Bible College in prison

Angola is a high security prison in Mississippi. It was notorious for its violence in the 1970s. Significant improvements have come about in the last 2 decades after a local seminary offered theological training.

In Mr. Cain’s view, the biggest change came in 1995 when, as he took over the prison and faced drastic cuts in school funds, he invited the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary to open a seminary. To his surprise, he said, the eminent seminary agreed, covering the costs with outside donations.

“The Bible college was the game changer,” said Mr. Cain, 71, a portly man with granny glasses and a shock of white hair. “It changed the culture of the prison.”

Some other experts say the college is one of many factors, but the softening effect of religion on life here is evident.

Beyond the bachelor’s degrees, the college has granted hundreds more certificates or associate degrees, producing a cadre of men who lead churches, provide informal counseling in their dorms and take on what many describe as their hardest task — informing fellow inmates when a loved one on the outside has died. 

Candidates must have highschool qualification, which they can gain in prison, be sentenced to a minimum of 10 years, and have a record of good behaviour. The 4-year bachelor degree is rigorous and includes Greek and Hebrew. They have had 241 graduates so far. The seminary also offers a range of diplomas.

The cost is covered by the college, that is donations to the seminary; not government. This seems preferable and should allow the college to set course requirements as it would on its non-prison campus.

As to Warden Cain's comment about changing the culture of the prison: 2500 inmates attend church weekly.

The grace of God extends to the most wicked of men if they repent of their evil and follow him. May he continue to bless the men who have found forgiveness in jail and may many more at Angola and elsewhere turn to him.

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 4

Part 1 here. Part 2 here. Part 3 here.

There are several lessons from these verses that pertain to personal property. Essentially if a man is responsible for property damage or loss then he is expected to restore or replace the property. Having responsibility demands making restitution and restitution should be to the level of loss. Criminal damage to property requires restitution above the level of loss; the owner of the property should be no worse off and a disincentive is mandatory for the criminal.

Noticeable in these examples is that intention is taken into account. Did the man know his ox gored? Did the thief sell the livestock? Did the person in possession of the livestock request it be in their care. Intent can alter whether you have to make excess restitution, full restitution, partial restitution, or no restitution.

What is important about this intention is that it is to be judged on the basis of men's actions. One is not required to look into the heart of a man and establish his motives—an assessment that is probably limited to God. Rather one establishes intention by the actions of a man. An owner of a goring ox is not identified by his animals looking menacing or having sharp horns, but having an ox with a history of goring. A thief using or selling stolen goods is identified by him having the goods in his possession, or having sold them.

This is distinct from hate crimes where underlying motive is presumed based on the activities of others, or the presumed intolerances within society. A man is judged based on the crimes of other men. The prejudice of a man is assumed without evidence of the man being prejudiced.

Related to this objective judgment of intent is a prospective approach in assessing criminal activity. An ox has a history of goring prior to the event. Not, the ox gored therefore what can we find in the history to support the likelihood of such an event. Something is bound to happen because it has happened before. Of course we know something went wrong after the event, the question is, Did we know this was likely before the event?

Justice would be well served if many of these principles identified in these passages were observed in law including establishing intention of the parties using objective measures of intent.

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 3

Part 1 here. Part 2 here.

The third passage concerns establishing responsibility and restitution of property when the persons concerned are not acting dishonestly.

If a man causes a field or vineyard to be grazed over, or lets his beast loose and it feeds in another man's field, he shall make restitution from the best in his own field and in his own vineyard.

If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution.

If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe, and it is stolen from the man's house, then, if the thief is found, he shall pay double. If the thief is not found, the owner of the house shall come near to God to show whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. For every breach of trust, whether it is for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a cloak, or for any kind of lost thing, of which one says, ‘This is it,’ the case of both parties shall come before God. The one whom God condemns shall pay double to his neighbor.

If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep safe, and it dies or is injured or is driven away, without anyone seeing it, an oath by the LORD shall be between them both to see whether or not he has put his hand to his neighbor's property. The owner shall accept the oath, and he shall not make restitution. But if it is stolen from him, he shall make restitution to its owner. If it is torn by beasts, let him bring it as evidence. He shall not make restitution for what has been torn.

If a man borrows anything of his neighbor, and it is injured or dies, the owner not being with it, he shall make full restitution. If the owner was with it, he shall not make restitution; if it was hired, it came for its hiring fee. (Exodus 22:5-15 ESV)

Property damage due to a person's behaviour, accidental or negligent, must be restored completely. The person responsible is expected to restore at least the same level as prior to such damage. Though they may keep the damaged property as seen when an animal kills another. (Exodus 21:35-36)

When property is in the care of a person to whom it does not belong and there is property loss (or damage) responsibility, and therefore restitution, is divided up thus

1. Owner gave goods. Theft of goods, criminal actions of a third party: possessor no obligation
2. Owner gave goods. Theft of animals, criminal actions by third party: possessor obligation
3. Owner gave goods. Death of animals, no criminal actions: possessor no obligation
4. Possessor borrowed goods. Possessor obligation
5. Possessor hired goods. Possessor obligation

The basic structure is that if you have goods in your possession at the request of the owner then you do not bear responsibility. If you have goods at your own request then you are responsible. If you hire them then you are responsible but accidental damage is covered by hiring fees.

The main exception is theft of animals. It is unclear why this should be different from other goods. Looking at the 2 sentences we have

If a man gives to his neighbor money or goods to keep safe (verse 7)

If a man gives to his neighbor a donkey or an ox or a sheep or any beast to keep safe (verse 10)

The word for "keep safe" is "shamar" which implies close guarding, not merely looking after. The NET Bible note for this passage reads

The point is that the man should have taken better care of the animal.

Thus a stolen animal implies careless supervision. If this interpretation is correct then a person is responsible because he accepted care but did not supervise in an adequate manner. The question could be asked, Why was the neighbour's animal stolen and not the carer's own livestock?

In general we have obligation for replacement of property when person requests use of another's goods but no obligation when requested to care for another's goods. With the caveats that one is expected to take good care of property, especially creatures, and that hiring fees take potential loss into consideration.

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 2

Part 1 here.

The next passage concerns restitution in cases of theft.

If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall repay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.  If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double. (Exodus 22:1-4 ESV)

Compensation for stolen oxen is 5 fold and stolen sheep is 4 fold in the case of selling or destroying an animal, and 2 fold for keeping an animal. I make this to be

• 1 animal for the stolen animal to restore the situation to the previous state (replace or return)
• 1 animal as punishment for stealing
• 2 further animals as punishment for trading in stolen livestock
• 1 animal as punishment for loss of livelihood

A sheep provides for the farmer in terms of its meat, milk, and fleece. An ox provides in a similar way but is also a beast of burden. It is a farmer's tool, not just provision. The excess compensation reflects a greater offence been committed against the farmer. Not only does he lose provision, he loses the ability to produce.

A second animal as punishment is a deterrent. If a thief paid back solely what he stole then he benefits by gaining the items at times he is not caught. Leaving the thief worse off after stealing means that thievery leads to privation.

Further, to not force the thief to pay excess costs puts him in the same position as the man who inadvertently or negligently destroys the property of another.

If fire breaks out and catches in thorns so that the stacked grain or the standing grain or the field is consumed, he who started the fire shall make full restitution. (Exodus 22:6 ESV)

Clandestine removal of property is not to be equated with unintentional destruction of property.

An interesting situation arises here in that if a thief has sold or killed the animal he is punished more harshly. I am uncertain as to the exact reason here but will offer some speculation. Selling an animal suggests a higher level operation at play. The thief is not just stealing for himself due to laziness, his livelihood consists of trading stolen goods. He is becoming wealthy solely by the means of others' hard work, property, and in a way that leaves the owner with less wealth than he started with.

Concerning the increased punishment when stock are killed the interpretation may relate to whether such an action is meant to reflect hiding of evidence, destruction of property, or eating the animal. If the thief has eaten the animal I am uncertain why the payment is 4 fold. Eating the animal severely limits its use. A sheep provides ongoing milk and wool. A short term feast is short-sighted—the man will need to keep stealing to maintain food—and gluttonous—meat was not the mainstay of the diet, it was expensive and a luxury. In the case of the first 2 options, hiding evidence and destroying property, the man is making no use of the property, his thievery is to no end. I don't want your house but I will burn it down so that you do not have it.

What we establish from these verses is

1. A thief cannot just return property, he must pay in excess of what he stole;
2. It make a difference what people steal, stealing a man's method of income affects a man more than stealing his income, and needs to be punished more harshly; and
3. It makes a difference why a thief steals, or rather what a thief does with stolen goods.

Criminal law can take all these aspects into consideration when punishing a thief.

Justice relating to accidental death and property damage. Part 1

In the next few posts I intend to discuss issues around justice as related to death of people and then property laws. Included are some thoughts I have on some interpretive issues. In my final post I wish to briefly summarise what specifics we can glean from these laws that we may better discern what makes just law.

Exodus 21 and 22 include instructions on livestock for the Israelites. These laws are among the larger construct that was intended for the Israelites as God's chosen people living in an agrarian society. It does not seem that the various laws are necessarily a blueprint for all governments, especially the rules regarding animal sacrifice. Nevertheless the commands the Israelites received at Sinai are a large reservoir of useful teaching that gives us much understanding of the ways of God.

One of the aspects of these livestock laws shows that it is intention that determines justice.

The first passage I wish to look at is human death caused by animals.

“When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable. But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death. If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. If it gores a man's son or daughter, he shall be dealt with according to this same rule. If the ox gores a slave, male or female, the owner shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus 21:28-32 ESV)

This does not so much belong to laws about livestock but rather the earlier verses which discuss offences requiring death. But it raises some interesting perspectives that are apparent in the subsequent chapter.

The 2 offences are

1. Ox causing death unexpectedly
2. Ox causing death when the owner is aware of this risk but neglects to prevent it

If this is unexpected then the owner bears no responsibility. His ox must be killed in line with passages elsewhere demanding the death of people or animals causing the death of humans. Genesis states

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. (Genesis 9:4–5 ESV)

If the death is related to negligence then the owner bears some responsibility. Earlier in the chapter God mandates capital punishment for murder. But a man must not be executed for unexpected death.

Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death. But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar, that he may die. (Exodus 21:12-14 ESV)

Intentional killing of a person leads to death sentence. Accidental death at the hand of another means no death sentence (though other consequences). Death by oxen is a third (middle) category, death by negligence. If someone dies as a result of behaviour that put them at risk of death, but was not a result of malice then the sentence still is death for the negligent party.

However we note that the sentence can be commuted to a fine if so desired by the victims relatives.

If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him.

Human life is viewed as immensely valuable by God. We must not kill others, but we must not even let our actions be such that they result in the death or others. If we behave in a way that could lead to another man's death but we do not care whether or not that would happen then we ourselves deserve punishment. The substitution of a fine recognises that mercy can be extended when there is no malice; just carelessness, indifference, or negligence.

To qualify for negligence the risk of death must be predictable and the person must be able to reasonably prevent it. In the example of the ox, the ox has gored before therefore further goring is likely, and the owner can keep the ox tied up. It would seem that extremely unlikely events, or events that are not avoidable should be included in accidental death.

The penalties for death of children and slaves are tangential to the above points but need explanation.

The qualification for children means that he cannot escape punishment just because the children are under his care. Children are viewed as the man's property in some sense, but he cannot escape a ransom because of this. He is a steward over his children for God, his negligence still requires punishment.

I am not certain if the qualification for slaves is in the case of an ox known to gore or not known to gore. That is, does the qualification apply offence 1 or offence 2 above? It is less likely to be offence 1 for reasons below. In this situation the ox owner is innocent. If it was situation 2 then the owner bears responsibility and must pay a ransom. The ransom is 30 shekels, the price of a slave. As the slave was the property of another then the situation is similar to the following passage where one ox kills another.

When one man's ox butts another's, so that it dies, then they shall sell the live ox and share its price, and the dead beast also they shall share. Or if it is known that the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has not kept it in, he shall repay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his. (Exodus 21:35-36 ESV)

If there is no blame the involved persons share in the loss. If there is a responsible person he repays the price of the ox in full (and gains a dead ox). The ox owner in the case of the gored slave pays the full cost of a slave which suggests that the passage has offence 2 in mind. Obviously one cannot keep a dead person. The difference with a slave compared to a freeman is that a ransom is an enforced stipulation rather than a possible option, and the amount is fixed, not dictated by relatives of the deceased.

Modern examples would be

• A swimming pool that is reasonably accessible to infants but inadequately secured.
• Driving while intoxicated or driving excessively dangerously.
• Accessible cliffs or drops that are not fenced.

It is not that there is to be no risk to human life ever; nor is that if a tragedy occurs then blame needs to be apportioned to someone; rather it is that predictable and likely causes of death that can reasonably be prevented should be attended to, and disregard of these risks resulting in death is a real offence.

Crime in the United Kingdom

The Telegraph states that crime in the United Kingdom is high and climbing,

The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country – 927 – and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

...A breakdown of the statistics, which were compiled into league tables by the Conservatives, revealed that violent crime in the UK had increased from 652,974 offences in 1998 to more than 1.15 million crimes in 2007.

It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.

Austria is second, with a rate of 1,677 per 100,000 people, followed by Sweden, Belgium, Finland and Holland.

By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

France recorded 324,765 violent crimes in 2007 – a 67 per cent increase in the past decade – at a rate of 504 per 100,000 population.

Comparing statistics from different sources or countries can be difficult as mentioned in the article. Murder figures are more useful comparators as they are less likely to be coded differently.

Nevertheless it seems as if crime is very high in the UK. London has the most closed circuit television (CCTV) in the world. CCTV is on the rise here and probably elsewhere. We can now all be filmed multiple times per day with the claim that it prevents and helps catch crime, but clearly it isn't working.

Does the death penalty prevent reconciliation with God?

Now on to jc_freak's objections.

Now in the case of the death penalty, rehabilitation clearly does not apply.

I don't see why not in principle. Convince him that he should not murder again.

I think that Christians should no longer support retributive capital punishment. I agree with you that we cannot expect worldly governments to live by Christian principals. Indeed, I agree with you that it may not be wise for Governments to act like churches at all, since, to some degree, governments need to interact with worldly people (war comes to mind as something that Christians should avoid, but governments need to often pursue).

I think God has expectations for governments and that they are best to govern according to God's desires. They will be judged on how they governed. The government is not the church. God has requirements for the church and requirements for government. They need not be the same. The church perhaps should not pursue war, but that doesn't necessarily mean that members of the church cannot fight in war.

But I think that Christians need to avoid supporting the death penalty because of our call to evangelize. We, as Christians, need to remember that when the government kills a convicted murderer, there is a very good chance that that person is going to Hell. This is not something we should pursue, but something that we should be actively avoiding. The longer we can keep those men alive, the more opportunities we have to reach them.... I also understand the principal that the threat of death may cause a criminal to seek salvation, but this also assumes a Christian justice system that actively works to teach criminals the gospel. This we do not have, so the concept doesn't really apply.

But we can still evangelise. The state is required to do her role and the church is required to do hers. I don't think the justice system has to be overtly Christian (though it should be godly) and teach the gospel; I think the church should evangelise within the jails.

But to your main point which is the key to this discussion. Now I agree that we should not pursue men going to hell, but I take issue with your assumption that the longer men are kept alive the more opportunities we have to reach them. This sounds somewhat reasonable but is it true? C.S. Lewis asked the question whether a man condemned to death in 30 days is any less likely to seek God than the man incarcerated for 30 years. And I think Lewis has a valid point. People need to face their own mortality. A murderer who has been caught and knows he is to die in a month is forced to face his mortality. He is forced to look thru to eternity. He is likely to ask if there will be any reckoning for his actions. Whereas the man who gets incarcerated for the rest of his life does not necessarily have these issues placed in such stark contrast. He may adapt to life in prison and continue to live a life avoiding God. I am not convinced that a longer duration of life, even if it gives more potential opportunities to witness, makes a man more likely to respond to the gospel. I wonder if facing a short life may be as or more effective in the path to repentance.

There are a couple of other issues that arose in the discussion. I said

And if a murderer murders in prison, or arranges one from prison, does the state bear some responsibility because they did not execute him. And what of the victims who are hell bound because they died before they heard the gospel

to which jc_freak responded,

Let's take the second one first. If a murderer kills an unbeliever, and that person is hell bound now, then why would that influence the way the now treat the murderer? Should we be less inclined to see that person in heaven? I dont really understand here.

That may be because you separated my comments out.

As far as the criminal killing while in prison, I did say that I support incapacitation as a reason for the death penalty, which is what you are talking about here. If a person is too dangerous to keep alive, then it is understandable to kill him.

Murderers have murdered in prison and they have arranged contract killings from within prison. The point here is that by not executing the murderer after the first crime (so that they may respond to the gospel) we have allowed him to be in a position to murder a second time and the victim of the second murder may not have heard the gospel.

Lastly,

My issue is that not whether the death penalty is present, but why it is present and how it is being used.

Bad laws and misuse of the law—yes those are very real issues, but side issues. We must establish the legitimacy (or not) of the death penalty as a punishment. Is it intrinsically allowable for the state; is it expected of the state? If it is, there may still be reasons to oppose it on pragmatic grounds. Disregard for the law and excessive numbers of innocent people being executed for example.

Reasons for sentencing criminals

In response to my post defending the death penalty a few months ago jc_freak raises some issues and several objections. Firstly he gives some helpful philosophies surrounding reasons for sentencing.

1. Retribution. When someone does something wrong, they are responsible for their actions, and must pay it back.
2. Deterrence. When someone does something wrong, punish them in such a way as to make anyone else who may commit that crime afraid.
3. Rehabilitation.When someone does something wrong, punish them in such a way to convince them the act was wrong so that they would never do it again.
4. Incapacitation. When someone does something wrong, prevent them from ever being able to do it again.

One must remember that sentencing is something done in the course of carrying out justice. Thus while each of these positions may have validity, and in fact more than one can be ascribed to, there is primary philosophy which the others need to accommodate.

Sentencing is about retribution (as defined above). Justice demands that wrongs be righted. A thief must return what he stole, and perhaps cover the costs of the victim being without his property. The object is owned by the victim and not the thief, even while it is in the possession of the thief. One can hardly advocate rehabilitation while the thief retains the stolen property.

Deterrence is also a secondary reason in sentencing. Forms of deterrence can be draconian. Hanging men for stealing food and amputating limbs of thieves are effective deterrents, both for the criminal and citizens. But this is hardly just. The talion limits punishments to the level of the crime, thus justice is primary over deterrence.

Incapacitation is related to retribution, it is the last step for a recalcitrant criminal. The criminal's history is such that his future is predictable. One could say he is being punished for the crimes he is bound to commit.

Thus retribution (and incapacitation) are primary, and deterrence and rehabilitation secondary. That being said, the message of the cross is rehabilitation. Mercy triumphs over judgment. Note Ezekiel's message to the Jews,

But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? (Ezekiel 18)

A primary reason need not be the most important reason. Jesus offers us rehabilitation; yet he still deals to the issue of retribution via the crucifixion.

I will deal with the objections in my next post.