Should a Christian world not have punishment for crime?

[souldiver]

For example, crimes like rape, murder, torture, molestation. Should they be forgiven? Banished or something lighter? Isn’t a Christian taught to be forgiving?

 

[Usige]

Yes, they should be forgiven, but punishment is also about justice and civil safety.

The civil safety is the easier to understand. There are certain personality types that would continue to commit crime if there was no punishment. In those cases an orderly society needs to incarcerate them for the safety of society.

Justice is the one that can be harder for some to grasp. In the Bible we see that even Moses is punished for doubting the word of God. While God forgives him, he is not allowed to enter the promised land. This is not retribution, but justice. Justice seeks to right the wrongs an individual has done to God or individuals by giving them their due. In certain cases it is not possible to provide restitution so punishment is a form of temporal restitution (exchanging time or money for the victims loss). Justice is also one of the four cardinal virtues. To simply ignore crime would be unjust.

 

[St_Francis]

It is true that we should be forgiving, but consider what it means to forgve, and whether it requires that one ignore the demands of justice?

 

[JD1789]

It would be against mercy to ignore justice. Just like a child who is never justly disciplined for their actions will suffer, the same goes for all. Justice often leads to mercy as a way of forming us towards being better people. Sometimes people have fallen so far that being locked up in order that they can no longer commit terrible acts is merciful.

 

[JerryZ]

Exactly! As others stated punishing a crime is a matter of justice. Now let’s consider the status of the world prior to the coming of Jesus.

Most human groups had already grasped the concept of justice in one way or another. Even the most isolated tribes in the planet had some concept of justice.

Consider the way they exacted this justice however, the majority of examples we have in the historical record is some kind of eye for eye / tooth for a tooth concept. If you killed someone the retribution would have been death. And in these cases justice is somehow combined with the concept of retribution/revenge.

Enter Jesus, now our concept has changed. We no longer seek revenge or retribution we simply seek justice. We are required to forgive even the evil doers that does not mean that we should just let them go free and commit more crimes. That would be unjust to our fellow members of society.
What has changed is that we as Christians should not seek the death of these evildoers.
In fact the last Popes have all advocated the elimination of the death penalty, not because it is immoral, but simply because we can segregate these very dangerous criminals from society and since the potential of them causing more harm TO society has been virtually eliminated.

Notice, that the Popes, do not buy the notion, that keeping a very dangerous criminal, incarcerated for the rest of his/her human existence, with the consequent cost to society, is a valid excuse for killing them instead. Rather, that the value of human life, is too great and since we can separate the evildoers from society, that is sufficient justice from society’s part.
We leave the final judgement to GOD as to the final destination of every one.

…

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

For example, crimes like rape, murder, torture, molestation. Should they be forgiven? Banished or something lighter? Isn’t a Christian taught to be forgiving?

Forgiveness is a moral concept, not a civil one. It is not within the competence of civil law to “forgive” a wrong-doer; only the victim would be in a position to do that. But say someone robs a home and suffers no consequences because the law “forgives” him. Then he does it a second time. What would you say to the second person whose home was robbed? What would be the justification for a society to expose its citizens to hordes of evil-doers who commit crime at will with no consequences?

 

[Jon_S_1]

For example, crimes like rape, murder, torture, molestation. Should they be forgiven? Banished or something lighter? Isn’t a Christian taught to be forgiving?

Forgiveness does not mean there is no consequence.

If you break my window I can forgive you but my window is still broken and needs fixing and justice would require you to do that work.

The common good of society requires that people be protected and that justice be delivered to those who harm others.

When a rapist is put in jail, he is “banished” to prison to protect society and hopefully rehabilitate the individual. This is merciful for both society and the individual.

Your point is true though in regard to vengeance or revenge seeking in punishments. That should be avoided.

 

[TK421]

Most of the time, forgiveness and reparation are not only compatible with one another, but they are demanded.

i.e. a parent that doesn’t instill consequences for a child’s errant behavior is committing cruelty against the child, and is harmful to their formation.

In the case of civil affairs from adults, reparations need to be made for crime, and in worse scenarios, people need to be protected from a verbally/sexually/physically dangerous person.

But yes, you are correct that society often has a confused understanding of what justice is, especially perhaps in the US, which has a drug addiction to violence & state-sponsored revenge, which produces an environment of repeat crime & uncharity. A criminal isn’t 1% less of a human being than anybody else. They are not objects for us to unload our baser instincts upon.

Any “punishment” in this life can hardly be called punishment at all. Punishment is in the hereafter.

 

[peter26]

Serious crime demands punishment both as a means of protecting society and as a means of correcting an individual’s behaviour. It is not merciful to allow a murderer to walk the streets, it may be merciful to him but what about everyone else? And if done properly, putting someone in prison may even be beneficial - the could be required to engage in rehabilitation, anger management or basic education while there.

 

[ClearWater]

For example, crimes like rape, murder, torture, molestation. Should they be forgiven? Banished or something lighter? Isn’t a Christian taught to be forgiving?

One thing is forgiving. The other is letting someone out of jail.

Take Pope John Paul II. He forgave the guy who shot him, embraced him, but that doesn’t mean the pope said the man should go free or take him to live in the Vatican.

You can forgive someone but leave him in jail for the safety of society.

 

[HelenRose]

A person who has been abused by a family member is called upon to forgive. However, this does not mean the same as enabling. To forgive does not mean to allow further abuse.

 

[CRATUS]

Yes Christians should be forgiving. Ultimately God punishes sin for a reason. If we do not punish or have any consequences for transgressions, then we are condoning it. That’s the way I see it. If we do not hold someone accountable for raping someone, what is that say about rape or to the rape victim? St. Maria Goretti was raped. She fully forgave her rapist but he still had to go to jail. God is a God of both mercy and justice.

 

[mikekle]

The problem is though, the whole point of laws and punishment is a deterrence to commit the crimes, example would be, for decades now, the punishment for running a traffic light is a citation and a fine…but obviously, people still commit this crime over and over, even though they know what the consequences are, so its clear the punishment is not effective at stopping or even decreasing the crime. The same is true for many other crimes/ punishments, many have been the same exact thing for decades or more

You would think after a period of time, someone should suggest a new method of punishment, one that would decrease or stop the offenses from happening.

In todays world, there is no such thing as starting over with a clean slate, once someone has any kind of criminal conviction on their record, life is very tough from then on, even if they abide by every law, they are held to their past crimes for LIFE…Now that is wrong, I believe convictions should automatically be erased after 10-15 yrs or so, or once the person proves they have truly cleaned up, its going to be different for everyone too, some do it quickly, others, it takes longer for them to learn, the law should be flexible in this regard.

The definition of ‘insanity’ is expecting a different result when doing the same thing over and over again.

 

[ericc]

The problem is though, the whole point of laws and punishment is a deterrence to commit the crimes, example would be, for decades now, the punishment for running a traffic light is a citation and a fine…but obviously, people still commit this crime over and over, even though they know what the consequences are, so its clear the punishment is not effective at stopping or even decreasing the crime. The same is true for many other crimes/ punishments, many have been the same exact thing for decades or more

You would think after a period of time, someone should suggest a new method of punishment, one that would decrease or stop the offenses from happening.

In todays world, there is no such thing as starting over with a clean slate, once someone has any kind of criminal conviction on their record, life is very tough from then on, even if they abide by every law, they are held to their past crimes for LIFE…Now that is wrong, I believe convictions should automatically be erased after 10-15 yrs or so, or once the person proves they have truly cleaned up, its going to be different for everyone too, some do it quickly, others, it takes longer for them to learn, the law should be flexible in this regard.

Unfortunately evil knows no bounds. In some countries those who steal get their hands chopped off. For rape, castration. For murder and drug trafficking, capital punishment. Yet people still do it. Obviously drastic punishments do have a deterrent effect and that keeps the crime rate down. No it doesn’t deter all. You have those hard core that are not cowed by such penalties. But I’d suppose the majority of would-be criminals do think about consequences and take the less delicious course. The risk-reward trade-off makes it uneconomical to do the wrong thing. But it is recognised that societal laws are meant for the general public and not customised for each individual behaviour.

And governments do hire specialists to tweak such laws. And there are limitations of economics that would not allow “best” remedies and so trade-offs are expected to obtain best bang for the buck. I guess if you have a better proposal that cost less, government departments would like to hear about it. Internet forums are not very effective to change such policies. So write in to them or get the public behind you. Change? Yes we can?

The definition of ‘insanity’ is expecting a different result when doing the same thing over and over again.

Rarely it is doing the same thing. Usually it is fine-tuning. Adjusting the recipe so to speak. The institutions normally do not reward revolutionaries. An experiment that goes wrong and didn’t get expected results usually mean the end of career of bureaucrats. The public will demand blood. So how would you implement changes that the nature of it doesn’t guarantee success as it is dealing with human behaviour? How many organizations can afford such experiments where the budgets can go to other equally or more beneficial causes? There are many many competing for scare resources.

 

[Ender]

Exactly! As others stated punishing a crime is a matter of justice.

This is true: justice is the primary objective of all punishment.

Consider the way they exacted this justice however, the majority of examples we have in the historical record is some kind of eye for eye / tooth for a tooth concept. If you killed someone the retribution would have been death. And in these cases justice is somehow combined with the concept of retribution/revenge.

What separates justice from revenge is who enacts the punishment. Punishment is the exclusive right of the state; the individual is forbidden to exact revenge.*And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. *(St. Bellarmine)

Enter Jesus, now our concept has changed. We no longer seek revenge or retribution we simply seek justice.

This is a misunderstanding of what retribution really is, because retributive justice is still the primary objective of punishment. Justice demands punishment in retribution for crimes.*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
“Redressing the disorder” is explained by the USCCB this way:
*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution *or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment

We are required to forgive even the evil doers that does not mean that we should just let them go free and commit more crimes.

The individual is obligated to forgive; the state is obligated to punish.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)

In fact the last Popes have all advocated the elimination of the death penalty, not because it is immoral, but simply because we can segregate these very dangerous criminals from society and since the potential of them causing more harm TO society has been virtually eliminated.

This is an important distinction: the popes have not opposed capital punishment because it is immoral. Rather they have opposed it because they consider it inadvisable.

Ender