Perhaps we need to return once again to our religious roots to find some answers to our biases and prejudices that are determining our confusion and misrepresentation about law and justice. In the New Testament, within the confines of constructs of divine intervention and godly titles assigned to the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, there are some clues as to what he was teaching about Law and living. This season of celebration is an appropriate time perhaps to recapture some of those teachings.
(1)
Jesus tried to say that the Torah was not just a
book of rules or a program for winning favor with God, or a way to order a
society of conformists that tends to suffocate a creative and innovative society
and nation rather than inspiring and invigorating either individuals or
society. He offered something called ‘THE
SUMMARY OF THE LAW’ by which he summarized the Law’s essence, not just its words. ‘LOVE God with all your heart and love your neighbor
as you love yourself.’ That, by the way,
was seen as blasphemy by the religious leaders of his time. This man was presuming to speak for God and
had no standing or credentials to do so – he was thus presumed to be a ‘trouble-maker’
a ‘rabble-rouser’ even a threat to the leadership of the religious establishment
of that time. As more people began to listen and to accept his teachings, the establishment
began to plot his removal from their bailiwick.
A corrupt Roman Governor made the perfect accomplice in their plan to
remove this Jesus from their midst and so retribution in the form of
crucifixion was arranged.
(2) Meanwhile the Teacher kept trying to overcome the burdens and shortcomings of legalism by emphasizing the actual demonstration of what laws are meant to do which is to protect and nourish people so that they can formulate a ‘kingdom’ or realm in which ‘others’ are regarded as neighbors, and perhaps as prodigal or wayward sons who need to be welcomed not punished or disowned. He told a strange story of a Samaritan (“The Samaritans embraced a religion that was a mixture of Judaism and idolatry (2 Kings 17:26-28). Because the Israelite inhabitants of Samaria had intermarried with the foreigners and adopted their idolatrous religion, Samaritans were generally considered “half-breeds” and were universally despised by the Jews”). This Samaritan was on a journey until he discovered a distressed injured person on the side of the road. The Samaritan interrupted his own journey and mission to bind up the man’s wounds and to see that he was safe before proceeding on his way. By contrasting a despised Samaritan with a priest and Levite who did not stop to help but quickly passed by, this Teacher challenged the prevailing notion of superiority of a chosen people, the smugness of law-abiding conformity, and the concept that the mission of God’s chosen people is to be concentrated not on punishing wrongdoing , but rather on taking action to do what is right and best for others in need. He thus again redefined the purpose of law which is to be a concerned and loving neighbor to all in need no matter who or what they may be perceived to be.
We find an expansion of these
outlandish teachings in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and in the ‘Parable of the
Sheep and Goats’ defining what it means
to be not just an observer of the Law but a practitioner of its essence. He had the audacity to suggest that certain practitioners
of the Law’s essence – often seen as troublemakers or undesirables by
authorities -- will find vindication and validation of their efforts in a social
construct (he called it the ‘kingdom of God or of heaven’) that approves of
just such people: the
poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for
righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who
are persecuted for righteousness’ sake when others revile them and persecute them
and utter all kinds of evil against them falsely…”.
Note this: “ The
Beatitudes are built on the Greek word Makarios which means
happy or flourishing but is often translated as “Blessed” in the English bible.
They show us a countercultural vision of “the good life”. One where even in our
brokenness and discomfort we can flourish as renewed human beings. Happiness is
built around living out love for one’s God and love for one another.”
And therein lies what may be the main point of his Sermon, also related to our problems with Law and Justice”
Jesus invites his disciples and listeners to find happiness
and flourishing lives in their loving relationships with their God and his
people by putting the essence of the Law into practice.
These statements of blessing go against how the world would
define a meaningful or successful life.
It amounts to turning a cultural vision of life’s fulfillments and blessings
upside down and inside out. (See my
Blog of 4/15/2017 for more on conflicting values).
Contrary to prevailing thoughts, and controlling beliefs and myths,
we may be at a point in our culture where justice, law and punishment or arrest,
sentencing and incarceration are just not the best way to bring about either beneficial
order or the true well-being and flourishing of our people and our culture. This
talk of flourishing and of happiness tends to remind us that we are not far off
here from our own founding purposes which boldly included the “pursuit of happiness”
as one of the aims and rights of our form of governing.
Jesus
invited his disciples and followers to find happiness and blessing or flourishing
in their relationships. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats enshrines flourishing
and living well and righteously into a pattern of serving one’s God by caring
for those who most need goodness, love and caring.
Where
then can we start to reverse the inadequate meanings and norms we have laid
upon our justice system?
(1)
I suspect we must begin with what we consider to be the main
PURPOSE of law and justice. Is it the forcing of order in society – is it law
enforcement that is the main purpose with all the military accoutrements that
such a definition implies? Is the law meant
to bludgeon citizens into compliance producing a sort of conformity that
reduces dissent, dismisses, or condemns non-conformity and dispenses with required
reform and change? Is it the use of
force and intimidation to extract a
price from certain groups so that others may prosper and grow more secure in
their privileges and their acquisitions?
Or has it become, after all, the structuring of divisions and classes so that everyone will know their place
and not try to take from the ruling class what they regard as their privileged
entitlements?
How do we manage to reverse the trends we now observe? How can we manage to diminish the influence of violence, revenge, and division? How do we manage to pass laws that nurture instead of neuter? How do we manage to incorporate flourishing and well-being into our justice system? How can we make obeying the law an experience of building flourishing communities not hastening of their destruction?
It will help simply to know our Purpose for having Law and law 'enforcement'. How many law enforcement agencies ever take a look at their Purpose for being? How many ever draw upon members of their service area to join in a thorough discussion of their Purpose? Jesus the Teacher tried, in my opinion, to say that the Law begins with acting like a neighbor who cares about and for others: for their safety, their healing, their well-being, their flourishing/blessing/happiness - their lives. Discussions of Purpose can begin a dialogue that opens up a world of new possibilities and understandings.
(2) I think the key is transitioning from arresting people as a form of punishment and denigration to a procedure we might call community intervention or community protection (or other titles like habilitation, interjection, involvement, infusion mentorship). The main difference would be the aim of the intervention.
And here is where things get complicated and dicey. For interventions are not all the same. Some arrests require forceful intervention; many do not. In some cases, what started as enforcement might turn into an opportunity to grasp something that could cause a flourishing or enhancement of personhood. Some potential arrests might be able to be turned into opportunities to present or consider a range of options that provide opportunities for improving not diminishing someone’s life. That brings us back to Purpose.
Is the Purpose of law enforcement broad enough in most jurisdictions to allow for and to encourage such possibilities? It's certainly a question worth asking. Perhaps the role and the Purpose of police work could change from being seen only as enforcers to being seen as enhancers or builders of individual lives and community well-being.
Is any of this realistic? Of course not -- not if one
buys into current cultural values, definitions, and practices.. But it is a necessary beginning if we want to make a profound move from militancy to builders of flourishing communities. WOULD IT WORK for violent criminals? Probably not, at least not until the crime situation was somewhat resolved. But it might work even with violent perpetrators when
they are able to make choices.
We would have to try it, adjust it, reform it, and try again. Would it result
in some taking advantage of the system?
Of course it would. Would it demand
that police become trained social workers, or that social workers be added to police
departments? It would require a
different kind of training for officers and perhaps the adding of staff who were experts in
social relationships.
(3) The justice system from thereon would need to follow-up on the concept of intervention, infusion, inspiration (‘breathing spirit into someone’) rather than the concepts of punishment, of irreversible criminality, of incarceration – all of which tend to destroy a person’s spirit, along with family units.
Once the Purpose is clear for what Law enforcement might be (protection, safety, and opportunity for flourishing), it becomes necessary to get down to nitty-gritty concerns, beginning with some principles that are accepted and practiced as an integral part of carrying out ones' Purpose. We actually have some pretty good models already available to us, including the "Peelian Principles" (see my Blog of 8/17/2014) , the Kerner Report (see Blog of 12/7/2014) and a report on policing from the Obama administration (see Blog of 6/7/2020). Since I have covered these topics before, let me simply say that the need still exists for community members and police in many jurisdictions to come together to consider the principles that are needed and necessary. Peel's first principles of community relationship to law enforcement are crucial and cannot be avoided if law enforcement is to become community enhancement along with protection.
3) Once a clear Purpose. principles and aims are in place, it is time to talk about recruitment, training and practicing what is being preached! It is time for implementation -- often the trickiest step of all. This is where community members and trained advisors/consultants/trainers can be of particular use, presenting material in a non-threatening but forthright manner, using official leaders as endorsers when that is most fitting.
It is also essential that newly minted Purpose, principles and outcomes be conveyed to others in the justice system. Seeking flourishing and choice plus personal growth would need to be practiced by lawyers, judges, attendants, and even guards.
For instance the use of choices would be necessary at the point of sentencing following a verdict of guilty. In some cases, a sentence to mental health rehabilitation might have to be imposed. The choice of incarceration may also be needed for those who want separation from life’s demands. Other possibilities might include: working to pay for damages or losses suffered by the victim(s) of crime, community service, probation, exile, or attendance at college courses, attendance at a rehab center, and even a choice to be tutored or instructed in a program of personal living skills might be a choice for some. The point is that sentencing must also incorporate Purpose and principles that begin to draw judges, prosecutors, defenders, and probably jurors toward opportunity for change and building rather than punishment and denigration. Perhaps whatever process police go through toward change, others in the system should also attend so they can lead their own departments in a similar exercise of discussion and reformation.
(4) Finally, every person in the new system should
be required to accept the new values and periods of training supporting their
implementation. Until we change the essence
of the system, we will continue to be controlled by the negative and legalistic
mythical and religious concepts that have skewed the system from its true North
Star.
(5) Is there more to
consider? Of course, and soon, like:
Habilitation
Mental
Healthiness
The Right kind of
Righteousness
Grace as
strengthening others
Community Welfare
The power of
‘trouble-making’
The ability of
community service to empower us all
Have a Flourishing New Year!
