Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Pangea Blog

Home

Home
Progressive Christian
Changing our Lenses on Crime and Punishment – a restorative justice view

Changing our Lenses on Crime and Punishment – a restorative justice view

Last updated on: February 12, 2014 at 5:57 pm by Kurt Willems

Changing our Lenses on Crime and Punishment – a restorative justice view 2014-02-12T17:57:05-08:00 Kurt Willems

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

My friend Ben Corey wrote a great set of blogs on our justice system and the connection to theology. His blog, How a Poor Theology of the Cross Created America’s Broken Justice System, frames the discussion well…. read, read, read it! In the following blog post, I want to come alongside the great work that he did last week on Restorative Justice by pointing to the best introduction to the issue – Changing Lenses.

Changing Lenses – A New Focus for Crime and Punishment by Howard Zehr, invites readers to do exactly that: change lenses. The lenses through which we view our world, particularly our paradigm of “criminal justice” needs to be cleaned up or changed completely. Zehr brilliantly demonstrates this. I want to articulate an overview of the book and build in some reflections along the way. This is mostly for my benefit as I have not done much academic work on restorative justice, but believe in it profoundly.

Speaking of lenses as paradigms, Zehr points readers to a foundational understanding: “Our understandings of what is possible and impossible are based on our constructions of reality” (89). In other words, the easy thing to do is to assume that the way we construct concepts about justice in the modern West, is the way it must be. Zehr takes up the challenge of confronting this assumption by deconstructing a perspective called retributive justice. A summary of this view, which the West baptized, is:

When we identify something as a crime, a number of basic assumptions shape our responses. We assume that

Guilt must be fixed.

The guilty must get their “just deserts.”

Just deserts require the infliction of pain.

Justice is measured by the process.

The breaking of the law defines the offense. (65-66)

In this system of law (which the United States holds to), guilt must be fixed to an individual in light of their offense. This guilt, which is based on an abstract law that was offended (notice that it lacks relationality between the victim and offender), must be appeased through the designation of consequences. The focus is the appeasement of the law not the repairing of the relational breach between the people who were part of the incident and the community the crime affected. To get at this understanding a bit more and with the intention of communicating some thoughts from Zehr about the alternative of restorative justice, it will be productive to look at the victim and offender.

Zehr persuasively argues that victims ought “to be at the center of the justice process with their needs as the major focus” (30). This is true in light of six questions that victims need to answer in order to find healing after the offense. 1) What happened? 2) Why did it happen to me? 3) Why did I act as I did at the time? 4) Why have I acted as I have since that time? 5) What if this happens again? 6) What does this mean for me and my outlook (my faith, my vision of the world, my future)? (26-27). During the process of figuring out these questions, victims need to be able to safely express their emotions and be given ways to feel empowered. Victimization dehumanizes and what these folks need most is to restore a sense of full humanness. But the process as it stands removes victims from the proceedings except as a witness toward guilt of the abstract law. Zehr adds:

[Victims] are frequently astonished to find that charges can be either pursued or dropped without regard to victims’ wishes and that they are provided little information about the case. Such neglect of victims not only fails to meet their needs: it compounds the injury. Many speak of a “second victimization” by criminal justice personnel and processes. The question of personal power is central here. Part of the dehumanizing nature of victimization by crime is the way it robs victims of power. Instead of returning power to them by allowing them to participate in the justice process, the legal system compounds the injury by again denying power. Instead of helping, the process hurts (30-31).

When it comes to the offender, the default in our court system is to send people to prison. Rather than jail being a last resort, it’s the first response. The language of accountability often gets sited to justify the need for so many offenders to spend long amounts of time in jail. Essentially, what our system does is extract them from the circumstances/communities to which they ought to be seeking various forms of restitution. But again, because of the disconnect between their crime and the victim of the offense, jail does not lead to accountability at all. Consequence, yes; accountability, hardly. “Offenders rarely are encouraged or allowed to see the real human costs of what they have done” (41). This situation leads them into the hostile position of defending themselves against an abstract law. So, instead of having the opportunity to deal with the guilt associated with the offense, they are sent to prison where they “often construct elaborate rationalizations for their actions” (40). In this way, the system of retributive justice allows offenders to justify their actions rather than the possibility of confronting their own evil in light of the victim.

Restorative justice is a relational journey that has as its goal, reconciliation. For many, such a telos may seem to be stuck in the clouds of idealism. Ron Claassen is sited as demonstrating that we ought to understand reconciliation as a continuum, rather than a fixed outcome. In other words, some forms of reconciliation may simply mean that the conflict has been made right. The hope is that in any form of reconciliation that healing can occur, both for the victim and the offender. In doing so, accountability is set in relationship rather than abstract law (see 188-189).

Much more could be said about Changing Lenses and the restorative justice paradigm. Some wonderful examples, such as VORP, can be sited as demonstrating that this alternative approach actually works. Also, it seems to me that these two lenses inform many of the theological conflicts taking place in recent years. I would agree with the author that the primary biblical model of justice has to do with the breakdown of relationship that must be mended. Alienation must be repaired in light of the biblical narrative. The Bible has as a primary concern the need for broken people to find wholeness, which cannot take place outside of relationship. Restorative justice moves effectively in such a direction.

Previous Post

February 12, 2014

When Violence Hits Home: "sparing the rod," spanking, & peaceful parenting

Next Post

February 13, 2014 The Global Immersion Project - everyday peacemakers. global conflict. #IsraelPalestine

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category (Series) All Out War-Spiritual Warfare (Series) Church Plant Journal (Series) Dear Reader... (Series) Earthquakes...Signs of the Times? (Series) Entering the... Conversation (Series) Evangelical Culture Myths (Series) Everything is Meaningless [Pete Enns] (Series) Evolving Evangelicalism (Series) Hell Yes. Hell No! Who Cares? (Series) Hidden Worldviews (Series) If Evolution is Right, what about Adam? (Series) in less than 300 words (Series) Jesus and Nationalism (Series) Liberating Women for Ministry? (Series) Life-Changing Books (Series) Markers of Church Plant Movement (Series) Nonviolence 101 (Series) Philemon - Reconciliation (Series) Quote to Ponder (Series) Red Letter Dialogues (Series) Resource of the Week (SERIES) Revelation Sermons (Series) Share Something Sundays (Series) Simplicity in the Burbs: $2 a day (Series) The Binding of God [Open Theism] (Series) The Creed: Anabaptist Reflections (Series) Values for Church Leadership (Series) Video to Ponder Anabaptism Animal Advocacy Books Church Ministry Church Planting Community Culture Eschatology Eucharist Evangelical Reject Evolution Fundamentalism Greek Greg Boyd Guest Contributors Hell Holy Spirit Israel/Palestine Kingdom of God Lent Missional N. T. Wright Nationalism New Creation Nonviolence Open Mic Open Theism Parenting Passover Paul Philemon Podcast Politics Restorative Justice Revelation (the book of) Rob Bell Ron Martoia Sermon Shane Claiborne Social Justice Speaking Engagement Spiritual Warfare Spirituality Temple Theology Tim Geddert Tribulation Uncategorized universalism Video Blog Women in Ministry Worship Music Youth Ministry

Select a Month August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 October 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 December 2016 October 2016 August 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"

Select your answer to see how you score.

Job Jeremiah Moses Solomon

Support this
Column