Why Punish Others? [Christians Only]

Turtwig

First off I'm not a Christian so if this question is teeming with ignorance feel free to virtually slap me on the face (not too hard though!). Any illuminating responses will be greatly appreciate though.

I don't for one second doubt that we should have laws, a judicial system, prisons etc. but I'm curious as to whether the reasoning behind us having them has a Christian grounding or just a general societal one or a combination of the two. From the Christian point of view all sinners are going to be righteously judged by God and whether we like it or not us Humans simply can't make such judgements. Yet, day in day out, we condemn people to various modes of punishments for crimes we believe them to have committed. We call it justice. Why? If the person is going to be judged when they die why do we seek to punish them in this world?

Thanks very much in advance.

PDN

Without a system of laws and penalties, then you get anarchy, where the weakest will always be raped and pillaged by the powerful. So a proper legal system is necessary to protect the most vulnerable.

Onesimus

In addition to what PDN says. The Lord permits this and instituted this punishment here in a bid to humble and convert the person involved so that they change their ways and repent.

lmaopml

Jernal wrote: »

First off I'm not a Christian so if this question is teeming with ignorance feel free to virtually slap me on the face (not too hard though!). Any illuminating responses will be greatly appreciate though.

I don't for one second doubt that we should have laws, a judicial system, prisons etc. but I'm curious as to whether the reasoning behind us having them has a Christian grounding or just a general societal one or a combination of the two.

I think it's a combination really - the concept of imprisoning anti social folk existed pre Christianity and indeed in Roman times, but it had a different idea of what 'justice' was, it was a fore taste of justice for all - although I do think Christianity had a huge influence on the judicial system in the West in particular -

From the Christian point of view all sinners are going to be righteously judged by God and whether we like it or not us Humans simply can't make such judgements.

Well, I guess yes this is true; Christians believe that no matter how eloquent the speaker, the defender or even the accuser, that all will be revealed - You can imagine how the innocent person convicted in the wrong must cling to justice and the imperfect but serviceable system we have now.

Yet, day in day out, we condemn people to various modes of punishments for crimes we believe them to have committed. We call it justice.

We call it 'justice' and generally speaking you are right that people appealed to what is 'right' and 'wrong' when making a declaration to imprison people for an 'injustice' towards others - it was an idea that the scales of justice was fair and balanced and strives to be exactly that, and that a person is innocent until proven guilty, that the scales of justice are just that, objective.

Why? If the person is going to be judged when they die why do we seek to punish them in this world?

Because we protect the innocent too - and because building on the notion ( on the Christianity forum the reality ) of good choices and bad ones, we built a society that protects (hopefully) the most vulnerable and recognise that it's a 'good' thing to do...

The Irish state has an aspect of Social Welfare, it's a system designed to support the high earner and at the same time look after the basic needs of the child too - it's searching for a utopia - not a bad thing either.

Other states in the free world aren't built on the same moral compass - the worker wins, the guy who pays for insurance etc etc. for health care, and the 'bum' dies on the street because it costs too much to care for him at all.

This country may be up the creek without a paddle, but it's got the single mum under it's wing, and it recognises every child deserves to be educated and apparently won't let go of that concept to morph -

We have a lot going for us, even if we don't realise it.

Thanks very much in advance.

Pml, no problem. It's a decent topic.

Festus

Jernal wrote: »

First off I'm not a Christian so if this question is teeming with ignorance feel free to virtually slap me on the face (not too hard though!). Any illuminating responses will be greatly appreciate though.

I don't for one second doubt that we should have laws, a judicial system, prisons etc. but I'm curious as to whether the reasoning behind us having them has a Christian grounding or just a general societal one or a combination of the two. From the Christian point of view all sinners are going to be righteously judged by God and whether we like it or not us Humans simply can't make such judgements. Yet, day in day out, we condemn people to various modes of punishments for crimes we believe them to have committed. We call it justice. Why? If the person is going to be judged when they die why do we seek to punish them in this world?

Thanks very much in advance.

There are quite a few questions there.

First off, laws existed before Christianity. Roman law, Greek law, Celtic law, Brehon law to name but a few. No doubt in the stone age there was something akin to "don't do that or you will get a smack".
As PDN mentioned already without law you have anarchy. We do have laws now that could be seen to be based on Christian teachings or Judaic teachings but equally the same or similar laws could be found in cultures that have little or no exposure to Judaism or Christianity.

The directive to "judge not" does not mean that humans cannot judge other humans. It means that we should not judge others. The directive is given because humans frequently judge others. This is a cause of prejudice. So there is also the question of what we mean by judging someone. My take on it is that in our judicial system the person is not judged by another person or persons but on the weight of evidence.
If the facts indicate that a person committed a crime that is not a judgment that is meerly a fact.

Then there is punishment. If there is no punishment for a crime what incentive is there to keep the law?

Finally the Judgement at the end of the world or upon death. In the next life we will be judged by God against Gods laws, not mans. There are many laws God does not care about.
It is doubtful that God will condemn anyone for growing cannabis even though the act is illegal in this jusidiction.

However, there are many of the Ten Commandments that are not backed up in law. In many jurisdictions killing and adulterly are legal. Those who argue in this life for the legalisation of killing and immorality will find difficulty with their defence in the next.

bonniebede

Jernal wrote: »

First off I'm not a Christian ...
I don't for one second doubt that we should have laws, .

Isn't that interesting! when you say you don't doubt we should have laws, what are you actually basing that on?
Is it obviousd that We should have laws to protect the weak, to ensure some sort of justice and fair play in the various relationships we have with one another?

But why should we? Why is it better to protect the weak than to exploit the weak? Why do we have an instinct to say 'hey thats not fair' when we see an injustice being done?

I would suggest, that the certainty you express comes, not just from living in a culture where we have laws, but from a deep inner instinct in your heart which makes you feel that good should be done and evil avoided.

This is what St Paul in the Letter to the romans calls the 'natural law' which is written in all people's hearts. You will probably have heard that Christians think we are made in the image of God, well that is part of how you are in the image of God, and reflect his nature, which is to do good and not evil.

Jernal wrote: »

From the Christian point of view all sinners are going to be righteously judged by God .

That is true, and St Paul goes on to say we will be judged based on the light we have been given. He was comparing the jews who had been given the ten commandments with the gentiles (non-jews) who hadn't, and saying that each would be judged according to what they had been given, but that no one had an excuse that they didn't know they should do good because of this inner law or natural law which we all experience.

a good example of this i was given once was to consider someone in prison for theft. Then consider how they would react to another prisoner stealing something from their cell... usually not well! This shows that they do not think stealing is ok, or that they have some notion that all property should be held in common. no, they protest as much when they are the victim, thus showing that they ignored their own conscience in some way when committing the crime of theft.

Jernal wrote: »

but I'm curious as to whether the reasoning behind us having them has a Christian grounding or just a general societal one or a combination of the two.(a judicial system, prisons etc.) Yet, day in day out, we condemn people to various modes of punishments for crimes we believe them to have committed. We call it justice. Why?.

In understanding this you need to understand a couple of basic concepts, which you will find well put in the writing of St Thomas Aquinas. I will try to summarise but bear in mind he is a total genius, unlike me!
you will find a whole teaching on law here
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2.htm

in his questions 90 to 97 of the summa theologica. (ST I-II 90-97)

So here goes...
1. In order for human beings to fully flourish, they need to do so in a community. We are at our best as part of asociety which helps us to be virtuous and where we can love and serve others. This is known as the common good. In other words, as well as things which are good for me individually, like having enough food to eat, there are things which make it possible for me to flourish which can only be achieved with others... having a family is an obvious example...so is building a sewerage system, or a university!

In order to achieve the common good, the society has a number of essential structures. It has order, according to the natural law which governs its flourishing. For example, not committing adultery and being faithful to my spouse is good for me (I grow in virtue) but it also good for my spouse, and my children. As my children flourish in a stable home, the whole community benefits from the raising of virtuous citizens in the next generation. And so on.

One of the structures of the society which serves the common good is authority, by which virtue is promoted, evil diminished and order achieved.
This authority, in order to achieve this end has the duty, and the right to make laws.
These laws, in order to be good laws, must reflect that inner natural law which we talked of earlier, which is itself a reflection of God's good nature.
So for example, God is by nature a life-giving God. I find in myself a natural instinct that it is good not to randomly kill people for kicks, rather to protect and serve others and guard their lives. The authority (in our case the government) gives expression to this in a variety of laws, the laws against murder are one, but so also are the laws against drinking and driving, as that can endanger the life of others and my own.

As you can see, the laws made by the government can change, before there were cars there was no need to have drink driving laws; no doubt in the future circumstances may arise which will call for new laws which reflect the same unchanging committment to preserve life and not kill the innocent.

One thing worth noting, is that it only with this idea of natural law that you can criticise a particular law at all. Suppose a government decided to change the law so that instead of trying to safeguard drivers they said that once you were in a car, you were free to do what you liked, even mow down pedestrians. Well that would be a bad law, poorly reflecting the natural law, or reflecting the common good.
But, if you say that what is right is the same as what is lawful, then you cannot make this criticism. This is the basis on which the world tried the nazis after the second world war. Many of them argued that what they did in concentration camps was lawful, and they they were obeying lawful orders from their commanding officers. In this they were correct. However they were punished on the basis that being lawful did not make it right or just, and that they, in their conscience , were capable of making the distinction between what was good and what was lawful, and that they had a duty to disobey a bad law. Without a concept of the natural law, there is no place from which to observe the laws made by governments and assess them as 'good' or 'bad'; if there is no right or wrong independent of the law, then there can be no criticism, the law just is.

Finally, the purpose of the law is to promote virtue. A good law, because it truly relates to the natural law, teaches us how to be good, or virtuous, it is a help to us. For example, i might feel like speeding down the road after a few pints, but the law, and the fear of punishment, comes to my help, and i leave the car at home and take a taxi. Now you might say i am only acting out of self interest, that is not virtue but selfishness; and in a way that is true. but look what the law has done. It has taken my selfish instinct, which could have worked against the comon good, and instead it has made it work for the common good, and at the same time has nudged me into good behaviour, even if as yet my heart is still wedded to the bad. In the short term the law has helped me act, externally, in a virtuous way. In the long term, as i come to realise the benefit of not being wrapped around a lampost somewhere, the law will hopefully make me inclined to act in a virtuous way from the heart, ie I want to drive carefully for good motives and not just from fear of punishment.
This is why, in the bible, it says that a good man has no need of law, not because 'God loves me so i can do whatever I like' but because as I become more and more like God, that is the same thing as saying as i become more virtuous, then I no longer need the help of the law to coerce my unwilling heart, but want sincerely to do what is good from the heart.

Jernal wrote: »

If the person is going to be judged when they die why do we seek to punish them in this world?

A quick word on the punishment of sin. THere are two types of punishment attached to sin.

the first is an eternal punishment. Serious sin breaks our relationship with God. It is , in effect, a way of ending our friendship with him. Now our whole spiritual being is designed to live in a constant relationship with God from whom, moment by moment we draw life. Therefore when we break that relationship with God we die, spiritually. This happens immediately you commit serious sin. According to the bible, when the first man sinned, death immediately entered the world.
The damage done to our relationship with God cannot be repaired by us, no matter how hard we try,. It can only be repaired by God. Because God is infinite, to offend against him is an infinite offense, and so only the infinite God can repair that, not us who are finite. Becoming a Christian involves accepting that Jesus, who is god, has done what is necessary to repair our spiritual relationship with God, so that we can once again draw life from God.

The second punishment is temporal punishment, or punishment in time.
This punishment is aimed at repairing the damage done by our sin. Even when we obtain forgiveness for our sins from God we must also contribute what we can, with his help to repairing the damage caused by our sin. For example, if I steal hundred euros from you, I have sinned against God and against you. It is not enough to say sorry to God, I must also give you back your hundred euros. This second part is the temporal punishment which repairs the damage done to you.

When the authority in society punishes wrongdoers, it is from this point of view, that they are in some way repairing the damage they have done. the temporal punishment they experience here on earth is a way to help them get right what they have done wrong.

The question of whether prison is a good way of doing this is a question of prudential judgement. Certainly we should be looking to punishments which also more clearly give the wrong doer an opportunity to repair the damage to individuals and society which they have done. In practical terms that is not always easy to work out.

Finally , the authority also has a duty of care to those in the society, a duty to protect them from wrongdoers. This is another legitimate basis for imprisonment, that of keeping the wrongdoer from committing further crimes, which would harm others, and also harm themselves.

When you say that ' Humans simply can't make such judgements.' I think you misunderstand what Jesus is getting at. He is warning us not to judge others as if we had never sinned ourselves. He is not saying that we should not use our judgement to tell the difference between a good act and a bad act. In fact, in being able to judge that a persons actions were bad, we might be in a position to help them turn away from evil and do good instead; it is a form of care for one another to encourage each other to do good. He is also cautioning us that only God can really know the subjective guilt of someone - a murderous pyschopath whose brain is not working right in some way, could be less guilty that someone who simply never gives any money to the poor and lets them starve to death, all the while knowing that she should be doing something to help.

Hope this makes sense, thanks for the interesting starter question!