 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Previous
article
| Next
article
Despite the latest statistics showing an apparent 5% fall in RECORDED crime, many people will regard this as simply reflecting a reduction in the number of people recording incidents to the authorities, and with incidents of property crime having increased three-fold since 1979, and insurance premiums ever climbing, the law and order debate continues to be of concern to politicians and the general public alike. However, discussions about crime can easily be reduced to conflicts between two narrow, polarised schools of thought: Is the ‘authoritarian’ approach, emphasising personal responsibility, compassion towards the victims, and the encouragement of self-discipline the right and most effective attitude to adopt towards crime? Or should we follow the ‘liberal’ thinking of attacking the conditions which result in people considering committing crime, demonstrating compassion towards criminals, and aiming for reform rather than retribution? In fact, as with many issues in the social sciences, a great deal may be gained by adopting a holistic rather than a factional approach, and holding that both positions are partially right. I also believe that such a view accords with Christian values, as I will now attempt to demonstrate.
No-one is forced to believe in God; we are presented with the opportunity to choose whether to build our lives on Jesus (the rock) and go the narrow way, or to reject Jesus as our Saviour and go the wide and easy way (Matthew 7:13–14, 24–27). That we are free to accept or reject God’s call is also reflected, for example, in the confirmation/believers’ baptism services held by churches when believers freely and willingly affirm their decision to accept God’s love and dedicate their whole lives in service to Him. As such, it could be held that humans are to some extent free to make personal decisions in religious and moral matters. Freedom, however, must bring with it responsibility for the choice made. When the time of judgment arrives and we are held to account for our actions, justice requires that all receive that which is their due, including condemnation, and God is a God of justice (Matthew 25:31 ff).
We are also encouraged to respect the civil authorities. This may be seen in Jesus’ payment of taxes (Matthew 17:24ff, and Mark 12:11 ff), or in St. Paul’s teachings in Romans 13:1 ff. Indeed, at a more earthly level, the continued stable existence of any society is dependent upon citizens recognising their responsibilities towards other people’s rights, as well as claiming their own rights. In these ways then, the ‘authoritarian’ view if freedom and personal responsibility appears to accord with Christian values.
However, whilst such discussion of freedom, responsibility and justice may appear to suggest that criminals should be condemned and punished for their crimes, responsibility and justice operate in two directions. As R. Jones describes in Groundwork of Christian Ethics (discussing Situationism), “Justice is love distributed”, and as Christians, we should be responsible and concerned for the plight of others, particularly those less fortunate than ourselves. The Bible is strewn with examples and commands for compassion and mercy to be demonstrated towards the socially deprived. “Do for others as you would like them to do for you” (Mark 7:12) is used by Jesus as a POSITIVE command and not merely to encourage abstention from offensive actions. Jesus’ life and ministry was spent in service amongst social outcasts, and it is this example we are taught to aspire to in our lives, as, for example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25 ff), and the story of the rich young man (Matthew 19:21 ff). This is also echoed by St. Paul and the idea of ‘agape’ (the sacrificially caring other-focused energy of love and goodwill), which is the subject of his hymn in praise of love (1 Corinthians 13). In addition, we are exhorted not to judge others for we are all sinners who depend for salvation on God’s forgiveness (Matthew 7:1 ff). In this way, as we are told in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7.38), we must demonstrate forgiveness and mercy to all, and this includes criminals, as Christ lived and died unselfishly out of love for us sinners (Philippians 2:1ff). Such a call has been echoed recently by Archbishop Carey with reference to the Nick Ingram case.
It is also perhaps not too outrageous to suppose that all the time capitalism imbues values of material acquisition amongst people, yet also denies this to the poor through the inequalities (both of wealth and opportunities) and hierarchies inherent in such a system, that there will be feelings of resentment towards the society that denies what it promises. This is not to excuse crime nor to suggest that all who are socially deprived have criminal inclinations (white-collar crime is also a serious problem), but simply to help explain it. Even the British Government no longer rejects the statistics which suggest a link between unemployment and social deprivation and crime.
This suggests that we should adopt a reforming approach to crime rather than ‘condemning a little more and understanding a little less’; for as Archbishop Carey said, “retribution helps hate replace notions of justice”. In addition, we might consider recognising and trying to alleviate social deprivation, and try to move our value-system away from destructive notions of ‘self-help’ to the Christian ones of collective altruism and ‘loving others as Christ loved us’.
It seems fairly natural to suppose that if a problem is not attacked from all possible directions, the possibility of achieving a positive outcome is reduced; for example, political solutions to conflicts between nations also frequently require socio-economic issues to be addressed for success. Such a philosophy deserves to be heeded in approaching crime. Tough sentences and an emphasis on responsibility can only be a partial response; the social causes should also be addressed. The challenge which crime poses, and balanced approach which it requires, is one which Christians cannot ignore. Effective communication and living out of the ‘Christian love’ morality, and recognition of two-way social responsibility is the holistic response, and it has been succinctly summarised in the infamous cliché ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.’
Previous
article
| Next
article
|
|
|
|
|
Last modified: 25th November 2005