Skip to main content

Is human justice enough?

Ariel Castro was recently sentenced in the USA for forced kidnap and rape. The judge said he was too dangerous to be released. He duly sentenced him to life without parole plus 1,000 years. The infamous serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer received a 1,000 years and the list goes on.

Why impose an additional 1000 years when the offender will never serve a year of it given he already has life without parole? A key reason according to American legal expert Franklin Zimring is that it serves the purpose of "symbolic denunciation" which is often influenced by media coverage and public outcry. It is a message to the offender and the public that the person is really evil and deserves the harshest punishment.

The long sentences speak to the human desire to right the wrongs done against other human beings. We all recognise there's something terribly wrong with taking a human life in a way that substantially differs from killing a chicken at home. Imprisoning another human against their will is different from caging animals at a farm.

In other words only in a society that sees human beings as vastly different from animals does the pursuit of retributive justice makes sense. Therefore all pursuit of social and retributive justice is an affirming that man is special above creation. And of course such a position can only be defended if we accept that God created man in his own image.

The long sentences also remind us that the quest for justice remains broadly theoretical because the ingredients necessary for sufficient retributive justice are not present. For justice to take place the crime has not only to be perfectly detected but also properly valued. Not only is society not able catch all perpetrators of injustice, but even when it does it struggles with placing a true cost of the crime to the offended party. The human judge will never know the true pain of the victim.

It is also that the human judge can never know whether the sentence he imposes has perfected fitted the crime. There will always be difficult questions to answer. Is taking a life a sufficient punishment for taking one life? What happens if a person kills or rapes a hundred people? How do we ensure he actually pays for crimes against each person?

On top of this there are enforcement problems. For those not prosecuted due to insufficient evidence there's no justice. For those who are indicted but never caught, there's no justice. For those caught and run away there's no justice for their victims. For those who corrupt through the process there's no justice. Even those who sometimes get justice do not actually get it.

Michelle Knight one of three women held in an Ohio home by Castro for about a decade told him at the trial : “I spent 11 years in hell. Now your hell is just beginning...You will face hell for eternity". And of course she is right. Justice for her is not going to be met by the 1000 year theoretical sentence against a man who refuses to repent. At his trial Castro said, “I’m not a monster, I’m a normal person, I am just sick, I have an addiction”.

Only the justice of God meets Michelle's need for ultimate justice. Indeed, this is what the Bible promises : "Because you are stubborn and refuse to turn from your sin, you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself. For a day of anger is coming, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. He will judge everyone according to what they have done". (Romans 2:5).

The message then is that because God exists and has revealed himself in Jesus Christ we have a sure promise of justice. God has set a day He will deal with all injustice as Judge, Jury and Executioner. This is good news for all who have suffered injustice. And it is also good news for offender and offended alike. If we have repented God no longer counts us as His enemies, but his children! God’s justice is now our justice in Jesus Christ. God’s actions against all injustice is now for our good!

Copyright © Chola Mukanga 2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I Am Mother

I think it is true to say that the Netflix film I Am Mother is one the most disturbing movies I have watched for a long time. The film is set in a near future. Human life has been wiped out. An artificial intelligence (AI) called Mother is living inside a bunker where thousands of embroyos are stored. It selects an embryo and initiates a program to grow a baby within 24 hours. The AI then goes on to raise the child as its mother over the next few years.  After 16 years, the girl, who now goes by the name of Daughter (Clara Rugaard) is a teenager. She has never been outside because Mother has told her that the air is toxic. Her time is spend being home schooled in science and ethics so that she can become a perfect human being. The bond between Daughter and Mother is unusually strong. To our surprise there does not appear to be any mental or pyschological trauma of having a machine as her mother.  The strength of the bond between man and machine is tested when a nameless Woman (Hilary

What is the best preparation for preaching?

The best preparation is not to be too anxious about it. Anxious care hinders liveliness and efficacy. It leads to too little dependence on the Spirit. Be not didactic. Aim at the conscience as soldiers aim at the faces. Consider I may be preaching my last sermon. This leads to setting forth Christ as The Way, the Truth and the Life . .. Make Christ the prominent figure…Pay less attention to dear self. JOHN NEWTON

White Fragility, A Review

Robin DiAngelo has a sermon to preach. It is in form of a short popular book called White Fragilit y. Straight off the bat she tells us not to expect balanced analysis but a forceful argument “unapologetically rooted in identity politics”.  She understands identity politics as “the [political] focus on the barriers specific groups face in their struggle for equality”. The group she wants to save is black people, whom she blankets under “people of colour”.  So what is White Fragility about?  DiAngelo is sick and tired of white racism in the western world, and specifically the USA. She believes every white person, including babies, are guilty of racism by virtue of being white. So she wants to use her “insider status” as a white American woman to challenge this white racism by getting her fellow “white progressives” to force forward her thesis. In her words, “I am white...and I am mainly writing to a white audience”. I was immediately tempted to put down the book because being black Afri