Part I – Is ‘Justice as Retribution’ Grounded in Religious Beliefs?

Our relatively young democracy – once a beacon of light in this world – has, over  the past four years, become an authoritarian regime wed to the principle that a strong leader (Fuhrer) with a cultish following is what AMERICA needs to beat back the forces of social progressivism and liberal philosophy to preserve our American  ‘way of life’ and our freedoms *generally meaning white race domination and the right to tote firearms wherever one wishes without restriction.  In essence this is an outgrowth of the slogan “don’t tread on me” or the concept that freedom is essentially non-intervention of the federal government into daily life and work.

While a fear of abusive government intervention and control was certainly behind our Declaration of Independence and parts of our Constitution, that is not what those documents support as the essence of the government they and their authors helped construct.  Our Constitution is not based on fear but on confidence in the unique nature of the form of democracy they formulated. 

For instance, government is perceived in those founding documents as the protector of rights and freedoms, exemplified in more modern times as protecting the well-being of its citizens by requiring seat belts, or masks, or the abolition of chemicals harmful to society’s food supply.  If government does stray from its main purposes, such behavior can be  criticized and protested – that is a citizen’s right and responsibility.  But the current disregard for our centralized system of government is not just a protest but a repudiation and a source of division and discord for it seeks to invalidate the structure itself and in so doing, undermines the very nature and soul of that system. Advocating violence to make its views heard and feared, this authoritarian movement uses people as pawns in its efforts to subvert democratic tenets.  It uses questionable means to seek vengeance or revenge against its detractors or against those who propose solutions or policies that are contrary to its own ideology or beliefs.  It is a seditious movement that threatens to overthrow the bedrock principles and values that have been at the core of this democracy for centuries, such as the right to vote.

In that regard, let us briefly address the subject of Justice and the Law.  The Law is many things: it is based on our Constitution and expanded by legislation, regulations, and even common law or oral tradition, as well as some Supreme Court decisions.  The law can serve as a protector of people and their property, it can also, with the wrong twist and some abuse,  become a glaring example of intimidation, threat, restriction and false arrest. The Breonna Taylor casg one tragic example.  The concepts of law that we carry with us are probably most clearly revealed in the “bumper sticker-like phrases” we often hear, like:

“The law will catch up to them”

“If you do the crime you must do the time.”

“Lock her up”

“Throw away the key”

“I just want justice”

 

The Law forbids certain ways of behaving, for instance stealing, killing, or exceeding speed limits and prescribes others, like paying taxes or driving in the right lane.   Such rules and laws are usually promulgated by legislation or court order.  As such, the Law or laws tend to bring order to the natural chaos that exists when laws are absent.  That order is generally seen as positive and good for the society and its people.  However, sometimes the rule of law goes off-kilter and becomes flawed because its main purposes have been skewed or twisted into being a tool of someone seeking absolute power rather than being a building-block that secures justice and peace for the many.  For example:

·       The law should not be a club or cudgel used to beat people unto submission. Such use of law as a weapon rejects the notion of equal justice and peaceful existence for people by undermining both with violent disorder.

·       The Law should not be a mechanism or tool for keeping certain people (like those living in poverty or those of a certain race) separate and isolated from the mainstream of a society by means of rules, norms, and standards that other groups or individuals are not required to observe or to be held  to account

·       The Law should not be an instrument of torture or unusual punishment to restrain or attack certain people for their behavior, origin, background, or grievance.  It is not unusual for authoritarian regimes to use laws formed by them to intimidate, frighten, or torture  those they define as ‘trouble-makers’

·       The Law is not meant to be a definer of enemies or friends; it is rather meant to be an instrument and bellwether for equal treatment and unbiased judgment

·       The Law is not meant to divide and alienate certain people from the full range of opportunities that a well-ordered society has to offer.  Authoritarian governments often promulgate decrees that open certain opportunities to  chosen groups while preventing others from any chance at participation

·       The Law is not meant to be the creator of classes defined purposefully to exclude certain people from consideration as ‘privileged’ or ‘elite’ and define others as ‘untouchables’ or undesirables’

Which brings me to a subject considered controversial -- the religious basis for much of what we accept about ‘the Law’ and ‘law enforcement.’  We do not have the time, the space, or the patience to trace the mythologies of the ancient world or the tenets of our major religions.  Suffice to say that our concepts of justice, law enforcement, sentencing and incarceration have much to do with the worldwide absorption of religious and mythological concepts and precepts that have held sway over us for almost as long as human beings have existed.  Those concepts show up in ancient stories of Greek and Roman Gods or even in the ancient Gilgamesh Epic.  Let us take just one pearl from the bunch because it is a saying so familiar to many:

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”-- a famous quotation taken from The Code of Hammurabi, a law code designed by Hammurabi, a Babylonian king.  As if to prove my point, this saying existed in more than one society or religion, with the meaning:  if someone does something wrong, that person should be punished by having the same  or similar thing done to them. 

This saying is also found in Hebrew Scripture (the Old Testament) in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy indicating its widespread use in ancient Israeli culture.

Unfortunately, the concepts in that saying do not end in ancient Israel.  They are also interwoven in something Christians call the Story of Redemption which, they say, began in the Religion of the ancient Hebrew nation and culminated in the sacrifice of the one called Jesus the Christ.  Part of that story contains the concept that a price had to be paid for the sinfulness, disobedience, idolatry, and apostasy that characterized the chosen people of Israel as they turned away from the laws delivered to them by God’s servant, Moses. Their acceptance of the gods, mores, rituals, laws, plus the idols and societal norms of peoples of that region constituted a breaking of God’s Law and there was no way out except that a valued leader (such as a Messiah or King or Prophet would have to atone for those law-breaking sins). 

The story of Jesus, a descendant from the House of David, and an itinerant story-teller and teacher, who had a reputation for capturing and teaching new concepts that filled old tenets with new insights, who may also have had some followers who incorporated ideas of divine origins.  Certainly, some in the early Christian community --like Paul the Roman citizen-turned-Christian who had acquaintanceship with the mythical gods of that era, assigned divine intervention and origins to this poor young man from the Lake country of Galilee, who often denied the titles and approbations sent his way by Paul and other disciples who were part of his band of followers.  That band of followers included his brother James who became a leader in the early Christian community that stayed in and around Jesus’ home region. James and his group were much more oriented to following a teacher/prophet than they were in worshipping a divine being.   

 The Story of Redemption that grew up around this man-God had within it a basic principles that some major price would need to be extracted from the Hebrew nation as recompense or payment for the sins of their errant ways.  And so, the divine origin and mantle placed on this Jesus became the key to the price to  be paid.  As God’s Son, he would be the perfect sacrificial Lamb acceptable to God and representative of the people.  A Perfect Sacrifice that would right the wrongs of Israel’s history and placate an angry God because this was his only Son.  This angry God could then be reclaimed as a loving God who gave his Son to death on a Cross as a loving act of Atonement initiated and received by him as payment due him for man’s rebellion, apostasy, and immorality, including a bonus of forgiveness of sin that was attainable by anyone who confessed allegiance and made a total commitment to God at any future time.

Again, unfortunately, we have been the recipients of just enough of that story in our culture to remain saddled with the notions of a universe where ‘revenge is sweet’, and we often speak and act in terms that reflect our acquired sense of justice as payment, as revenge for wrongs committed, as having to sacrifice something of value to ever be consider a lawbreaker as a worthy person.  A few of those phrases come to mind because they get used so often, especially in courtrooms:

§  “I just want justice to be served”

§  “I hope she has to pay with her life”

§  “I want him to suffer like he made us suffer”

§  “I hope they get what they deserve”

§  “I hope you rot in hell”

§  “I don’t want anyone else to have to go through what we’ve been through because of this person”

§  “execution is one way to deter others from doing the same thing”

§  “I’m seeking payback for what he did”

§  “They deserve to go away for a long, long time”

 It could be said, then, that deep in our understanding of Law and Law Enforcement lie concepts of revenge, getting even, punishment, retribution and pay-back or recompense.   If that is true, then we may need a drastic  re-thinking and re-formulation of our concepts of law and law enforcement.  Perhaps first and foremost, we need to affirm strongly that the issue we face today is not primarily one of good cops versus bad cops, with the solution being to get rid of the bad cops.  That is too narrow a definition and too naïve a solution for what we call ‘law enforcement’ and ‘police brutality.’

Law enforcement forces exist within the same ethos that accepts and promotes the ancient ‘eye for an eye’ concept.  But more, it now has added components that make it suspicious if not pernicious.  Militarism has been added; shoot to kill has been accepted and sanctioned, and internal cover-up of wrongs is now endemic to too many departments.  Law enforcement has too often been seen as a war between police and the people in the neighborhoods or areas they patrol.  And the police have used  their assigned budgets to acquire all the paraphernalia necessary to engage in war tactics and war strategies to fight those battles.   They possess such accoutrements as toxic gas which they use freely on protestors and looters.  They acquire riot gear including nets and bullet-proof vests.  They have  an assortment of military armaments, including semi-automatic weapons, military transport vehicles, bullet-proof armored transport and even a few tanks, flash-bangs, armored cars with .35-caliber ammunition, and MRAPs. They are prepared for any ‘battles’ that may ensue.  Some say the very presence of the police and their military equipment provokes rioting and violent reactions that were not necessarily contemplated before they arrive on a scene  in battle gear.  

 Observing the tactics of the police on television, even when they know they are being watched, is enough to make one wonder how we got to this point of enforcement without restraint.  I think mainly of two images: one, the image of a white elderly gentlemen who approached the police on a mission of some sort, in Buffalo, NY, appearing to want to bring something to their attention. He did appear to be somewhat agitated, but certainly not acting as a threat.  He was pushed to the ground by an officer and, although he hit his head on the pavement, and appeared to be in some distress, no one moved to help him until an officer broke ranks to assist him or to ask his condition.  The young officer was summarily restrained by a superior and told to leave the man alone and to move on.  As it turned out, the man was injured slightly, and the cop who knelt to inquire as to his condition was reported to be none other than the junior officer who had originally pushed the poor man to the sidewalk.   The two officers involved in pushing the man down were suspended, but the Blue Wall of resistance to such action went up almost immediately.  Jun 05, 2020 · (CNN) “Fifty-seven police officers in Buffalo, New York, have resigned from the force's emergency response team following the suspension of two officers who are seen on video pushing a 75-year-old.”  Is such support of misbehavior justified or is it partly what keeps us from  serious and profound reform?

 My second most vivid recollection is that scene of the police violently clearing out the peaceful protestors in Lafayette Park near the WHITE house so that DONALD J. TRUMP could walk across that space unhindered to stand in front of historic St. John’s Church awkwardly holding a bible and having his picture broadcast to his followers and others.  Later, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs who had originally marched with the so-called president (more accurately designated as Fuhrer at that moment) rightly apologized for taking part in that debacle, reiterating the proper role of the military is to remain above partisan politics to concentrate on their mission and duty as military officers.  The offices of president, of the military  and of the police as the protectors and defenders of peaceful protest by peaceful citizens were being so blatantly and violently abused as to make one wonder if we are living in a police state encouraged and manipulated by the president of this nation similar to the machinations of some tin-horn dictator.

 Which brings us right back to the main theme of this essay. Our problem with equal justice and law in this country is not because we have some misguided or miscreant cops on our streets. The problem runs far deeper. We as a sovereign people have allowed our own biases constructed from age-old mis-readings and myths about justice and the law to fashion an atmosphere, an environment, an ethos in which a militant police state can grow and prosper even though we have thousands of “good cops.”  We have allowed an ideology or philosophy of militaristic enforcement to be the means by which we exact a price for law-breaking or non-conformity to societal rules – too often involving rules determined by an elite over whom there are no checks and balances because they have purchased the privilege of being exempt from the restraints of legalities. 

 The poisoned atmosphere of law and order as restraint, as enforcement, as punishment, as a war, as retribution, as a price or sacrifice that must be paid and as a means of restraining certain groups such as immigrants, minorities, progressive and socially-conscious youth, or LGBTQ – all the “undesirables” defined by the elites of society – is what lies at the base of our problems with law enforcement and with equal justice for all.  We are living right now within a State that accepts police brutality as a norm, that embraces violence as an acceptable form of policing (but not of protesting).  We live in a State where police have few checks on their power to bring unusual force to bear on ordinary citizens. 

Expecting a mayor or a city manager or a local district attorney to counter abuse of police power is an illusion at best and a tragedy at worst.  Arrest, sentencing, and incarceration can be one more area of justice  in which mythical and religious messages prevail.  The infamous ‘War on Drugs’ begun under Nixon and then exacerbated by Reagan, is an example of exacting a price, punishing, and casting-out certain groups within our culture.  That war goes on now under the guise of dealing with opioid addiction. Rarely do we approach such societal problems anymore from the more rational viewpoint of rehabilitation or healing.  Instead,  punishment for miscreant behavior or for some stereotyped group characteristic seems to be most prominent.  

(Go on to Part II for some Jesus teachings that may speak to Justice reform)