The city of Harrisburg had the dubious distinction in 1991 of having the highest per capita crime rate in the state of Pennsylvania. It is also my home. Those two facts have come together several times for our family: one car was stolen and another broken into, and our house has been burglarized. While these incidents were relatively minor in the context of the whole crime scene, they illustrate some of the issues related to criminal justice.

One initial reaction was anger—how dare this person do this to me, to my family? Another response was fear and paranoia—will it happen again, and when? Yet another response was helplessness; especially in the case of the burglary, we knew that there was very little chance that police would ever find out who did it or recover the items that were stolen.

As we described to the police what had happened, however, something else emerged. Perhaps out of their own helplessness, we were transformed from being the victims of crime to being partly responsible for what had happened because we don’t have an elaborate security system in the house. The police had very little to offer us except some tips on how to prevent this from happening again, which while helpful felt like they were beside the point. Why should we be blamed for someone else’s wrongdoings?

Incidents like these, added to what seems like a veritable epidemic of violent crime, have contributed to the current political climate. Candidates for political office are judged on whether they are “soft” or “tough” on crime; new prisons are being built to house all those people who will be convicted and given harsh sentences. There is a “lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key” mentality. The desire to see criminals “get what they deserve” (usually defined in terms of a harsh prison sentence or the death penalty) infects even the most otherwise gentle people, including many Christians. Criminal justice is a controversial and complex topic to say the least

Crime and prisons in North America

Symptomatic of the vindictive mood of many people is the anti-crime bill passed by the United States Senate in July 1991. This bill would increase the crimes punishable buy death and add thousands to the federal prison system which is already at 150 percent of capacity. These measures are seen to be appropriate and necessary solutions to crime. But are they?

The population in federal and state prisons in the United States has increased more than 80 percent since 1980. Excluding political prisoners, the U.S. and Canada have the highest rates of incarceration among industrialized nations. Contrary to what may be popular belief, most people are not in prison for violent crimes which require their isolation from other people. Despite these high rates of imprisonment for a whole range of offenses, crime rates are not substantially decreasing. Prison does not seem to function well as a deterrent.

This is especially clear when one looks at the rate of repeat offenders, which in Canada is 80 percent and in the U.S. is about 60 percent. The prison experience does not rehabilitate offenders. In fact, the evidence suggests that it reinforces rather than breaks the behavioral patters that led to crime in the first place. Prison does not teach inmates to be nonviolent; it does not encourage offenders to see the cost of their actions in human terms; it does not teach decision-making or coping skills; it reinforces dependence. A 1977 Report to Parliament by the Sub-committee on the Penitentiary System in Canada said:

Incarceration has failed in its two essential purposes—correcting the offender and providing permanent protection to society….There is little in the system to stimulate inmates to reform, to correct the behavior and morality that brought them to prison…Before entering into a multi-million dollar construction program, less costly and more productive alternatives should be introduced.1

Prison is expensive. Prison costs in Canada, for example, are 10–15 times higher than community-based alternatives. The annual cost for each prisoner in both the U.S. and Canada has been estimated at anywhere from $25,000–$50,000, depending on the type of facility. For death-row inmates, the cost is even higher. The average cost for a person sentenced to death has been estimated at $2,000,000, compared to $300,000–$500,000 for a 30–year prison term.2

Isn’t there a better way? Does justice require harsh prison sentences? How can things be made right?

Understandings of crime and justice

An underlying question is, “What will make things right?” That, after all, is a basic meaning of justice. To answer the question, we can compare the current model for criminal justice with another alternative model. Howard Zehr, Direct of MCC U.S.’s Office of Criminal Justice, articulates the difference between what he calls “retributive justice” and “restorative justice.”

Legally the essence of the crime lies in breaking a law rather than the actual damage done. More importantly, the official victim is the state. . . . When a crime occurs, the state as victim decides what must be done, and the process of deciding focuses primarily on two questions: “Is the person guilty? If so, how much punishment does he or she deserve?” Our definition of crime and justice them might be summarized like this:

Crime is a violation of the state and its laws.
Justice establishes blame
and administers pain
through a contest between offender and state.

This way of viewing crime might be called “retributive justice.” It has little place for victims, uses what some scholars have called a “battle model” for settling things, and, because it is centered so heavily on establishing blame, looks primarily to the past rather than the future. It assumes that punishment or pain, usually in the form of a prison term, is the normal outcome. . . .

An alternate understanding of crime and justice might look something like this:

Crime is a violation of people and their relationships.
Justice identifies needs and obligations
so that things can be made right
through a process which encourages dialogue and involves both victims and offenders.

A restorative approach to justice would understand that the essence of crime is a violation of people and of harmonious relations between them. Instead of asking first of all, “Who ‘done’ it? What should they get?” (and rarely going beyond this), a restorative approach to justice would ask, “Who has been hurt? What can be done to make things right, and whose responsibility is it?” True justice would have as its goals restoration, reconciliation and responsibility rather than retribution.3

Biblical perspectives

Many Christians, firmly believing that God is in fact committed to reconciliation, nonetheless also believe that god allows and advocates retributive justice. Beginning with God’s covenant with Noah after the flood in which the death penalty for murder is established (Genesis 9:6), and continuing with the penalties commanded for breaking a variety of laws (see Lev. 20, Lev. 24:17–22; Exodus 21), punishment rather than restoration seems to be normative. These passages and others form at least part of the basis for our North American system of justice. Even the New Testament, especially Romans 13, tells us that punishment for wrongdoing is appropriate. God and a civilized social order require those who violate the law and victimize other people to be punished, to pay a price for their crimes.

But that’s not the whole story of the Bible, or even of the Old Testament from where we generally gather support for our retributive system. Earlier than God’s covenant with Noah was God’s promise to Cain that he would not allow him to be killed for killing Abel (Gen. 4:15). When Abraham bargained with God on behalf of the few righteous people of Sodom and Gomorrah, God was merciful and agreed to reduce the penalty if five righteous people could be found (Gen. 18).

The principle of “an eye for an eye” is often cited as a guide for how we ought to mete our punishment. It is a principle, however, which limited punishment and revenge. In a society ruled by the “law of Lamech” (revenge up to 77 times; Gen. 4:23–24), limits were placed—punishment could only go as far as matching the offense. Further, there are strong hints even in the Old Testament of the eventual replacement of the “eye for an eye” principle with “love your enemy.” Leviticus 19 lists various laws, including this one: “Do not seek revenge on bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (v.18). Proverbs echoes this theme: “If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat” (25:21); “Do not say, ‘I’ll do to him as he has done to me’” (24:29).

Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 4 and 19, and Joshua 20 all describe cities of refuge which were established to provide a haven for people who had unintentionally killed some-one. While the cities of refuge apparently didn’t accept those who had deliberately or maliciously committed murder, they did set limits on unlimited revenge for wrongs suffered. Most importantly, over and over again God dealt with the sin and disobedience of the people of Israel not only by punishing them but also by forgiving them and never giving up on them. That model of forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration continues into the New Testament.

While the “law of Lamech” suggested unlimited revenge, Jesus used the same numbers to describe virtually unlimited forgiveness (various translations of Matt. 18:21–22 read “seventy-seven times” or “seventy times seven”; see also Luke 17:3–4). And while the Old Testament provided for mercy primarily for “your own kind” (your neighbor, your people), Jesus extended mercy even to enemies and broadened the definition of neighbor (Matt. 5:21–26, 38–48; Luke 6:27–36; Luke 10:25–37). Further, he demonstrated this kind of mercy and forgiveness in his own life as he faced the death penalty at the hands of his enemies. He prayed for them, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).

According to the writer to the Hebrews, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross did away with the need for continuing sacrifice to atone for sin: “’Their sins and lawlessness acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10:17–18).

Peter and Paul also write that forgiveness, love and reconciliation are the models for how we treat people who have wronged us. Paul says, “Do not repay anyone evil for evil….Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath….Do not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:17–21). Peter describes the model shown by Jesus: “When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:23).

One conclusion, perhaps not final or absolute, that we might draw from Scripture is that while God does require restitution for wrongdoing (whether by punishment or some other form of “making things right”), God also asks his people to forgive and to reconcile—even under the most difficult circumstances.

Brethren in Christ perspectives

The traditional Brethren in Christ view on criminal justice seems to fit more with the model of restorative justice than with the retributive justice that characterizes our current system. Carlton Wittlinger notes in Quest for Piety and Obedience that the early Anabaptists were opposed to capital punishment (p.6). Belief in nonresistance

caused the brotherhood to reject participation in activities through which the government exercised the internal police power. Members could not consistently serve on juries or in the police force, both of which they conceived to be coercive in nature and which could result in the taking of human life. The Brethren also held that going to law was contrary to the gospel; it involved the use of coercion to secure personal rights.4

In the intervening years, this view has moderated; serving on juries or on the police force, for example is now more acceptable. But in keeping with the historic aversion to coercion and taking human life by any means, the 1974 study paper, “The Church, War, and Respect for Human Life,” also argued against capital punishment:

The Old Testament teaching about life for life is rooted more in the notions of expiation to the Creator for violated life than in ideas of revenge. The death of Jesus has provided the expiation for all violations of life once and for all….

On the occasion when Jesus confronted a person guilty of a capital crime according to the laws of his society, he questioned the right of her accusers to take her life because they were not sinless (John 8). This would presumably leave place for capital punishment if sinless judges and executioners were available to carry it out.

In Matthew 25 we are instructed to see Christ himself in every needy neighbor. Few persons would attempt to see Christ in the person whose execution they advocate. Should man take it upon himself to foreclose the possibility of repentance and salvation for any person? 5

In 1986, the Canadian Conference adopted a brief statement against capital punishment:

As a church that believes in love, reconciliation and non-violence, the Brethren in Christ Church affirms a compassionate response to those who commit crimes, to their victims, and to the families of both. We recognize that the scriptures (Matt. 5, 18; Luke 17; Rom. 13, etc.) challenge us to redemptive relationships with all people, including those who wrong us. We all recognize the state as God’s servant (Rom. 13:1–5). However, we understand that our higher authority is allegiance to the lordships of Jesus Christ and the principles of the Kingdom of God. We believe it is inconsistent to ask the state to take revenge for us. We, therefore, lend our support in opposition to capital punishment.6

The historical and official records of positions on crime and punishment do not necessarily say everything, however. Someone involved in prison ministry once observed that while the rate of murder went down in Canada following the abolition of the death penalty, he believes that a poll of Canadians would reveal that most want the death penalty reinstated. I wonder if there is an analogy in the Brethren in Christ Church; what would a poll reveal regarding attitudes toward crime and punishment?

Current issues in criminal justice

The nature of justice: My son’s experience of being harassed and threatened on the way to and from school raised questions for me about the nature of justice. I’ve learned that vindictiveness and the desire for revenge are very near the surface even in people who sincerely believe that those attitudes are not very Christian. I’ve been reminded that forgiveness is not easy and can’t be forced on victims. I’ve also learned anew how difficult it is to figure out who to make things right—how to protect innocent people, and how to change the behavior of people who choose wrong, hurtful, and dangerous courses of action. So it’s no wonder that nationally we’re in the mood for what seem like quick fixes to crime such as mandatory sentences, no parole, more death-penalty offenses, and so on. Society wants and needs protection, and offenders need to be held accountable for their behavior. But does our present system really accomplish that?

The impact of racism, poverty, and drugs: A prison population in the United States which is 45 percent black (and even higher on death row) suggests that justice is not equally distributed. To counter that with the further suggestions that blacks and other persons of color are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime is to ignore the impact that such factors as racism, poverty, and drugs have on people’s ability to cope effectively with life’s problems. Any complete discussion of criminal justice must include its inter-relatedness with other issues and a discussion of the underlying causes of crimes and violence.

The prison system: In his book, Changing Lenses: A new Focus for Crime and Justice, Howard Zehr describes the potential effect of a prison sentence on one young man:

He will learn that conflict is normal, that violence is the greater problem-solver, that one must be violent in order to survive, that one responds to frustration with violence. . . .

This young man’s age and small physical stature make it likely that he will become the victim of not just violence, but sexual violence. Homosexual rape of young men is frequent in prison, where older, patterned offenders are often mixed in with younger, less experienced men. Such rape may reflect the prolonged sexual deprivation and frustrating characteristic of prison life. . . . Given this young man’s apparent insecurity . . . [t]he prison system will further strip away his sense of worth and autonomy, leaving him with even fewer resources for obtaining a sense of worth and autonomy in legitimate ways.7

Add to these problems now inherent in the prison system the growing problem of overcrowding and the high cost of prison and you have compelling reasons for reexamining the assumptions under which our criminal justice system works. A former convict commented: “The real issue is not a matter of being hard or soft on crime, it is a matter of choosing effective means for encouraging a person to change directions for his life.”8

The alternatives: Springing up in various places are a number of alternatives to traditional prison. These are still on a small scale, but they are worth further consideration. A sampling:

Our New Beginnings: This is an alternative sentencing for women in Portland, Oregon, which provides women with tools for rebuilding their lives—drug and alcohol rehabilitation, counseling, job training, parenting classes, etc. Costs are $35 per day versus $56 for regular prison; the success rate is 65 percent, considering good by the Oregon corrections system.9
Humaita Prison: Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship tells about a prison run for the past 18 years by Christian volunteers in Brazil. In contrast to many other prisons in Latin America, Humanita is clean, well-trimmed and painted, orderly, and covered with signs like, “It is not enough to stop doing evil; it is necessary to do good.” The recidivism rate is only 4 percent, in part a testimony to the impact of Christian faith on offenders. The secret, says Colson, is in the solitary punishment cell, where there are fresh flowers, an altar, and crucifix proclaiming that Jesus has already served the sentence for everyone in the prison. 10
Victim-offender Reconciliation Program: Working in cooperation with the criminal justice system the VORP process brings offenders and victims together in face-to-face meetings. Victims can tell how the crime affected them, and offenders connect a real person with feelings with the crime they committed. Work is done on restitution and reconciliation; both parties can experience empowerment. Most are beginning handle cases involving violence. A number have shown that 97 percent of victims would participate again, 91 percent of offenders would also participate again, and 80 percent felt that justice was done (things were made right).11

Responses

Because doing something to change a bad system or to minister to “bad” people looms as such a large, scary, complex, and potentially futile task, many of us would prefer to not get involved. But at the same time, Christ’s call to compassion and reconciliation compels us to think about how we can and should respond. Such a response can be on three levels.

1. Personal: As I’ve looked within myself and at my instinctive reactions to the small “crimes” our family has experienced, I am uncomfortably aware of how easy it is to feel vengeful and to want to get even with people who have harmed me or my loved ones. At the same time, I don’t want to offer “cheap grace” or easy forgiveness. I also know the feelings of helplessness when confronted with the challenge of “overcoming evil with good.” What will work? What constitutes “good”? One important response, then, is to examine our inner attitudes and to work at bringing them in line with attributes we believe to be Christian in ways which will be genuinely redemptive toward offenders.

Another level of personal response is educational—that is, learning and teaching skills in problem solving, stress management, and taking responsibility. These are the skills often lacking in offenders, and are also helpful in confronting and preventing potentially criminal behavior.

2. Church Outreach: Rather than participate unthinkingly in a system which is dehumanizing and often ineffective, the church could be at the forefront of community programs which provide alternatives to prison or which seek to deal with community conflicts (boundary or property disputes, domestic violence, etc.) with neighborhood mediation. At the same time, there are opportunities in most communities for prison ministry. Prison ministry is biblical (see Matthew 25; Heb. 13:3) and includes being informed about the system and its needs, praying, writing letters to prisoners, working with ex-offenders, and establishing regular one-on-one relationships with prisoners. A church could have prison ministry as one facet of its overall evangelism and outreach ministry. A number of Christian organizations exist to facilitate and resources such ministries.

Ministry to victims is another role for the church. In many cases, because of the way criminal justice system works, crime victims feel out of control of the process and with no help in dealing effectively with what has happened to them.

3. Public policy: If we believe that offenders are individuals whom Christ loves (in spite of what they have done), respectful treatment. Unfortunately, the system often precludes that. Chuck Colson says, “Those to whom we minister live to often in overcrowded, barbaric pits, surrounded by hate, anger and violence. Too many live without the human dignity that our God commands for every human representing the God of compassion and justice. To me, working for justice on their behalf is an integral part of the good news.”12 Such work for justice often means working to change public policy and to bring about alternatives to prison.

Harriet Sider Bicksler is a member of the Grantham, Pa. congregation. She edits Shalom!, a BIC publication devoted to the discussion of peace and social justice concerns. To read more about pursuing peace and other Brethren in Christ core values, see the book Focusing our Faith: Brethren in Christ Core Values,edited by Terry L. Brensinger.

For further reflection and action

1. Questions for though and discussion:

Reflect on your closest personal experience with crime. How did you feel? In what ways were your needs as a victim met or not met?
Do you think that a system based on restorative justice would work in our society?
Prison sentences and capital punishment are intended as deterrents and as protections for society. Do you believe they accomplish these goals? Why or why not?
What does justice require when a crime is committed? What do you believe needs to happen for things to be made right?

2. To do:

Call or visit local prison chaplains to find out the opportunities for prison ministry. Invite two or three people who have been involved to speak in an open forum.
Become a pen pal to someone on death row.
Become involved with someone just released from prison, helping the person to overcome old behavior patterns and develop new coping skills.
Consider how your church could link up with neighborhood mediation groups or the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program.

3. A good book to read:

Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1990.1. Quoted in “Prison Have Failed,” Faith Today, n.d., p.27

2. Prison and crime statistics are taken from “Prison Facts,” Faith Today, n.d., p. 26–27; “Prison Facts,” Network Newsletter, MCC U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, April/May/June 1989, p 10.

3. Howard Zehr, “Justice: Retributive or Restorative?” Shalom!, Fall 1989, pp.2–3

4. Carlton Wittlinger, Quest for Piety and Obedience: The Story of the Brethren in Christ (Evangel Press, 1978), pp.105-106.

5. Study Paper on “The church, War, and Respect for Human Life,” Commission on Peace and Social Concerns, June 1974, p.12.

6. Canadian Conference Minutes, 1986, p. 31.

7. Howard Zehr, Changing Lenses (Herald Press, 1990),pp.36-37.

8. “A VORP Story,” Network Newsletter, MCC U.S. Office of Criminal Justice, April/ May/ June 1989, p. 10.

9. Nancy Hill, “New Hope for Convicts,” Family Circle, September 3, 1991, pp. 21-22.

10. Charles Colson, “The Secret Prisoner of Humanita Prison,” Christianity Today, April 8, 1991, p.96.

11. See Zehr, Changing Lenses, pp. 158-174

12. Quoted in “How to Get Involved in Prison Ministry,” Faith Today, n.d., p. 30

This chapter originally appeared in 1992 in the book Perspectives on Social Issues, and is reprinted with permission from Evangel Publishing House, Nappanee, IN.

WELCOME