Hebrews 12:11 (New King James Version Bible, 1982) states, “Now no chastening seems to be
joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of the
righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Punishment should be used as a source of
discipline, to instill obedience, and sometimes protect individuals from themselves. In the
moment punishment is given, it may not feel a joyous experience; however, in the end, an
offender should know it was for the best and find peace in punishment. As ideally, the justice
system would be fair in what punishments were given to a defendant. “Be kind and
compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” (New
King James Version Bible, 1982, Ephesians 4:32). The criminal justice system should follow the
guidance disseminated by Hebrews 12:11 and Ephesians 4:32 when reforming sentencing policy.
It can be difficult for many to take a step back and identify a troubled person who needs
compassion and is not merely an offender set in his ways, unwilling to change. However, it is
important those who make the final decision on sentencing know what type of punishment will
be most beneficial to the offender’s ultimate prospective outcome. Is it better to choose
alternative sentencing or traditional sentencing?
Presentencing investigations are a helpful option for exemplifying compassion, while still
determining a punishment that will right a wrong. This practice gives sentencing judges the
discretion to look beyond a person’s current crimes and evaluate their criminal record and
personal background (Schmalleger, 2020). Judges may use this tool to understand if other
solutions such as innovative or alternative sentencing should be used or if jail time is the only
response. It grants offenders who may have a challenging background an opportunity to
understand better decision making without completely causing their future to adorn the veritable
scarlet letter that comes compliments of a criminal record. Rehabilitation should be the primary
goal in the criminal justice sentencing process; taking a step into an individual’s shoes and
understanding what led them to their actions is beneficial not only to the rehabilitation of the
offender, but to society (Radice, 2017). Traditional sentencing has caused barriers to
employment, housing, and education for offenders who are trying to get their life back on track
(Radice, 2017).
There should be a bigger push to use innovative or alternative sentencing to correct behavior.
Many alternative sentencing strategies utilize means such as public shaming, community service,
counseling, drug treatment, and victim-offender programs (Schmalleger, 2020). These options
create a greater likelihood for a member of society to get another chance to see their actions are
wrong without creating a pervasively staining criminal record. To ensure the safety of society, the
justice system must find ways to reintegrate offenders and rehabilitate them without causing
undesired consequences for a wrong decision. God wants us to remember we all are human and
sin. He wants us to have the ability to love our neighbor, show empathy, and be kind to our
fellow man, regardless of their past transgressions.
References
New King James Version Bible. (1982). Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Radice, J. (2017). The reintegrative state. Emory Law Journal, 66(6), 1315-1390.
Schmalleger, F. (2020). Criminal Justice Today (16th Edition). Pearson Education
(US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9780135770702
Timyia,
I can certainly see validity in your assertion that discretion should not be an option given to
judges during the sentencing process. It is widely known that people of color are
disproportionately incarcerated compared to their counterparts. Furthermore, there is a disparity
between sentence lengths issued to males and females who have committed comparable crimes.
Even more, gaps are exacerbated by judges’ political affiliations. Cohen and Yang (2019)
observed that Republican appointed judges typically give longer sentences to people of color
compared to democratic appointed judges in their district. For instance, Republican judges
distribute sentences 3 months longer to people of color (Cohen et al., 2019). Additionally,
Democratic judges sentence women longer than men, a stat that does not hold true with
Republican judges (Cohen et al., 2019). Furthermore, Yang and Cohen concluded discretion
given to judges creates a larger gender and racial disparity (Cohen et al., 2019).
“My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.
For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there
should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the
fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place”, and say to the poor man, “You stand
there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and
become judges with evil thoughts?” (New King James Version Bible, 1982, James 2:1-5)
Representatives within our criminal justice system must be impartial. There should be no
differences in sentencing, regardless of race, gender, or any other factor that may facilitate
discrimination.
Resources
Cohen, A., & Yang, C. (2019). Judicial politics and sentencing decisions. American Economic
Journal. Economic Policy, 11(1).
New King James Version Bible. (1982). Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Daniel,
I agree with your Biblical view on punishment and how it should be disbursed from nonviolent
criminals to violent. Even more, when punishment has been complete, I believe measures should
be taken to reintegrate offenders properly, an initial step in forgiving them for their
transgressions. Everyone sins, makes mistakes, and needs forgiveness. Ephesians 4:32 says,
“And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave
you.” This verse from Ephesians expects that we forgive one another. Reintegrative shaming is a
great sentencing strategy to aid the process of forgiveness. This strategy removes the humiliation
associated with practices of stigmatic shaming and instead asks for meaningful relationships to
help create a path to end reoffending. Research has consistently suggested forming meaningful
relationships decreases recidivism (McAlinden et al., 2017). The development of an identity that
is inconsistent with continued offending are factors leading to the discontinuance of criminal
behavior (McAlinden et al., 2017). For example, an offender may find importance in a
relationship he or she may hold, causing a greater motivation to stop additional criminal
behavior. This example is a form of informal social control as the risk of losing someone acts as
a motivation to obey societal norms (McAlinden et al., 2017). Furthermore, reintegrative
shaming follows that of Luke 17:3. “Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you,
rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.” Rebuking an individual is to show disapproval or
criticism for their actions. God wants us to heed ourselves, knowing when we are wrong.
However, he also asks those who have been transgressed against to demonstrate forgiveness.
References
McAlinden, A.-M., Farmer, M., & Maruna, S. (2016). Desistance from sexual offending: Do the
mainstream theories apply? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(3).
