News that one of two children who killed a two year old toddler 17 years ago has been reincarcerated has shocked advocates of rehabilitation in Britain. James Venables, now 27, has been sent back to jail for unspecified violations of his conditions of release. The BBC reported that “one of James Bulger’s killers has been returned to prison after he breached the terms of his release. Jon Venables, 27, is back in jail after being released on life licence in 2001, when he was given a new identity. In 1993 he was detained with his friend Robert Thompson for the horrific murder of the two-year-old toddler in Bootle, Liverpool.”
The news was received with great bitterness in the Guardian, which campaigned to give Venable a second chance. Alan Travis wrote “the recall of Jon Venables to prison is a big setback for the cause of reform and rehabilitation of child killers popularly branded as evil and beyond help. Venables and Robert Thompson have been held up as model case studies of the potential of the criminal justice system to turn around lives, even in the most difficult cases.” Travis quoted the hopeful worlds of Lord Chief Justice said on that occasion.
“We ought not to forget that, although they committed those very serious crimes, they were first of all human beings, and secondly they were children. Children can do things when they are children that they would never do in later life when they had matured and appreciated,” said Woolf when he cut the length of their sentence to eight years in 2000.
And now, after having been “detained” instead of arrested, and after having being “recalled” instead of re-arrested, the perp is back in stir, now a man and no longer a boy. But it’s not the specifics of the case nor even sympathy for the individuals or victims that is at issue. The problem is one of theology. Are some people evil or can they always be fixed, given enough social work and counseling? The Guardian in 1993 argued it would accept censorship before conceding the principle that the two child perpetrators should ever be identified. They needed a second chance. If criminalizing their identification was the price of giving them another go then so be it. Now that the paper has to say that Venables is back in custody and “it is unlikely to be just a technical breach of his life licence”, it’s a blow to their world view. The Guardian described its position.
In its leader the next day Guardian set out its reasons for declining to join the four newspapers that asked the high court to lift the injunction protecting the anonymity of the killers. The paper noted: “Free speech is important but so is the protection of life. … Rehabilitating the two remains the best public protection.”
The behavior of complex systems such as living things and collections of living things remains one of the most difficult subjects of scientific inquiry. “Man is a mystery”, Dostoevsky once wrote. One researcher told his audience there were very few things about collections of living things that we knew with certainty: one of them being that they would eventually die and even that you can’t take to the bank any more. But that doesn’t stop people from trying to figure life out and trying to control it. Despite evidence that crime — and violent crime — existed in ancient times, there is no shortage of people who believe we can change the world. Social activism can “change” society; and society can in turn remake the individual. There are no givens which nurture cannot overcome. Even the survival instinct can be reprogrammed.
The New Scientist has argued that “on the slow-sinking Titanic … there was time for [the] social norm of giving priority to women and children to establish themselves” whereas on the Lusitania where survivors were largely strong men between 16 and 35, “instinct and bodily strength dictated survival”. The first was a liberal response to a shipwreck; and the second a conservative. The alternative hypothesis would be that the biological individuals and their associated community optimize their joint survival in different ways depending on circumstances: that under sharp and extreme circumstances everyone is a ‘conservative’; but when luxury allows we can afford to be ‘liberal’.
Nowhere is the argument of nurture versus nature more clearly marked than in the debate over the recidivism of sex offenders. Carl Bialik at the WSJ argues that we don’t even know how to measure recidivism accurately and for sex offenders the rate may vary from 90% to 52% depending on the data collection system. Bialik says that child molesters actually re-offend less frequently, but when they do, it’s a dilly.
existing research raises tough questions about the relative danger child molesters pose to society. Their likelihood of being convicted for a crime after release is much lower than average for all criminals released from prison, and even for all sex offenders, at least in the short term, as measured by a Bureau of Justice Statistics study and others. Yet their crimes, when they do repeat child abuse, are unusually harmful, and their victims particularly vulnerable. Does that justify the closer monitoring of child molesters after release, compared with other criminals?
The same may be said for terrorists. By the standards of sex offenders terrorists are comparatively easy to rehabilitate. The only problem is that when they do the result may be a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand dead bodies. The New York Times reports that only 1 in 7 freed detainees returned to terrorism or militant activity. Yet that has shaken the advocates for their release, like Mark Denbeaux, whose response might have been straight out of the Guardian. Why speak of “bad people” out there when there are just misguided individuals society hasn’t helped yet?
Mark P. Denbeaux, a professor at Seton Hall University School of Law who has represented Guantánamo detainees and co-written three studies highly critical of the Pentagon’s previous recidivism reports. “They want to be able to claim there really were bad people there.”
Mr. Denbeaux acknowledged that some of the named detainees had engaged in verifiable terrorist acts since their release, but he said his research showed that their numbers were small.
“We’ve never said there weren’t some people who would return to the fight,” Mr. Denbeaux said. “It seems to be unavoidable. Nothing is perfect.”
One wonders whether if that one terrorist in seven decided to attack Mr. Denbeaux if it would make any difference whether the attack took place so quickly that he would have to respond with “instinct and bodily strength” or whether there would be enough time for “social norms” to kick in. If you left a victim of the World Trade Center attack in the burning tower long enough would he eventually realize that it was partly his fault? Would it matter? And yet what sort of society would it be that never gave a man a chance to climb back on the wagon, to claim forgiveness from a spouse from infidelity or a chance to start life again after “paying back a debt to society”?
The human desire for a second chance is almost as strong as the knowledge that many will fail shortly thereafter. Man is trapped in his own nature. Society has been trying and failing since the day of the Babylonian cop to make us rise to higher things on the “steps of our dead selves” even if it takes the re-education camp to do it.
Maybe one of the reasons for a persistent belief in God is the intuition that renewal and the forgiveness it requires can never be attained in a human context. Faith in the Almighty is probably inversely proportional to our faith in ourselves. If the Guardian can’t save you it’s time to try something else. Some perps have probably come to the conclusion that to find redemption you have to jump out of the human system to do it. George Santayana, who oscillated between being an agnostic and an “aesthetic Catholic,” must have been aware of the dilemma. He finished his days in the care of the Convent of the Blue Nuns. Santayana observed that “if pain could have cured us we should long ago have been saved.” He might have added that no amount of anonymity can keep us from remembering our names.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
they would never do in later life when they had matured and appreciated
His Lordship confuses a human being with a bottle of wine. One day soon, within the next twenty years, we will begin to really understand how the brain works at a deep level. It will become possible to actually change people, to remove bad thoughts and inject good ones. On that day the compassionate dream will be realized. We will cease to be humans made in the image of God. We will become as livestock or maybe a decent skinful of plonk.
When we continue to conflate the level of threat posed by individuals intent on doing evil, with the need to “prove our humanity” by insisting that any and all can be “rehabilitated” away from evil intent, we perform an inane mashup of Clockwork and Terrorist Threat Level…Orange.
Forgiveness and second chances are wonderful things. I think the problem is, the folks voting for parole are fatally biased toward paroling criminals who are clearly still interested in committing more crimes.
Those voting on parole should be hard-headed, clear-eyed realists who aren’t swayed by feelings and clever acts. Some criminals simply shouldn’t be given a chance to kill again.
We can try to manage the level of evil in this world — we have no choice but to try — yet find that if we’re not careful we bring in about as much bad as we rid ourselves of. Thus we construct prisons, or let prisoners out; we apprehend people or wrongly apprehend them as the case may be; we zap terrorists or hit the wrong men and can neither do nor forbear from doing.
Maybe the best we can do is keep trying in good faith. Just keep taking out the trash knowing the next day it will be the same. But its probably dangerous to entertain the belief in magic bullets and millenial schemes which are going to rid the world of evil once and or all. It’s unlikely to happen this side of the last judgment at least, and attempts to impose perfection on humanity may end up doing more harm than good. Nietzsche spoke of man as an animal trying to cross over an abyss on a tightrope on the way to becoming the Superman. It’s a great vision. What could go wrong?
One of the statements that surprised me the most when I was in law school was when our crim law professor told us bluntly that all working professionals in the US had given up on the idea of rehabilitation about 30 years ago, and that currently in professional circles it is seen as having no usefulness whatsoever in the administration of justice.
And by professionals I mean cops, prosecutors, defense lawyers, parole officers, and all the others who have day to day contact with the legal system. For those outside, it may be a surprise to know that all of these people are on the same “team”, even the defense lawyers, and they all know it. Their job is to process the “product” that gets fed through the system, ie. the perps, and everyone has a role to play.
That “rehab” stuff is just for academics and a few soft minded politicians – and I guess the Brits. No one serious buys that anymore, not even as a theory.
The #1 objective of the modern american legal system is to keep the machinery moving. That may sound cynical, but ask anyone who works in it, and they’ll agree. And here’s another thing that everyone who works in the system takes for granted, even the defense lawyers: every perp who offends will reoffend pretty soon after he’s released unless he’s over 50, when the re-offense rates go down. (but even then they’re still high) No one expects anything different, and it doesn’t matter how you treat them. Good, bad, sympathetic, harsh – doesn’t matter, as soon as they’re out, they’re going to run right back to doing what they were doing before. So there’s no point in trying to change them, this is just about crowd control.
So why let them go, ever? Because it’s expensive to keep that many people in prison that long, and voters don’t want to vote the funds for that many prisons. (and they’re too squeamish to accept a high execution rate, even if it would work) Leaving too many people in prison too long gums up the machinery, and like I said the prime goal of everyone is to keep the machinery humming, keep the product moving, in and out, in and out. That way everyone has a job to do and the work never ends. Outside of the few big public cases it’s all pretty choreographed.
Good or bad, that’s Justice, American Style.
A few days after Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 two black men robbed a liquor store in Charleston, SC. On the way out one of them said to the store clerk “We did this because Hubert Humphrey lost the election. You people let Mr. Humphrey down.”
So was this a crime or an act of political protest? Or was it both? And does it matter?
But that incident marked the first case I know of in which political activism and crime merged, or at least allegedly did so. And if you define the crime as being in reality political activism, then that will affect your definition of recidivism.
In the late 1970’s a man in California raped a young teenager, tried to kill her by hacking her arms off, and then was caught, convicted, and sent to prison. He was released in the 1990’s, moved to Florida, and soon thereafter murdered a woman and then committed suicide. Did they try him in California as a child molester or as someone who tried to murder a child? Once again, how you define the crime will affect whether you worry about recidivism. After all, some psychologists have argued that adult-child sexual relationships are in reality good for the child, and there have been formal suggestions that such a situation be no longer considered to be an abnormality.
What is astonishing to me is how in so many cases a “bolt from the blue” attack or crime is in reality no such thing. Even in the case of Amy Bishop we had a substantial history that indicated a problem.
One of the prime hallmarks of a liberal is the willingness–no, the eagerness–to believe in the triumph of hope over experience. Does evil exist? I don’t know. Does God exist? I don’t know the answer to that question, either…but putting your money on ‘yes’ (and acting accordingly) is the smart way to bet on both. (w/a hat tip to Descartes & Damon Runyon…)
The trouble with Nietzche was that he just didn’t have any imagination. In the 90′s after the berlin wall fell down there were bumper stickers on cars all over the USA that said. God is dead–Nietzche. Nietzche is dead –God.
The first was a liberal response to a shipwreck; and the second a conservative.
Say, what??
That “rehab” stuff is just for academics and a few soft minded politicians – and I guess the Brits. No one serious buys that anymore, not even as a theory.
Say, what? #2
I mean, *instead* of incarceration and punishment, OK.
But in principle?
What about self-reform, religious redemption?
Even if it is rare, to say *zero*?
Does that mean nobody even tries?
I hope this is some kind of a dramatic oversimplification.
Cuz if it were literally true, … well, Larry Niven predicted we’d start using repeat traffic offenders as organ donors.
Josh@9:
Yeah, that statement bothers me also. Generally, conservative male knee jerk reaction is, “women and children first”. Conservative women’s knee jerk reaction is to save the children at all costs, then themselves, if possible.
Liberals reactions, in a shipwreck tend to be darwinian, i.e.; “If you beat me to that lifeboat and I am not strong enough to throw you out, then you really should save me since I am smarter than you are and the human race needs my genetics.”
9: Josh:
‘The first was a liberal response to a shipwreck; and the second a conservative.’
Say, what??
I was wondering about that, too. Such a “gendered” response on the Titanic wouldn’t suit modern liberals, would it?
The policy of the Guardian is not advanced to protect the privacy of a child. It is held to merely to protect the private interests of the Grauniad.
There is the concept of “Invincible Ignorance” proposed by Catholics. The Guardian has a policy of Willful Ignorance. We have gone, and as a caveat it is not my religion, from “The truth shall make you free” to “Ignorance is Strength.” What both rankles and allows for a saving reaction of ridicule to the efforts of the Guardian is their blatant hypocrisy. These are the same people on the Left who would not hesitate to violate any security regulation or breach any shield of domesticity or privacy to attack their political opponents. They are concerned for the killer of a child who is now an adult but they defend Andrew Sullivan who shamelessly persecutes the child of Sarah Palin or the New York Times that sought out classified information in order to impede George Bush’s ability to identify those who do throw acid in the faces of school children.
The ability to respond with contempt to their double standards is a good thing because it gives us space to preserve our individuality. If the totalitarians were consistent and efficient then there would be little hope. They want to convince us of their invincibility and coerce us into submission to their gray assault on reality. Every time that we point out their pretensions we advance the cause of liberty.
On “The Rumor of War” thread RWE‘s comment #105 relates to a policy of deliberate ignorance and how it effects our security.
I suspect that human nature isn’t the only thing at work behind the preference for rehabilitation.
The thing about trying to rehabilitate a criminal is that we have no way of knowing for sure that the rehabilitation was successful, short of the perp dying without ever committing another crime. If we accept that not all criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, then the only way to ensure that they don’t strike again is to see to it that all criminals die before they ever get the chance. In other words, for all intents and purposes, genocidal war – or at least too close a cousin to genocide for most people’s comfort.
It is my impression that those granting parole are also those less likely to be the victim of the crime of a recidivist. It might be desirable if those more likely to be the victim would have a greater say in the decision about parole. It would add another perspective to the decision process.
Jim
>>The New Scientist has argued that “on the slow-sinking Titanic … there was time for [the] social norm of giving priority to women and children to establish themselves” whereas on the Lusitania where survivors were largely strong men between 16 and 35, “instinct and bodily strength dictated survival”. The first was a liberal response to a shipwreck; and the second a conservative.<<
No; the first response is conservative and the second liberal. Society functions, or tries to, by having laws and traditions that keep the strong from doing and taking whatever they want; conservatives seek to "conserve" these. Liberals don't protect the weak, they protect the biologically strong- violent young men and the fertile peasant families they come from- from the socially and intellectually strong, who by cooperating and thinking ahead are able to accumulate some capital, even as little as the week's wages in their wallet or purse.
For a few years I taught Parent Effectiveness Training in the Pasadena/Altadena area to parents of children (teens, mostly) who were in trouble with the law, gangs, drugs, etc. Parents who applied the lessons were quite successful at turning their children around before were hardened in their evil ways. The program was, although court mandated (but open to volunteers), essentially voluntary, there was no way to insure that any given parent actually applied the lessons. We found several interesting things. First, although the classes were offered to all offender’s parents 80% of our parents were Hispanic, 10% white, 10% black. Among Hispanic parents 50% were volunteers, 25% among whites and less than 10% among blacks. Hispanics and whites were more likely to participate in the program (as opposed to merely (resentfully) attending the class), with results commensurate with participation. The main focus of the classes was on teaching the parents to become responsible, self governing individuals and to pass that on their children. I have not been able to track the results over the years so I don’t know precisely how effective it was, though occasional reports from former pupils tend to indicate that most of the kids are doing well as adults. I left the program because it was funded by grants from government agencies and did not pay a living wage.
In the book Influence by Robert Cialdini there is a chapter on the different ways in which the Chinese and the North Koreans treated American prisoners of war. One system sought only to brutalize and dehumanize the prisoners, the other sought to influence their thinking. The American prisoners subjected to this process of influence were influenced, and apparently, remain influenced to this day. I no longer have the book in my possession so I am unable to provide details, but here’s the take away: There are processes that, when applied systematically over time alter people’s perceptions of themselves and their environment. Those processes are not applied to our ‘correctional institutions’, nor are they ever likely to be in a PC environment. I am convinced that were such processes applied in our prisons it would drastically alter the outcomes we experience. Japan applies certain techniques in their prisons and had (at least when I read about it many moons ago) an extraordinarily low recidivism rate. Our prisons are schools that teach and reinforce criminal thinking, attitudes and behavior.
I am torn between my Christian faith which on the one hand teaches that, at least in some way, no one is irredeemably lost because conversion is always possible and that no one will ever totally extirpate evil from his heart no matter the effort to do so, and on the other hand the recognition that a certain percentage of mankind will be overwhelmed by that evil and refuse or be unable to change. The problem every society has is finding the balance between being willing to give every individual the opportunity to redeem himself and the need to protect itself from predators.
Tocque error.
tocque_boot: TypeError: F is undefined
The error only happens on this thread. The last thread reloads fine.
Also Tocque should have a flag feature for sending Admin a warning on a Spam post.
OT: the new Obamacare plan has health savings accounts! if true, that fixes the single most critical item for me personally, because having an HSA and being forced out, was going to quadruple my rates, at least. since HSA doesn’t fit with anything Obama professes to believe, I wonder about the deal. Will any Repubs buy it?
Might be the best of both worlds, if the Repubs don’t, the Dems use reconciliation, but the HSA is included so I’m not totally reamed personally. At least better than without the HSA.
–
hey I got some message about toque initialization ‘f’ is null, just when the page opened, I did not (knowingly) invoke the toque.
#7 clioman: that’s Pascal’s wager, not Descartes.
It’s pretty well proven that children who hurt animals often become sadistic adults. Now what about a child who tortures and murders another child?
Just proof of how wet our British cousins have become.
Toque has had one too many tokes!
imho the talk we heard last summer about the preditors in afghanistan getting preparred to take out AQ & Taliban Shura council in Quetta may well have been psyopos designed to flush AQ & Taliban operatives from Quetta Baluchistan to places where it would be easier to pick them up or kill them in places like Karachi–where they were picked up or killed.
Anyhow that scenario fits the facts since we don’t know that any predators actually bombed quetta despite the ruminations that that might happen. But the shura councils members were picked up else where in pakistan.
In war we don’t think of these kinds of calculations as evil. Nor would, for example, Taliban/AQ think of the CIA take down in east Afghanistan — as evil. They would think of it as good shooting.
Another major major shift happened recently when the saudi intelligence chief went to pakistan and convinced the ISI to help take down AQ & Taliban. The saudi intelligence people have been long time patrons & sponsers of the ISI. They were part of the salafist anti western/israeli saudi establishment prior to 9/11. There is circumstantial evidence to suggest that they knew about the impending 9/11 attacks.
They would have been among the last pro AQ/Taliban holdouts in the Saudi establishment. perhaps the israelis or the US convinced them that they need to talk to the ISI. (And considering the speed at which events have moved since the killing of the CIA officers in east afghanistan–its likely they did talk to the saudies.) Perhaps the saudis looked at events in Iran and Yemen and decided it was time to talk to the ISI themselves.
In many ways we have been running a proxy/succession/policy war within/without the saudi establishment since 9/11. the turn of the saudi intelligence looks like the last turn to where all parts of their establishment are now in line.
The dogs bark and the caravan moves on.
This war ain’t over. But imho we’re looking at a turn as sharp as the one after W’s surge in Iraq.
“…under sharp and extreme circumstances everyone is a ‘conservative’; but when luxury allows we can afford to be ‘liberal’.”
Beyond the level of aesthetics I think ideas of good and evil are rooted in what promotes the survival of society, on the one hand, and what threatens it on the other. The more insulated we become from existential dangers, the more tolerant we become of evil acts. The fundamentally important linkage between behavior and consequences is broken.
I have come to believe that the genius of our Founders rested on the recognition that human nature — the good and the bad of it — is a constant; that man is not perfectible. The best we can do is to organize ourselves in such a way that our best instincts are rewarded and our worst contained.
In the matter of rehabilitation we all regularly err, and most of us regularly find redemption. But under the sinister tail of the curve, redemption may not be possible.
The answer for murderers, rapists, and child molesters is a rope snugly fitted around the neck, and tied to a sturdy tree branch.
Charles @ 22: It does seem like something is going on in Pokiston, but “what it is ain’t exactly clear”.
–
back on rehabilitation, I’m reminded of Arlo Guthrie on the Group W bench at the draft board, being asked if he had rehabilitated himself after littering.
LOTM@18: Me too. I just emailed Richard about it. It happens when I update BC in Brief, the Firefox reader extension.
Josh – first, be clear that I am not speaking of what we think as individuals, but rather of the institutional posture of the American Justice System. But in that, I’m not kidding. At any modern law school with a practical program today (ie, teaching people looking to go be assistant County DA’s and defense attorneys; Harvard and Yale grads of course would never dirty their hands with anything that practical) a student is taught that “rehabilitation” was a utopian legal theory that was widespread in the early 20th century and that many traces of it remain in the legal codes and must be dealt with. But, as a living theory that any person working at any level of the modern justice system believes in, no, it is a dead theory. Some Judges play lip service to it, especially Judges who run for election, because a lot of laypeople still think of it fondly. But no one professional believes in it anymore, at least not in this country. And let me add – the more practical hands on experience you have with the justice system, the less you will believe in it, which is why everyone involved gets so hardened and cynical very quickly. It’s an occupational hazard.
The first was a liberal response to a shipwreck; and the second a conservative.
That’s an odd phrasing for the reactions of the two ship disasters (Titanic and Lusitania). That is, it is odd in today’s context of “liberal” and conservative, and echoes the crude prejudices and stereotypes about “conservatives” in particular.
The reaction on the Titanic was not just the result of there being more time, but also due to the attitudes and upbringing of the first class passengers. Do recall that the majority of the socially prominent men chose to stay with the ship, and died. These were men of tradition and weighty obligations, and acted accordingly.
I consider our elitist judiciary (on both sides of the Atlantic) to be guilty of the governance equivalent of depraved indifference. In America in particular, it’s been as if our judiciary and its allies have tried to turn the Bill of Rights into a “protected species act” for violent criminals. It would appear that we are about to enter a new phase of surging criminal violence because of the recent ascendancy of those who ascribe to these idiotic notions of “redemption” for the worst among us.
All criminals? Someone else mentioned repeat traffic offenders as organ donors. This is one of our great problems – we no longer differentiate between dangerous and benign behaviors.
Violent criminals, rapists, murderers, armed robbers, these we should have zero tolerence for. People who willfully create serious physical danger for others have forfeited their own future, I’m sorry. We have no moral obligation to treat them with compassion. The only reason not to string them up on the spot is uncertainty about their guilt.
Our current justice system gets this exactly backwards though. The more sure we are of someone’s guilt, the more lenient the system seems to be with them. Instapundit this morning linked to the case of a family in California accused, and acquitted, of child abuse who cannot get their names off the sexual offender’s list. And from the Golden Goose state we also have the story of a 17 year old high school student raped and murdered while out for a job, with the leading suspect a convicted rapist who is also suspected of one other murder since his release.
wws has it right – the objective of our modern justice system is to keep the machinery turning, keep the paychecks coming. This has to stop.
Don Rodrigo, you may not be aware that there are some very fine conservative Justices in America, starting with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. (And Kennedy, our modern Hamlet, when he’s on a “To Be” day and not on a “not to be” one)
The biggest problems are with the 9th Circus, but the SCOTUS slaps them down pretty regularly. Believe it or not, the Judiciary has been trending conservative for a good 20 years now, but it’s like turning a battleship with a teaspoon – it takes a long time.
And then of course a good, literal interpretation of the law is made, “conservative” only because the Justices strictly apply the law as it is written, and then Congress goes crazy and proclaims it “eevil!!!” and does what it can to overturn it – first, the Lily Ledbetter case, and now they’re howling about the McCain-Feingold slapdown. So before you blame the justices keep on eye on all the nonsense the legislatures are pulling.
Btw, although it makes many purists howl, I very much favor a system where Judges regularly run for election, just like the one we have here in Texas. Nothing keeps a Judge honest like regularly having to face the voters.
31. wws:
Don Rodrigo, you may not be aware that there are some very fine conservative Justices in America, starting with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. (And Kennedy, our modern Hamlet, when he’s on a “To Be” day and not on a “not to be” one)
Actually, I am aware, but unfortunately my post was a bit anachronistic, and I actually expected a reply from you, considering your lengthy post above regarding the actual attitude of our criminal justice system, which I had failed to read before making my last comments. Inadvertently I was “projecting” because of my concern that with the recent resurgence of leftists, that we were going to go back to the days of the Warren Court and the judicial attitudes that prevailed in the 60′s and 70′s.
Hopefully, my projecting may be for naught, what with the pushback against progressivism that’s been going on of late.
Me, #14: If we accept that not all criminals can be successfully rehabilitated, then the only way to ensure that they don’t strike again is to see to it that all criminals die before they ever get the chance.
JMH, #30 in response: All criminals? Someone else mentioned repeat traffic offenders as organ donors. This is one of our great problems – we no longer differentiate between dangerous and benign behaviors.
Violent criminals, rapists, murderers, armed robbers, these we should have zero tolerence for. People who willfully create serious physical danger for others have forfeited their own future, I’m sorry. We have no moral obligation to treat them with compassion. The only reason not to string them up on the spot is uncertainty about their guilt.
First of all, traffic offenses generally aren’t considered crimes.
In any case though, my original point still stands. The rehabilitation impulse isn’t so much about genuine compassion as it is about people not wanting to get their own hands bloody, or their own consciences stained.
Josh re: Obamacare and HSAs
To put it bluntly, you seem to have no idea what you’re talking about.
Obama also mentioned something about not letting those Evil Insurance Companies “deny coverage” anymore. If you’re not quite sure what will happen if that does become law, well, enjoy your HSA and don’t listen to all those naysayers out there. Obama will protect you.
I would recommend “Dexter” as a TV show worth watching. A serial killer with a code of justice instilled by his father = fascinating.
There can’t be any harder question than what to do with a ten-year-old who murdered a two-year-old. Not in a fit of anger, but in a planned abduction for that purpose.
Some people might say that the same diminished capacity exists, that if rage is a mitigating factor, the twistedness of this child’s mind means he acted under a kind of compulsion. But that argument takes us to the point of excusing the adult psychopath.
So we have a ten-year-old. Just three years from the traditional age of reason. Can a child be truly evil? Only in a much grimmer theology than I learned in Catholic school. Giving yourself over to evil takes some time, many years for most people. You have to choose, over and over, to turn from goodness.
Yet we all suspect that a ten-year-old who can do this is too broken to be fixed. So it becomes a matter of protecting people from him. But can we decide when he’s ten to lock him up for life? Of course not, even though he seems to me a lot less likely to change than an adolescent who shoots someone in a rage or out of despair.
I’ve never understood the rehabilitation impulse. Why do we even want to bother? Is there some kind of shortage of decent people that we need to try to convert violent, worthless ones?
No. And there is a huge, huge surplus of worthless, violent criminal people. Kill them all, they are of no use. The rehabilitation impulse is like if a doctor told you that you had cancer, and it could be successfully removed, and then you responded to this by saying, “No leave the cancer in. It might decide to be nice to me.”
The Leftist approach to criminality is the most concrete, obvious and irrefutable sign of the oft-diagnosed “Liberal death wish.”
Buckets @34: Based on last season, “Dexter” is warming up the motorcycle and getting ready to jump the shark.
Crime & punishment is clearly not without a lack of clarity.
Early out Liberal mercy rehab. is evidently working quite well for Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi! His cancer will be in remission due to his new found positive outlook before you know it. Chelsea King rest in peace.
I’ll have to second wws’s statement about the operant perspective on criminals from within the criminal justice system. I don’t have as much experience with criminal defense as he may, but his picture is the one I’ve experienced too. A lot of it has to do with the fact that, as even my Southern Poverty Law Center criminal law/procedure prof told us, in the United Stated something like 95% of criminal defendants plead guilty. Why? Because they are guilty. This statistic and this inference abhor some people, I realize. Typically these are people with little or no actual experience of criminals and the system their existence inspires. The fact is that, as wws wrote, criminals are generally repeat offenders; in my amateur opinion, there is a criminal personality. There is a range of intensity, obviously, ranging from compulsive shoplifters to homicidal maniacs. But the similarity is striking, actually. It would take the usual academic trick of describing something he does not understand to people who have no experience of what he’s talking about to invent the modern figment of the perfectible man, of which the accidental criminal is a subcategory.
KareninPA,
Concur. We are at risk of mixing issues when we discuss a case this hard.
There is the issue of child versus adult responsibility.
There is the issue of rehabilitation versus recidivism.
There is the issue of therapy versus totalitarian control.
We do not destroy a child even when we need to protect ourselves from it. Some do not believe in punishing a child. My belief is that the punishment must be appropriate in that it must be more temporally focused. That may in fact be true for adults also. It is possible that a brief period of physical punishment, spanking or even “torture” that leaves no permanent damage, may be more effective than a long period of incarceration.
Some conditions can not be cured with current therapies. That includes a propensity to hurt or sexually abuse children. How young that defect manifests itself is beyond my knowledge. Once someone is identified as having that defect, perhaps one day we will discover a genetic or certain physical marker, that person should be permanently isolated or destroyed. They are like Typhoid Mary, incapable of being trusted in society. In this case we do not know if that applies. It is possible that James Venables has merely run afoul of some law or regulation that caused his parole to be lifted without being suspected of a crime of violence. Maybe he developed a drug problem, that may be linked to a deeper defect. It would not in itself be grounds to wish he had been destroyed 17 years ago. Perhaps he has violated one of the million rules and regulations of the Nanny State that can entrap anyone. We do not know.
Finally there is the question of what will we do when science develops the tools to actually go into a brain and change people? One day the Obamas and Pelosis and Rahm Emanuels of the world be be able to turn to someone with the ethics of Ezekial Emanuel and say “Make our problems go away.” Imagine when the character of O’Brien in Nineteen Eighty-Four can cure your sickness without that trip to room 101.
Completely off topic I had an MRI recently at the VA to see if my hand weakness or stiffness and passing vision issues that had prevented me from successfully completing the firearms qualification at FLETC, resulting in my current destitution, might have been due to head trauma sustained during training. Everything came back negative, which is good in that it means that I am unlikely to drop from an undetected embolism anytime soon but it is bad in that it means that I have less chance of advancing a claim on the government. For $5.15 I got a copy of the images sent to me on DVD and it is fascinating to look at the inside of your own head and verify, despite some oopinions to the contrary, that there is something in there.
peterike,
Good God man what would you have done, executed the 10 year old who killed? Tell me that and I will put you on the ignore list. These cases are hard. It is easy to say that the Guardian and their supporters are all wet but that does not mean that there is, or should be, a simple answer. There are separate issues here.
1. What to do with an adult who does evil.
2. What to do with a child who does evil.
#33: “The rehabilitation impulse isn’t so much about genuine compassion as it is about people not wanting to get their own hands bloody, or their own consciences stained.”
I agree with this entirely. The same farce was enacted over Myra Hindley. Her “cause” was taken up by woolly-minded sympathizers like Lord Longford. I’ve always thought that these appeals for mercy and clemency for criminals are disguised exercises in self-pity. Poor us, we’ve inherited this barbarous burden from our predecessors, and we’re stuck having to continue being strong long after the emotional surge of the crime and trial have faded. It’s just too hard! We want to shrink back into comfort and not have to deal with these ugly responsibilities anymore. Just let them out, and WE’LL be off the hook, and won’t have to soil our lily-white hands with such disagreeably sordid tasks.
It’s entirely possible but not very satisfying to realize there are sometimes no good solutions to a problem. In the case of two ten year olds who’ve killed a 2 year old, about all you can do is play the numbers. But you’ll have no idea whether the numbers apply in a particular case.
A doctor can tell a patient diagnosed with cancer what the statistical odds of survival are under this or that course of treatment. He might say x percent survive and (1-x) percent die. But the doctor can’t tell the individual patient beforehand in which group he will fall. So we make our choices and see what happens.
In the case of Venables, who could say a priori whether he would turn a new leaf or whether some years later he would kill again? If you locked him up and thew away the key you’d have to accept the guilt of having ended a child’s freedom at ten. The counterfactual will never be revealed to you: what would have happened if he had been released? Did you save another life, perhaps several? On the other hand if you release Venables you can’t know until the day he dies whether you made the right bet. You will never even be sure there’s not a victim you don’t know about.
One of the sad things about modern culture is that it’s not supposed to allow mistakes. But in reality doctors — good doctors — lose patients. Good prosecutors send innocents to jail. The best military organizations kill innocent people. It happens and it’s the price of living. About all you can do is your best knowing that despite it you will sometimes do things that will haunt you to the end of your days. Back when we knew that man was imperfect — the word we used was “fallen” — it was psychologically easier to accept. Today I think it is less so. Humanity will always need forgiveness; the problem today is who to obtain it from.
Yes. There is no answer.
Conservatives are said to have a tragic sense of life, and this is what that means.
The Judge who was so sure that the 2 murdering boys could be rehabilitated is a typical ‘liberal.’ “Liberals’” first priority is to feel good about themselves, and the easiest way to do so is to think kindly thoughts about the world. There is no ‘hope’ in their world, there are only an assertion of ‘their glowing kindliness’, and therefore of their superiority over the rest of grubby humanity. To bring up ‘sin’ is in their world, so not nice.
Wretchard, #42: One of the sad things about modern culture is that it’s not supposed to allow mistakes. But in reality doctors — good doctors — lose patients. Good prosecutors send innocents to jail. The best military organizations kill innocent people. It happens and it’s the price of living. About all you can do is your best knowing that despite it you will sometimes do things that will haunt you to the end of your days. Back when we knew that man was imperfect — the word we used was “fallen” — it was psychologically easier to accept. Today I think it is less so. Humanity will always need forgiveness; the problem today is who to obtain it from.
This gets us back, once again, to the secularization of the West. Once upon a time the prevailing belief was that forgiveness for such things could be obtained from God. Likewise, on the other side of the coin the victims of our trespasses could at least look forward to being made whole and seeing justice done in the afterlife by that same God. And they, and we, still can – if we believe in the existence of God and an afterlife in the first place. But how does that – how, even, can that – manifest itself in a cultural, political and legal environment that no longer acknowledges such beliefs, much less upholds them?
95% of federal civil cases are are settled out of court. Does that mean 95% of defendants are liable? Or is something else going on?
I find it odd that people seem to think that our prisons are making anything more than a token attempt at rehabilitation. Yes, I am sure that 1-5 years of ass-rape at a juvenile detention facility works wonders for the soul.
Then again, I wonder what percentage of BC readers have helicopters flying over their neighborhoods every night. Or are subject to SWAT raids on a daily basis. We don’t even see the fiscal effect of having the highest incarceration rate in the world as we fund our prisons with borrowed money.
A sex offender, a 30 year old man named Gardner, has bee arrested in conjunction with murder of teenager Chelsea King of San Diego.
Turns out that the man was convicted of molesting a 13 year old girl in 2000 and also attacking a 22 year old woman later. Furthermore, a psychologist testified that he remained a danger to the community. But they still let him out.
Several years ago in Florida a little girl disappeared while walking home. The surveillance camera of a car wash showed a man leading her away. She was raped and killed. Turned out that he had been brought up on charges the previous year for trying to kidnap a woman off the street; the judge believed his explanation that he was just trying to keep her from being hit by a car and they let him go. I would rather watch videos of those people jumping out of the WTC on 11 Sep 2001 than watch that scene again of that crying little girl being led away to a brutal death.
All of us who are even nominally decent should pray each night that the Good Lord will put us there when one of these monsters grabs some victim. We all possess the cure for recidivism.
One of the sad things about modern culture is that it’s not supposed to allow mistakes.
Too right. And of course that’s too wrong. We build these complex bureaucratic systems that might work if no mistakes were ever made, if every clerk where a constitutional lawyer (or better), an accountant, detective, and psychologist, with a good heart and thirty years experience, but that’s not this world.
In creating software that’s one of the marks of the newbie – they write a program that works if everything is perfect, but does no checking or internal assertions or reporting of errors or recovery from errors. Well, why not, isn’t that what they were taught, and what we all “know” about computers – that they are all about getting good results from good input? And if you give it bad input, well, your fault, right?
(of course I believe quite otherwise about how we should look at computers and software …)
wws @ 27: I understand, and certainly see the hardening of attitudes in law enforcement and other players, but I guess you can see the implications – every criminal let out of jail is an ethical error?
I remember episodes of The Practice, where they say, yeah, it’s hard defending these scummy criminals, but you know what’s really hard is when you’re defending someone who is actually innocent!
Speaking of which, I’m on call for jury duty as of Monday.
Who knows what lurks in the hearts of men? The local Australian news is reporting how the police found a hundred IEDs in the home of an old man who died in a hospital. He checked himself in and kicked the bucket from natural causes. When the cops came to open his home they found it booby trapped with pressure switches, trip wires, etc rigged to gas tanks and what have you. The place was full of them. And they found a drug lab too. None of his neighbors knew a thing about him, in part because he had replaced the drapes on the windows with tinfoil taped to panes. What went on inside his head? I guess it’s too late to ask him now.
Last month, they arrested an old guy on Cape Cod for child pornography. He was the local human rights activist, Mr. Politically Correct. Later, he confessed that his secret fantasy was to strangle a child. How long he lived with that desire, who can say?
Drive down a quiet suburban street and ask yourself: what do you really know about the people who live behind those hedges and picket fences? Dostoevsky used the example of the suffering of an innocent child to highlight the problem of evil. But in its own way the Jamie Bulger/Jon Venables case raises the same question from another angle. What can we say about a world in which there are evil children? Where did it come from? Is evil real or just another name for a set of properties we don’t wish to judge?
Ref. the recent murder in CA:
Clayton Cramer once asked, rhetorically, what you have to do to a kid in California to get in serious trouble.
wws @ 5 said:
“One of the statements that surprised me the most when I was in law school was when our crim law professor told us bluntly that all working professionals in the US had given up on the idea of rehabilitation about 30 years ago, and that currently in professional circles it is seen as having no usefulness whatsoever in the administration of justice.”
This comment has a “ring of truth” even though it is politically incorrect. I have no training in this area but my gut feeling is there are two classes of people who land in jail, i.e. 1) normally honest people who made stupid choices and 2) career criminals.
I think a normally honest person who made a stupid choice is not only reformable but probably already reformed by the shame and remorse from having been caught making a bad choice. I suspect the legal system already takes this into account and “normally honest people” don’t receive extended prison sentences. I also suspect the people who are repeat offenders or fall under the profile of a career criminal should never be released from prison. This however raises the problem of the expense in keeping these people in prison. Probably the best approach towards this problem is to treat it like an insurance issue: There is a probability that a criminal will inflict X amount of damage to society. If the expectation value of the potentially inflicted damage is greater than the cost of keeping the criminal in prison then he should remain in prison.
I am attracted to the idea of somehow “marking” criminals and then releasing them, i.e. put a series of obvious tattoos on the criminal and implant an ID chip inside their skull where it is very difficult to remove. If the criminal illegally removes his tattoos then he would expose himself to harsh imprisonment or capital punishment. The beauty of this approach is it would be more difficult for a thief to buy a weapon or approach a victim if he had the word “Thief” tattooed on his forehead. Likewise, a child molester would have a difficult time living near a school if he had the words “Child Molester” tattooed on his arms and forehead. I suspect career criminals would be forced by their markings to leave honest society and form their own communities. In essence they would imprison themselves in these communities and carry the cost of their own imprisonment (preying upon each other) rather than honest society.
Potatoes. Potatoes are protected from the scorching of the earth.
Who knows what the T.E.A. party will become. That it began in America is interesting.
Is there a restraining bolt? I hope.
wretchard,
Is there any information out there on the type of childhood the two murderers had?
Evil devastates everything it touches. It hollows some people out and transmits itself to that person’s next victim. Perhaps Venables’ cell-mate. When he gets out what will he do to someone else? I think you can trace most of humanity’s ills to the golden rule not being followed.
I don’t have a professional’s view of the justice system, just that of someone who was on the bad end of an involuntary cash transaction (aka robbery at gunpoint).
We caught the guy. Over the course of 3 years the judge granted the defense 7 postponements. On one occasion the defendant was 3 hours late for court with no good explanation. Punishment? Nada. Trial was before the judge, former head of the public defender’s office in this county, and surprise surprise, the judge let him off even though we had videotape and solid eyewitness evidence, balanced out (!!) by perjuring family members on his side.
As I sat there in the first of multiple court dates in the downtown courthouse, watching several other cases go before the judge, I got this mental image of a train chugging along. A mechanical behemoth, impervious and unresponsive to any human element. As a crime victim you have about as much chance of forcing the system to treat you like a human being as you would of putting out your arm and stopping that train.
The procedures are super-super ritualized, with extreme care being given to the minutest details and the oh-so-careful handling of the “rights” of criminals. Few things will make your blood boil more than to be forced to sit there in silence while a guy who nearly put a bullet in you and turned your entire life upside down is treated with the deference of Mother Theresa.
My impression was that the system is designed not to produce justice but to provide jobs for people in the legal profession. If justice occurs it is a byproduct.
I do realize there are individuals in the system who actually care about seeing justice done. (The detectives on my case, for instance — outstanding professionals and stand-up human beings.) But the system itself so massive, so choked with hyper-procedure, that I don’t think even the best individuals can make that much difference most of the time.
54. Captain Ramen asked:
Is there any information out there on the type of childhood the two murderers had?
——-
The two murderers? Childhood?
Measure your forehead, let me me compare it to my chart of odd, and then stand on one foot for an hour.
I am thankful that others have dealt with the Liberal-Conservative nonsense concerning the behavior of males during the sinkings of the Titanic and Lusitania. It saves be going off on someone.
#5 wws
I absolutely agree with your outline of the nature of the criminal justice system with one caveat. Diety help us, not everyone is as clear eyed about that nature. From my experience in the field I would say that most of the Pshrinks in the field are fervent believers in rehabilitation and in their personal ability to bring about same. The ego strength of most of them in their faith in their own ability NOT to be conned by criminals is actually stronger than the egos of the criminals; despite the fact that throughout their careers they have their noses rubbed in the fact that they are conned on a regular basis. There are quite a few judges who feel the same way, despite the same “nasal friction”. And finally, there is the odd DA. I have dealt with one of those.
I recommend a book by one of the few Pshrinks who has [had?] his head on straight, Dr. Stanton Samenow; “Inside the Criminal Mind”. It should be required reading by anyone with anything to do with the field, including legislators.
OK, for those who are not in the criminal justice field. Prison is not fun. It is not pleasant. But it is bearable, in large part because in the modern incarnation of prisons every part of the criminal’s support system for his criminal lifestyle is present. They have their homies, they have a caged culture that mimics that on the streets. They have, literally; sex, drugs, and rock and roll. If y’all haven’t seen it, you cannot comprehend it.
To convince a criminal not to be a criminal, he must both be presented an alternative, and more importantly his criminal lifestyle has to become more painful to him than an alternative, and he has to internalize that difference. This requires a degree of introspection that is neither necessary nor usually possible in a modern prison.
Given my druthers, which will not be happening any time soon, I would have our prisons be a version of the original Quaker penitentiary [yes, that is where the word came from] before it went bad.
Inmates would have single cells far enough away from each other to limit if not bar communication. Except for meals, and during work periods [mandatory, in modern prisons you are not allowed to require an inmate to work], they are in their cells. No TV, no radio. The only reading materials allowed are educational [and religious if desired]. They are alone with their thoughts most of the day, albeit not in solitary by any means. But they have to deal with themselves and what they have done with their lives. This is not a formula for abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Living conditions are physically healthful and humane, medical care is furnished as needed. But you create a clean break from their outside life. It would not be fun. It would not reinforce their old lifestyle. It actually might work in a limited number of cases, as opposed to the current abject failure.
Secondly, a third conviction for a violent felony; homicide in any form, rape or any form of sexual assault, robbery, any form of aggravated assault, burglary, etc. should automatically be a capital offense. If you have been through the system twice before and you keep hurting people, you are not going to get it after a third or later run through; or more specifically the miniscule chance that you would is far outweighed by the risk of harm to an innocent.
Thirdly, it needs to be realized that for any psycho-sexual crime; there is no rehabilitation. Whatever expression of sex a person has is hard-wired in their head. It is not going to be changed by talking to a Pshrink for a couple of hours a week [which is most of what Sex Offender Treatment Programs consist of].
As an example. Let us assume that whoever reading this is heterosexual. Let us also assume that this is regarded by society as a criminal act. Now, looking at yourselves. Would being forced to talk to a Pshrink a couple of times a week and to parrot what he wants to hear convince you to become gay or lesbian? Or would it just improve your skill at manipulating the Pshrink to get him to tell the Parole board that you are safely homosexual and can be released? Which holds, hard-wiring or BS?
When I was still working, we were required to take first 80, and later cut down to 40 hours of inservice training a year, run through our training academy. One of the courses I had to take was “Dynamics of Sex Offenders” taught by a Pshrink who worked in SOTP. The Pshrink did not have a good time, being outnumbered by badge wearing line troops who have seen through the BS before.
When pressed, he had to admit that an adult who is sexually fixated on pubescent or pre-pubescent children is not going to be either a monk or “faithful”. There are going to be multiple victims per year. Every year. Until caught. Further, that almost 100% of convicted child sex offenders eventually re-offend.
His justification for his program was that an increased span between release and being caught re-offending meant that some kids would be saved. Further admissions were forced that much of the therapy involved avoiding activities and situations that would allow approaches to victims. And that by teaching them what activities trigger suspicion, we are helping them avoid detection for the crimes he would be committing. Thus more kids end up being victimized until the offender gets caught again.
It went further. Using his own figures presented in class, I showed that his best case situation was well within his statistical margin of error, and most likely he was causing more kids to be victimized. I was told later that no matter how much I needed the hours to make the requirements, I was not allowed to take that class again. Broke my heart.
As for what to do with child murderers like Venables, there is no easy answer. If something was not severely twisted before the crime, it was afterwards. Releasing them to put the public at risk is not an acceptable solution. You cannot criminally charge them, because they are not competent legally and cannot form a mens rea. However, they can be committed to a mental health institution as a danger to themselves or others. Under our current system of law and psychiatry [a nasty mix that] someday the child may be found to be legally sane, not a threat to others, and competent. But that is not a good solution. It is simply our solution.
One difference that hopefully would eventually come about is that any decision should be made using purely clinical indications as factors, not a politically motivated, quasi-religious faith in the inherent goodness and virtue of any criminal as currently manifested by both the Left and their subgroup in the Mental Health field.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur @ 57 said:
“Given my druthers, which will not be happening any time soon, I would have our prisons be a version of the original Quaker penitentiary [yes, that is where the word came from] before it went bad. Inmates would have single cells far enough away from each other to limit if not bar communication. Except for meals, and during work periods [mandatory, in modern prisons you are not allowed to require an inmate to work], they are in their cells.”
The British used this approach in the early 19th century. The prison in Port Arthur, Tasmania (Australia) was based upon penitentiary solitary confinement. The problem with this approach is the prisoners tended to go insane. Supposedly this is the reason why this approach was abandoned.
For a side project have been reading lots of Dark Ages history lately. What stands out is an individual’s expectation of sudden death from many causes was much more common then. This beggars the question: Has modern civilization somehow misinterpreted the lowered nominal death rate so it artificially applies to criminals and their actions, too?
17. Tamquam:
Interesting subject. Could you amplify or do we need to read the book?
Eggplant # 52 “there are two classes of people who land in jail, i.e. 1) normally honest people who made stupid choices and 2) career criminals.”
Bogie #55 “A mechanical behemoth, impervious and unresponsive to any human element.”
Yes, and to give you an example of both Eggplant No.1 and Bogie’s observation , a guy who dated the lady who lived next door to my Mom, a normal hard working type. But he got caught drinking and driving. No wreck, did not kill anyone, but he was on the list from then on. But then the city decided to clean up the neighborhood and ticketed a car down the street that had not run in a while, no registration or license. The guy bought it, towed it down to the lady’s house and tried to get it running. A few days later the City ticketed it again. Explanations that the car had not been in the same spot for 90 days per the regulations and was under repair fell on deaf ears. Disgusted, he cranked up the unlicensed car and was driving it to another location. And he decided to grab a six pack on the way. You can guess what happened. He ended up in jail, a guy who really did nothing much wrong and was only driving because the stupid bureaucracy made him move the car in the first place. And note that neither the ACLU nor any big name pro bono law firm was in there helping him.
Then I have told the story here before of a friend of my brother’s who shot a burglar breaking into his van in his driveway with a single shot .22 rifle, dodging the eight 9MM rounds the guy fired at him in the process. And he lost his house when the burglar, a 17 prior felony conviction career criminal, sued him in civil court and won.
Your .22 cal friend used too light a firearm. Rule #1. Don’t shoot unless necessary. Rule #2. Always shoot to permanently end the confrontation, ie: never to face the shootee again – in court or elsewhere. Rule #3. In case rule #2 is not followed kiss your family goodbye.
One of the curious things about the Biblical descriptions of forgiveness is that there appears to be a distinction between spiritual forgiveness (release of the sinner’s soul from punishment) and material-temporal forgiveness (release of the sinner from consequences in this world).
After a goodly amount of cover-up and stonewalling, King David finally repented of his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder-by-hire of her husband, Uriah. He was given spiritual forgiveness but he still underwent terrible worldly consequences. The baby he had with Bathsheba died, and his other children were wrecked by violence. Daughter Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon. Son Absalom rebels and is killed by David’s general Joab, and son Ahithophel hangs himself. Son Adonijah later pulls a coup and deposes David. “The sword shall never leave your house,” indeed.
There was a post a couple weeks ago about the thief on the cross who repented and asked Jesus to remember him in His (Jesus’) kingdom. The thief was indeed forgiven but he still died a crucified criminal.
One of the many problems with a secularized culture is that there is no room for recognition of or accounting for the spiritual dimension of crime. In a secularized system, therefore, when a criminal *appears* to repent & vow not to reoffend, there are substantial numbers of people for whom the only appropriate response is to let the criminal either out of jail or off with a reduced sentence or plea deal. IE there is no imaginative space in the head of secular man in which to say, “You’re sorry? Great. You can do your penance ministering to others behind bars while you serve the full entirety of your sentence.”
Add to this the complicating factor that many, many, many criminals who *appear* to repent are just scamming, and you are setting society up for tragedy when the system’s main response to “I’m really, really sorry” is “Okay, you’re free to go.”
BTW, Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship Ministries has, I believe, programs where the recidivism rates are a fraction of those where felons get out of prisons with standard vocational and prison-work programs.
So, yeah, I do believe “rehabilitation” is possible for some criminals, but IMO (as a Christian) it is quite literally an act of God, and the Bible seems to suggest that the number of rehab cases are “few” (in keeping with the “few” who are saved among the non-prison population).
If we were cognizant of both human nature and the statistics, we would be “as wise as serpents” with respect to taking criminals’ claims of repentance at face value.
I would like it better still if all the halfway houses were on properties adjacent to criminal court judges, defense attorneys and parole board members. Maybe then they would be a little more circumspect about turning loose the potentially still violent and predatory, if “the society” upon which these convicts were unloosed were these people’s own families.
#58 Eggplant:
I am not thinking “solitary”. You are right, that does drive people insane. The idea is to make them better, not crazier. They would be with other inmates during meals and at work. And of course interaction with staff. What I want is to end the constant casual contact with other inmates that recreates the criminal society of the streets. If they are alone with themselves 12-16 hours a day, they will be forced into that introspection AND will be away from the pressure of gangs, etc. I’m not saying it will be fun, but then again, prison should not be.
The original penitentiary concept quickly got perverted into the kind of system used in Tasmania, and that most definitely is not what I would want to do. Mind you, such a system as I described would never be done because it would be too staff intensive and therefore too expensive.
Subotai Bahadur
“But it’s not the specifics of the case nor even sympathy for the individuals or victims that is at issue. The problem is one of theology. Are some people evil or can they always be fixed, given enough social work and counseling?”
Those who do evil have to be repentant and want to be healed, otherwise free will means nothing.
The two thieves on the cross with Jesus at his crucifixion come to mind. Faced with the certainty of impending death, able to see the manner of man hanging next to them, one repented and the other, because he was unrepentant was beyond redemption.
Symbolic perhaps, of just this issue?
“Faith in the Almighty is probably inversely proportional to our faith in ourselves.”
Perhaps I misunderstand but you appear to be saying wretchard that faith in ourselves and the Almighty are mutually exclusive, that both cannot exist simultaneously .
If so, I greatly disagree. Inevitably falling short of the glory of God, does not make us any less his children and if we are his children, then that fact alone makes us potentially worthy of salvation. When we acknowledge our sin(s) and are repentant, we are as the “prodigal son” and “the peace that passeth all understanding” welcomes our return with great joy.
Knowing that we have good in us, that we cleave to the light when able, does not mean that we necessarily deny the darkness that every soul contends with, nor does the existence of that darkness make the ‘light’ any less real or invalid.
We are all, to one degree or another, bad and good. But if someone fully embraces the bad and rejects the good and is truly committed to that choice, they cannot be saved.
Not by man nor by God… for he will not violate our free will. We each make the choice of what we will be and no one can take that choice from us.
49erDweet,
The sentence to memorize is “I was in fear for my life and that of my family. I shot until I no longer perceived a threat.”
That plus the Castle Doctrine and its attendant civil immunity should cover a lot. I figure there’s nothing in my house worth the amount of money it would take to defend a civil lawsuit after a shooting (I don’t count on the plaintiff’s bar grasping the concept of civil immunity), and I have insurance. I’m not the raging fist of justice and I’m not going to kill someone for taking my stuff. But I’m also not going to assume anyone in my house who enters violently is only interested in stealing.
49er #61:
Agreed. And the guy knows it now, too. And he told the judge after he lost the lawsuit that he had gotten rid of his .22. And bought a Thirty Ought 6. The judge said “I understand perfectly.”
But the Castle Law does not protect you against civil lawsuits, just possibly against criminal prosecution. You can be sued in a civil case for wearing purple socks or for watching I Love Lucy. And if the judge does not throw the case out and the jury decides that the burglar is a poor unfortunate minority who has been oppressed by White people like you since before he was born then you lose your house.
49erDweet, #61: Rule #2. Always shoot to permanently end the confrontation, ie: never to face the shootee again – in court or elsewhere.
That, alas, does not account for any vengeance-minded next of kin and/or criminal buddies the shootee may have. For that we need Rule #4: “Expect a follow-up attack, and prepare accordingly.”
And of course, even if the shootee’s next of kin aren’t inclined to kill you, they can still sue you our of your home as well.
#’s 66 & 67
Here in Colorado, admittedly back before the Democrats took both houses of the Legislature and the Governor’s mansion, we had a burglar get hurt while breaking in, and sue the homeowner. The response was for our legislature Colorado to pass a law barring anyone from suing the intended victim of a crime they try/tried to commit. Of course, we also have the “Make My Day” Law, and over the objection of the Democrats and much of the Republican party, we have “Shall Issue” statewide concealed carry if you have no criminal or mental health record and take certain minimal training.
If you have the right of initiative in your state, and if we have real elections in November, you might want to start something to get those into law.
Subotai Bahadur
Subotai Bahadur, #68: Here in Colorado, admittedly back before the Democrats took both houses of the Legislature and the Governor’s mansion, we had a burglar get hurt while breaking in, and sue the homeowner. The response was for our legislature Colorado to pass a law barring anyone from suing the intended victim of a crime they try/tried to commit.
Does it bar lawsuits by next of kin too, in the event the criminal dies? It seems kind of useless if it doesn’t.
#69 Joshua:
I’m not sure, but I think it bars all suits. Since in a civil action they apportion fault, and under our law it is legal to use deadly force to defend yourself and your home and family if you are in fear of death or grievous bodily injury; the fault goes to the criminal. Our DA’s and Grand Juries tend to put out decisions clearing the defenders fairly quickly. That would tend to preclude suits, but definitely if you are going to try an initiative you can write it as comprehensively as you want.
Subotai Bahadur
“95% federal civil cases settle.”
Oh yeah, absolutely. But a civil case is not a criminal case. The prisoner’s dilemma actually is not what happens in a civil case. In a civil case, both sides conduct discovery. Discovery divulges each sides’ cards. Each sides’ lawyers look at the cards, do the legal research, look at the respective strength of both sides’ cases, and begin negotiations. That is, each side’s cards are basically known to the other. There are various reasons why the sides would not deem it in their interests – lawyer fees vs. probable returns – to settle and thus go to trial, but almost no one tries anything, because then the loser receives nothing + the full brunt of whatever the other guy can convince the jury to award the winner. In cases where punitive damages are allowed, the verdicts can be truly horrendous – life-changing, whether personally or commercially. So once the Plaintiff gets past summmary judgment, the judge has signalled to the Defendant that he believes the Plaintiff’s claims are credible, and the Defendant has to sit down and do a cost-benefit analysis to figure out how much to fold for. It may be hard to appreciate the true power of judges (and juries) unless you’re a lawyer. It really is incredible.
As for the pound-me-in-the-ass federal prisons – rehabilitation is frustrated not by imperfect mechanisms of therapy but by the ineluctable difficulty of converting one personality into another. For good or ill (I think for good), human beings have not figured out how to do that. A person who has so little regard for another that he will lie, steal, cheat, injure, defraud, or kill another – utterly debauch him or herself – usually for very little gain, is an animal that has a glitch for which there is no answer.
For example, I have a client now – a federal white collar criminal case – who associated with a certain stripper. The client ran a small time pyramid scheme called an Advanced Fee Scheme – he would offer certain products for a 30%-40% reduced rate but demand pay up front. The clients would pay, and then he’d deliver only enough stuff to keep the complaints to the Better Business Bureau at bay. When it got too hot, he’d change the name of the company, regsiter as a different entity, and go on doing the same thing. So he meets this stripper, an African-American woman, who he tells this scheme to. She gets excited. She evidently does her research or knows something, because she discovers/knows that something like 60% of small/mid-sized hotels are owned by Indians, and Indians apparently tend to do business on the basis of trust in the fraternal Indianness.
So what does she do? She legally changes her last name to a very common Indian name, and proceeds to pass herself – an African-American – off as an Indian (her primary way of communicating is mass fax, marketing to like 30,000 – 40,000 a month).
Legally changes her name to an Indian name! Ha! Man I thought that was a special level of depravity. Anyway when she’s discovered by the Feds and investigated she eventually kills herself. So my client becomes the next target. Guess what? He’s an asshole and he’s guilty. Believe me – I know so. And yet I have to defend him, with a straight face, because we’re Americans, not Soviets.
Someone said it above: the conservative view is correct, because it’s tragic. Machiavelli was also correct: Men are more inclined to do evil than good. Amen. If you don’t like it, go read the Huffington Post.
The case I described was in South Carolina.
Here in Florida there is a Castle Law. Last year there was even a case in Orlando where intruders broke into a home in the middle of the night, terrorized and robbed the occupants, and then left. And one of the people in the house then got to an AK-47, ran out into the street, and killed one of the intruders as he was trying to drive away. And they said it was an Okay defensive shooting, which surprised me.
Subotai @57: Secondly, a third conviction for a violent felony; homicide in any form, rape or any form of sexual assault, robbery, any form of aggravated assault, burglary, etc. should automatically be a capital offense.
Exactly. As the talk radio host Bob Grant often says, those who have “served notice on society” that they are criminal, need to be gotten rid of. You can grant someone a reprieve for a first or second offense: people do make stupid mistakes. But after a point, you sacrifice your right to be a part of a putatively civilized society.
And the mere fact that punishment were made sure and swift and certain would deter crime. One of the most amazing things about old 30s crime films is how the villain would say things like “I won’t let them catch me because I’ll get the chair.” They knew with absolute certainty that their crimes would lead to their execution if caught.
Certainty of punishment has a very bracing effect on the soul.
That is surprising – he killed him while he was trying to escape in a car? Even the Castle Law regards fleeing invaders as exempt from deadly force. There may have been other subtle facts that allowed the Court to rule that way. The genius of Anglo-American democracy resides in the inherent, non-ideological conservativism of the courts. But judges are people too – most people can tell when the f_cker deserved it.
73 quoting 57 – yeah, those are terrible crimes. i never imagined what it would be like. but suddenly standing in a small, white, flourescent-lit room with a family whose son has been killed by a semi-random bullet, with the son’s killer just through a wall 25 feet away, is an intense experience. and they’re looking at you to Help them. if you can relax you feel the moral law flowing through you. it is crystal clear, and it’s on fire.
George Orwell famously said some things are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool.
peterike, #73: And the mere fact that punishment were made sure and swift and certain would deter crime. One of the most amazing things about old 30s crime films is how the villain would say things like “I won’t let them catch me because I’ll get the chair.” They knew with absolute certainty that their crimes would lead to their execution if caught.
Certainty of punishment has a very bracing effect on the soul.
Trouble is, it’s not much of a leap from “I won’t let them catch me because I’ll get the chair” to “If they do corner me I’m a dead man anyway, so I might as well die on my feet and maybe take a few cops with me.”
64. Geoffrey Britain:
Perhaps I misunderstand but you appear to be saying wretchard that faith in ourselves and the Almighty are mutually exclusive, that both cannot exist simultaneously .
If so, I greatly disagree. Inevitably falling short of the glory of God, does not make us any less his children and if we are his children, then that fact alone makes us potentially worthy of salvation. When we acknowledge our sin(s) and are repentant, we are as the “prodigal son” and “the peace that passeth all understanding” welcomes our return with great joy.
Romans 7: 21-25 NIV
21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
How is someone “conformed” to the image of Christ in Romans 8:29?
“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.”
conformed means to be and act like.
Answer:
The holy spirit changes us when we are saved. That is our job is to enter into the presence of God and He does the work of renewal.
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Ultimately we will be transformed when we see Christ face to face beyond the veil.
Rom 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Rom 8:23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1Co 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
In your post you contrasted human behavior in two shipwrecks:
“The New Scientist has argued that ‘on the slow-sinking Titanic … there was time for [the] social norm of giving priority to women and children to establish themselves’ whereas on the Lusitania where survivors were largely strong men between 16 and 35, ‘instinct and bodily strength dictated survival’.
A third once-famous example was referenced in the 2006 Yale Alumni magazine (http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2006_05/old_yale.html, excerpted below:
In 1948, 12 years after he graduated from the Yale Divinity School, Clark Vandersall Poling’s name was carved in one of the marble tablets that line the walls of the war memorial adjacent to Woolsey Hall. Poling is among the 514 Yale alumni who died in World War II, and though his name is not well known today, his wartime sacrifice as one of the “Four Chaplains” was mourned throughout America in 1943. In February of that year, Poling and three other pastors—a rabbi, a Catholic priest, and a Methodist minister—were sailing for Greenland on the troop ship Dorchester when it was torpedoed. Without hesitation the clergymen gave their life jackets to four servicemen, and, praying together, the four chaplains went down with the ship. [snip]
One of the 226 survivors [out of 904 on board] was Engineer Grady Clark, who had been standing close to Chaplain Poling. Clark said: “They quieted the panic, forced men ‘frozen’ on the rail toward the boats or over the side, helped men adjust life jackets, and at last gave away their own.”
Clark spoke of Chaplain Poling’s contagious laugh, and continued, “I swam away from the ship and turned to watch. The flares now lighted everything. The bow came up high, and she slid under. The last I saw, the chaplains were up there praying for the safety of the men. They had done everything they could. I did not see them again.”
In December 1943, the Army awarded the Distinguished Service Cross to the families of each chaplain.
Charles,
Not to in any way denigrate your faith but I find that strictly quoting from the Bible generally muddies the waters of understanding, rather than bringing a deeper understanding.
Please understand, not the concepts within the Bible, which are frequently exquisite but rather the wording of the passages themselves, which were written at a different time and are frequently less than clear to modern sensibilities.
Personally, I’m of the mind that if you can’t explain it, in clear, concise modern terminology, you don’t really understand it.
So, if you could explain all of the above in your own words, I’d appreciate it.
Otherwise, Vaya con Dios my friend.
57. Subotai Bahadur:
Thirdly, it needs to be realized that for any psycho-sexual crime; there is no rehabilitation. Whatever expression of sex a person has is hard-wired in their head. It is not going to be changed by talking to a Pshrink for a couple of hours a week [which is most of what Sex Offender Treatment Programs consist of]… . Further, that almost 100% of convicted child sex offenders eventually re-offend.
I suggest you consult some of the research posted at the Calif. Comm. On Sex Offending website.
From the link at “Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released for Prison in 1994, DOJ”
Compared to non-sex offenders released from State prisons, released
sex offenders were 4 times more likely to be rearrested for a sex crime.
Within the first 3 years following their release from prison in 1994, 5.3% (517
of the 9,691) of released sex offenders were rearrested for a sex crime. The
rate for the 262,420 released non-sex offenders was lower, 1.3% (3,328 of
262,420)……
Compared to the 9,691 sex offenders and to the 262,420 non-sex offenders,
released child molesters were more likely to be rearrested for child molesting.
Within the first 3 years following release from prison in 1994, 3.3% (141
of 4,295) of released child molesters were rearrested for another sex crime
against a child. The rate for all 9,691 sex offenders (a category that includes
the 4,295 child molesters) was 2.2% (209 of 9,691). The rate for all 262,420
non-sex offenders was less than half of 1% (1,042 of the 262,420).
Released child molesters with more than 1 prior arrest for child molesting
were more likely to be rearrested for child molesting (7.3%) than released
child molesters with no more than 1 such prior arrest (2.4%).
From Sex Offender Recidivism in Minnesota, April 2007, MDOC : for 3,166 sex offenders, 7.3% were rearrested for a sex crime within three years of release from prison, and 11.3% were rearrested for a sex crime within ten years of release from prison, and 11.8% overall. (p 20) Apparently SOTP programs have improved over time, because the rearrest rate for a sex crime three years after release changed from 19% for those released in 1990 to 3.8% for those rearrested in 2002. (p 21). Though more intensive post release supervision also had an effect on this. At the same time, SOTP is usually part of post treatment supervision.
Table 3. ,”A Descriptive Comparison of Sex Offense Recidivism for Sex Offender Releasees, 1990-2002,” breaks down the offenders by age and sex of victim. The only offenders whose recidivism is significantly larger than the group is those who committed offenses against males under 13: 17.4%.
Most in the field would compare sex offenders to alcoholics: it can be controlled. That doesn’t mean that it always will, but the above figures show that it can be controlled.
A six year followup in Washington state of 89 sexually violent predators who had fit the criteria for civil commitment petitions but for whom petitions had not been filed had higher rates six rates after release: 29% had committed a sexual felony offense. ( link on the CCOSO page). Most sex offenders would not fit the criteria for civil commitment.
The Bulger murder obsessed the London media for many months and was used to encourage a fit of national self-flagellation; for what was in truth a dreadful but freakishly rare crime was held up by the Left as as a symptomatic proof of a far wider malaise. A newly appointed Bishop (of Salisbury, 250 miles from Liverpool) used his inaugural speech to insist that the crime had arisen from the cult of individualism that had taken hold of Britain in the previous decade – a coded way of saying it is the fault of Thatcher – while the eloquent opportunist Blair spotted his cue, emoted before camera, and declared the crime “a hammer-blow against the sleeping conscience of the country”.
Well, the re-incarceration of Venables is now a hammer-blow against the foundation of their world view. But the nation is no wiser, the Guardian readers will recover their smugness – at least, within a year or so of Conservative government – while the Conservatives themselves have long since lost the will to deflate the moral confidence of the fatheads they will soon seek to depose.
59. 49erDweet: You’ll have to read, I’m afraid. Lending books is a great way to transfer them into the libraries of others. It’s been too many years and the details are hazy. I remember being shocked and angry at the evidence presented.
79. Charles: And why not Romans 12:2, “Be transformed by the renewal of our minds?” Not having been blessed with a single overwhelming transformational numinous experience that forever, radically altered my life, I depend on the small epiphanies that come from the daily discipline of attention to what I’m doing and the examination of conscience when I realize I’ve screwed up – again. Which, I’ll wager, is the more common lot of ordinary men.
There is much sympathy for the 10 year olds, that they not suffer too much punishment. But what about James Bulger and his parents? My sympathy is reserved for them.
I loved bogie wheel’s comment @62:
One of the many problems with a secularized culture is that there is no room for recognition of or accounting for the spiritual dimension of crime. In a secularized system, therefore, when a criminal *appears* to repent & vow not to reoffend, there are substantial numbers of people for whom the only appropriate response is to let the criminal either out of jail or off with a reduced sentence or plea deal. IE there is no imaginative space in the head of secular man in which to say, “You’re sorry? Great. You can do your penance ministering to others behind bars…
Exactly. It always seemed to me that if a criminal was truly, genuinely repentant, then they would accept their punishment and be unable to dare to bring themselves to press for early release or parole. In this world, what was done cannot be undone, no matter how sorry. With regard to capital offenses, it doesn’t help anything to say, well, we believe the perp is ready to rejoin society and he deserves the chance to prove he’ll never do it again. Even if he in fact never re-offends, that can’t make up for, make right, blot out or change in any way the original crime. In point of fact, the criminal does not deserve a chance to prove he’ll never do it again. He may get the chance, but he can never *deserve* it.
The Bulger killer should never have been released. We (most of us here anyway) recognize that evil people exist and – although extremely rare and therefore so shocking – children are not exempt. The commission of an evil act requires a human will to enact it and children, just like the rest of us, likewise possess their own individual will.
Dan #74:
Yes, I thought it odd, too. But I believe that both the intruder “victim” and the homeowner “shooter” were black.
Situational ethics = situational enforcement and situational punishment.
Aside from that, enough home intrusions had happened that the police were no doubt glad to see some of the perps finally get shot.
81. Geoffrey Britain:
I thought you did a good job of expressing the methodist arminian position that we are saved by (our own)faith (in God) through grace (of God.)
I did a poorer job of expressing the calvinist position that we are saved by grace (of God)through faith (in God.)
The point of the calvinist position is that even our faith comes from God. But both positions are within the pale of orthodoxy.
Generally speaking I think that there is tension between God’s sovereignty and man’s free will–that can’t be resolved on one side or the other. I would further argue that that tension is what sets off western civilization from others.
bogie wheel 62, Karen Yvonne 89, Yes. There is no need to couple spiritual rehabilitation with social. If a life prisoner is graced to be reborn in Christ, he should accept his cell as a monastic cell, and leave it at that.
wretchard and Charles are wright (sic): The self confidence taught by the secular culture is morally neutral at best. Confidence in Christ as your Savior starts the Christian on a better path.
Those interested in this topic should read “Whoever Fights Monsters: My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI,” by Robert Ressler, who coined the phrase serial killer.
If a child’s fantasies of killing/rape/torture are not handled in preadolescence (ages 8-12), it’s too late.
Sadists can not be rehabilitated. This is the point of no return, and all sadistic murderers (or even attempting such acts) must be executed. No point to overload prison system with human scum.
Does anybody remember what Jesus said about child molesters? “It is better for them being thrown into water with a millstone tied to their necks”. I do not remember the chapter and the verse, or exact wording, but the meaning is exactly this.
Sergey #94 – Luke 17:2
“Then said he (Jesus) unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him through whom they come!
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”
Also in Matthew 18:6, where these words followed the disciples’ question asking Jesus who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven and in reply, Jesus summoned a little child into their midst and said, “Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.”
Of course, being humble is not what we’re into these days.
Jesus wasn’t ONLY talking about child molesters. He’s just finished describing those who most truly follow him as being little children – humble, small, inoffensive, harmless. The child standing before Him is a representative of ALL true believers. The evildoer who deserves the millstone is anyone who “offends” – harms the faith of – “one of these little ones who believe in me”. Of course He’d condemn child molesters. But he was making a larger point as well.
Actually, in some states it does.
Some people are evil. They have a fundamental inability to see others as thinking, feeling creatures. They see the rest of us as two-dimensional cardboard cutouts to be used or manipulated to gratify their needs. They cannot be rehabilitated.
Some, otherwise decent, people make tragic mistakes they will never repeat.
The problem lies in our inability to reliably differentiate between the two. Monsters spend their entire lives learning to mask their true selves. They tend to be superficially charming.
The single most reliable predictor of future violence is past violence.