The media has made much of the Conservative government's promise to crack down on violent crime and impose mandatory sentencing on perpetrators. The arguments in the press usually focus on whether the proposal is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors or whether it will be effective in stopping violent crime.
A deeper issue is to examine the purpose of our actions following a transgression. Is it mainly to provide punishment as a deterrent or is it to work with the perpetrators to rehabilitate them and bring them back into the community as respected and contributing members?
If the real objective is to provide a deterrent then locking people away is not very effective, as many serious studies have shown. If the object is to terrify observers not to fall into the same temptation, I suppose a public flogging would be much more effective. The idea of the same mandatory punishment for certain crimes, while having the veneer of equality, fails to take into account the particular circumstances involved. A wise judge, using discretion, can be discerning so that the punishment fits the particular circumstance connected to the crime within broader parameters.
Mandatory sentencing sounds good to those who are looking for an easy answer without looking to the reality of real people in real circumstances. Mandatory sentencing is about keeping people in institutions. If the Conservative policy is vigorously applied, the resulting costs to operate prisons (currently approximately $85,000 a year for every inmate) will draw funds away from social programs, like improved education, health care and those addressing child poverty, which reduce crime. Incarceration is poor stewardship of both money and human resources. I suspect if we took that amount of money and promised to pay it to the inmates in monthly installments if they kept away from crime we would have a better result than we have now. Our current trend is wasteful and lazy. It takes neither faith nor imagination to simply lock them up and throw away the key.
In the church as well, when people are caught up in a transgression we tend to follow the ways of the world. We defrock them and toss them out of the community rather than do anything to rehabilitate them. I am not advocating that those who transgress get off scot-free. The consequences we impose now are not ones that lead to openness and rehabilitation but to long-term debilitation. What I propose is a more intensive community involvement. What if instead of tossing people away we recycled them? What if we took the considerable resources already expended, and applied them to rehabilitation instead of punishment? There will always be a need to keep the public safe and there may be some perpetrators who are unable or unwilling to work for their own rehabilitation — for them we would keep a few spaces in institutions where they would be kept separate from the community.
For fallen clergy or for others there would be a commission (in the secular community it could be a support committee made up of professionals and volunteers) to whom the perpetrator would be accountable. The one being rehabilitated would not simply be flung to his/her own resources but, depending on the degree of seriousness and possible threat to the community, there would be a gradual increase in freedom that corresponded to the growing sense of rehabilitation.
The covenant would include all areas of the person's social life, training, treatment and anything else felt to be relevant. The commission would act as a mentor and encourager for a new life, and bring healing and help for transgressors to develop their God-given gifts and become a productive part of their community.
Especially in the church we need to go after the sinners and bring them back to the fold. What I'm urging is restorative justice which is described by the Church Council on Justice and Corrections as “one of a wide range of emerging justice approaches that aim for more healing and satisfying responses to crime. While each approach is different, these processes try to give active participation to those directly involved or affected. Together they sort out matters of accountability, safety and the need for a fair and meaningful course of action.”
