCURSUS:
Carson T. Clark used the movie example of Back To the Future as a way to make a case for Just Policing, over pacifism and Just War ) even though he said he sympathized more with proponents of nonviolence such as Stanley Hauerwas. I liked Carson’s post because it was honest, and in the comment section, he admitted to still agreeing with Retributive justice, something counter to the Christian non-violent tradition.
Retributive justice (Justice as revenge, stabbing people in the heart if they get in the way) is what is right is seen as revenge in order to degrade the victimizer, this is retributive justice. Retributive justice and the Prison-Industrial-Complex go hand and hand. Retribution in the criminal justice system include but not exclusively, capital punishment, harsh imprisonment sentences for drug sentences (without chances to go to rehabilitation first), and three-strikes and you’re out laws.
However, Christian nonviolent advocates offer a more Gospel-centered approach, for truly only God is impartial enough to offer retributive justice, that is why Paul says that vengeance is the Lord’s.
Restorative Justice is about restoring human dignity in both. Justice is used as a tool to transform the offender into someone who benefits her/himself, her/his communities, as well as society in general.
The one thing that I would challenge persons who think like Rachel Dawes is the notion that our system is impartial. Evidence shows that time and again, the bodies of people of color are more likely to get the death penalty, more likely to get harsher sentences for drug crimes (rather than rehabilitation) and more likely to drop out of school. Partially it is because of individual choices, but it is also do in part to the school systems being caught up in the Prison Industry (modeling its modes of discipline as such) as well as lagging behind when it comes to using technology as well as attending to other forms of learning. Restorative Justice advocated by Christians is about inclusion, and recognizing the Imago Dei in everyone, including violators of the law. Did not Jesus die as an executed criminal, and did he not preach the gospel to those suffering capital punishment as he laid dying on that rugged cross? It is something to think about.
For more reading an example of this Restorative Justice, see James Samuel Logan’s Good Punishment?: Christian Moral Practice and U.S. Imprisonment.
Related articles
- ‘The Social Network’ Star Joining Batman (huffingtonpost.com)
Greetings. Let me unpack my thoughts just a bit…
Generally speaking, there are 5 common views for the purpose of incarceration (in no particular order):
1. Retribution – The person get what he or she deserves.
2. Restoration – Righting the wrong.
3. Deterrence – Prevent crime by keeping the person off the street.
4. Denunciation – Setting an example for society.
5. Rehabilitation – Turn the person into a safe, law-abiding system.
All I’m saying is that I think #1 is valid. Not *more* valid, but valid.
Two more thoughts:
1. In many areas of life, I distinguish between the role and behavior of the church and the government. For example, I believe adultery is morally wrong and believe it should be met with strong church discipline for Christians. I don’t think, however, there should be a law against it. There is certainly overlap with natural law, but I don’t think the moral code of the church should be pressed upon society at large to “Christianize” society. Returning to this issue of punishment, I apply this standard not just moral standards but also punishment. I tend to think that the church and individual Christians should be much more forgiving and non-violent, but I think the government serves a different purpose and may need to be more severe. Yes, I realize this gets complicated in a hurry for Christians living within a representative democracy. This is where my thoughts reflect political/cultural Lutheranism rather than the Catholic, Reformed, or Anabaptist traditions.
2. In a blood thirsty society such as our own, I do think we should stand to be *much* more peaceful. Against that backdrop, it appears I have much more in common conceptually with Anabaptists than I do other groups. It’d be like a Japanese-American standing in a small group of Chinese-Americans in a location full of Caucasians. In the eyes of the majority, all the Asians look virtually the same. Yet among the Chinese themselves, the person looks definitively Japanese.
3. As Christians I think we should stand to be *much* more discerning in the relationship between our temporal, earthly citizenship and our eternal, heavenly citizenship. No, I’m not calling for a Dispensational false dichotomy between heaven and earth. I believe the news heavens and new earth refers to the restoration of God’s original creation, and I think there really is a profound NT challenge in being in the world but not of it. What I’m saying is that we, i.e. Christians, should understand our identity primarily in covental terms. In referring back to the Abrahamic Covenant, 1 Peter 2 says that we are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people.” Why? “[I]n order that [we] may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.”
4. Practical result: I will not swear my unconditional loyalty to anyone but Christ and His Kingdom, and thus would not have taken part in most wars in American history. (Sounds like the Anabaptist perspective.) Yet I do think there are rare occurrences when the needs of society align with those of God’s Kingdom. (Sounds like the Reformed perspective.) One such example is WWII, in my estimate. I would have fought in that war.
5. Clearly I see redeeming and commendable elements in the Lutheran, Anabaptist, and Reformed traditions. I think the hegemonic view of Catholicism (coming straight out of Medieval times) made since practically given the historical circumstances, but is in fact awful.
*Pardon me to not proof-reading. Time to go on a walk w/ my sick wife.
Hey Carson,
Just some initial responses:
On your points about the 5 forms of justice-
“1. Retribution – The person get what he or she deserves.
2. Restoration – Righting the wrong.
3. Deterrence – Prevent crime by keeping the person off the street.
4. Denunciation – Setting an example for society.
5. Rehabilitation – Turn the person into a safe, law-abiding system.”
The logic of Retribution and Deterrence go hand in hand; take the death penalty for instance. The government sets itself up as knowing what the criminal deserves, how much a life is worth, and uses the death penalty on the behalf of the victim (revenge) and to deter murders from happening. As Christians, we believe like Paul said that Vengeance is the Lord’s because of the fact that only God can determine the value of human life, and not human beings.
Likewise, Restoration and Rehabilitation go together because the humanity of the criminal is recognized.
Onto your 5 thoughts:
On #1, I agree on all points, but to stretch you further, the Church is free to witness to God’s Will for our sexual practices. Whether it be in forms of abstinence programs at secular public schools or mother/son balls (which should happen rather than just father/daughters), the Church exists as a salt and light. I believe ferverently in separation of church and state, that is why thee needs to be no money from government coffers into congregations, this includes “faith based initiatives.”
On #2, I get what you are saying, that Christians should give an alternative to “the world” but i would hesitate to use the Japanese/Chinese metaphor to get my point across, perhaps its like 2 baseball teams playing the same sports, one depends on sacrifices, the other depends on power hitting, something like that.
On #3, Yes, I agree, but I would say that the new creation is NEW because of the blood shed and resurrection of Christ, that God experiences death through the Son initiates a new experience, we can never turn back to the old creation and order of things, but a new order has been put in place (I get this from Bonhoeffer).
On #4, I would agree our allegiance to alone is to Christ. As for WWII, I do not know what I would have done. Perhaps it would not have been necessary if Teddy Roosevelt had had 3 terms and Woodrow Wilson never became president during WWI (the league of nations fiasco).
On #5, you are sounding more like Bonhoeffer. Have you read any? If not, I would recommend you do. He re-interpreted the Reformed, Lutheran, and Anabaptist traditions to oppose the Nazi religion and politics of his day.
“Retribution – The person get what he or she deserves”
Thank you for providing a more accurate definition of retributive justice than “stabbing people in the heart if they get in the way”.
And by “Two thoughts” I mean “Five Thoughts.”