July 26, 2006 8:11 PM
Andrea Yates - Take 2
I anticipated the comments to my post about Andrea Yates - the old knee-jerk "the Bible tells us to have mercy" response. One commenter said I was not after justice, but vengeance.
Not true. Justice is my middle name - or could be :)
Some thinkers realize there is a difference between Christian mercy and the duty of the state. I was going to write about it myself, but came across someone who has already written about it quite beautifully - which will save me a lot of time tonight. No point in restating what someone has already stated far better than I can.
I'm referring to a piece by Professor J Daryl Charles - Thoughts on Revenge and Retribution. Here, I will just tempt you with a few scattered paragraphs to read the entire article, which should help
The moral outrage that is expressed through retributive justice is one that is first and foremost rooted in moral principle, not mere emotional outrage or hatred. Its outrage is the expression of abiding moral markers—for example, "Thou shalt not murder." The nature and extent of retribution are lodged in two unbending ethical realities: the degree of wrongness of the criminal act and the degree of the party's criminal responsibility in committing such acts. Retributive justice, then, requires that wrongdoers get no more but no less than what is proportionate—or just—to their crimes.But someone is likely to object: Isn't retribution merely a pretext for vengeance and the retaliatory impulse? . . . .
When we express social outrage at morally heinous acts, we are responding to moral intuitions; it is virtuous, not vicious, to feel anger at moral evil. In truth, if we do not express anger and moral outrage at evil, something is very wrong with us. To affirm retribution, which is integral to the history of Judeo-Christian moral thinking and foundational to any self-governing society, is not to abandon one's belief in mercy or forgiveness. Rather, it is to acknowledge the difference between private and public spheres and to recognize that mercy does not release the public demands that justice imposes. . . .
Retributive justice, in other words, is a necessity for a civilized society. In responding retributively to moral evil, we channel our energies in several directions. We respond to the victim(s) being wronged, to wider society which is "scandalized" by the wrong done in its midst, to future offenders who might be tempted to do the same wrong, and not last, to the actual offending party. Understood rightly, retributive justice performs a multifaceted moral good. Yes, there will always be the cry of the retaliationists who, in the name of "justice," demand that torture be meted out to the torturer. But that outcry in itself does not cancel the fact that retributive justice performs a necessary social good.. . . . .In Judeo-Christian ethics, forgiveness is predicated on a prior contrition and repentance on the part of the offender. Moreover, the biblical teaching on forgiveness occurs in the context of personal relationships, not duties of the state or magistrate. Where social evil occurs, a public debt is incurred, and judgment—which is to say, the execution of justice—ensues, regardless of whether it applies to individuals or to nations. . . .
I hope this sheds some light on an important issue.
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Oooh. This is definitaly a subject where my opinion tends to be disagreed with by those in my christian circle but I will share it anyway.
I don't think the point of the "justice" system is really to hand out justice, or to have mercy. I think the idea that human beings can be the distributer of justice is ridiculous. A lot of times our idea of retribution doesn't work as the deterrent we hope it to be, and often times it even punishes the wrong person. You give a death penalty to a criminal and you are often punishing the family of that criminal more than the actual criminal.
I see the legal systems purpose as a duty to protect society. It doesn't really matter if Andrea Yates is mentally ill, or not. She has proven herself a serious threat and she must never be allowed to be free. A maliciously violent criminal cannot be trusted to be rehabilitated. It may be merciful towards them to assume they are, but it is not fair to those people who will be their employer or neighbor.
As far as the death penalty- I think it has its place. Some criminals are dangerous even when they are in jail. I see the death penalty as a necessity for the protection of society in the cases of gang leaders or mob leaders who recruit in prison, but NOT as a source of justice. And for whatever it is worth, my criminology text book claims that threat of the death penalty does not deter crime. If it did then maybe I could support it in more situations.
I agree that children have a right to feel protected from criminals, and letting Andrea Yates out does not show that society really respects children. But I also think it is fairly easy for children to understand that justice is often not possible. Andrea Yates killed 5 people but we can't kill her 5 times. She can never be killed by her mother, and she won't be killed by being drowned. A lethal injection is not justice anymore than staying in prison is justice.
I tell my children that there is a judgement, and e.v.e.r.y.o.n.e will be confronted with the gravity of their sins. Even the saved people will know there wrong doing if they are never fully aware of it before their death. I tell my kids that the last thing they ever have to worry about is that a person will never know the hurt they caused. God simply will not allow that.
I don't have any misguided compassion for criminals. I do believe that society deserves more mercy than criminals do. But I still can't see how the legal system really has the power to deal out anything resembling REAL justice.
Posted by: paigeu | July 27, 2006 1:14 AM
Barbara - i'm so glad you posted about this. I wanted to yesterday and was just too upset to get my head around what I wanted to say. I am outraged that this woman may possibly walk away at some point when 5 innocent children were murdered. I am depressed beyond measure that we live in a society where these children's lives had no value because their mother decided they didn't get to live. It is like you said, if their father had killed them or some stranger (even a very mentally disturbed stranger) had broken in and killed them and we'd all watched their mother crying over the loss on the news, everyone would've been calling for the death penalty. Where would be our cries for Christian mercy then? I personally do hope to see this woman come to know Christ and know the incredible forgiveness He's capable of, but I can not stomach the idea that I live in a world where she will not be punished for murdering her own children. It makes me long for Christ's return.
Posted by: Shannon Miller | July 27, 2006 9:26 AM
I don't buy the whole "insanity" excuse. Having grown up with a bipolar mom I have lived insanity! In spite of her occasionally extreme and (at times) destructive behavior she was never violent with her children. And she wasn't a naturally calm peaceful person who simply could never do such a thing. (I was smacked in anger a few times but not during an "episode".) I think she was morally grounded enough so that even when she was "out of it" she could still never physically hurt us kids.
As far as striving for justice...well, I take God's guideline of "an eye for an eye" to mean the punishment (or consequence- for you softies) should fit the crime. It should not be more severe than the crime but neither should it be weak in comparison. This woman showed no mercy on her darling defenseless children at any point in her murderous rampage. She was deliberate- she determined to and proceeded to kill every last one of them. She should receive the death penalty.
Posted by: gendifrank | July 27, 2006 11:03 AM
Mrs. Barbara, one of my first encounters with secular vs. Biblical thought on the web was about this issue. I was blessed with an audience who wasn't trying to destroy me, just understand how I could logically stand where I do on justice vs. mercy as a follower of Christ. These very thoughts, i.e. the difference between private and public spheres, were what I realized is the answer in the Scriptures.
The death penalty is not Jewish, under the Torah, but given to Noah and through him all of humanity (along with not eating blood). Governments are said to exist for the very sake of protecting and praising the righteous while meting out the sword to the wicked in the NT as well.
Thanks for standing up to this tough, relevant and poorly understood issue, Mrs. Barbara.
PS, paigeu, it appears to me from reading your comment that you are confusing Justice and Fairness. There is a crucial difference. Of course it's impossible to be 'fair' with a criminal, to do so would be to subject some official representative to have to commit the kind of evil they are punishing. Justice is different; it is punishment for the sake of society and the future.
BTW how do you know you can trust a textbook that claims the death penalty doesn't deter future crime? Text books also claim that God didn't make the world, that gay/lesbian life styles don't hurt society, that higher taxes on the rich don't hurt the poor, that abortion doesn't damage the mother, etc. I would be more careful and specific of your source before believing them.
If a text book is saying it doesn't deter crime here in America it may be because we take so long to mete out this punishment and there is a good chance that the average murderer will never face lethal injection because of the way our system runs.
Posted by: Cheri | July 27, 2006 12:05 PM
I just read your article "No Mercy for Murdering Moms". Yes, children do project when they hear of these horrible things. I will never forget when, at the age of 7, I learned about Nathan Hale - "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country"-and then he was hanged by the British.
I didn't know what hanging was. My Mom explained, briefly and compassionately, with no unnecessary details.
I couldn't breathe. For a second I was being hanged and my neck was straining and snapping. I was horrified for the rest of the day.
I echo 100% your ache for our nation's children who are growing in the toxic soil of hatred for the truly weak and misplaced warm fuzzies for the self-proclaimed weak.
Posted by: Keri L. | July 27, 2006 12:10 PM
Seriously, I know that God has extended me grace and mercy. I know that. I know I am to extend grace and mercy to my fellow brother or sister. I know that too. But I can say with all my heart that I would beat the living daylights out of her if I ever saw her. It's not Christian like, and perhaps God could change my heart about this, I don't know. My problem is the fact that she murdered her children and tricked people into thinking she was crazy. I have not read one article without crying over the loss of her five blessings. I struggled for a long time with wondering was she crazy. You know what cemented it for me? When it was said that Noah, her oldest ran from the bathroom and around the house, after she had already tried to drown him. She ran after him and proceeded to murder her children. What did she tell her cellmate? "I got him though." To me that says so much. Also the fact that she waited for the perfect moment to do the deed rather than just do it whenever.
I have never understood how someone could forgive someone else for murdering their children. My husband and I both believe that it would probably be the end of us because honestly, the agony probably would overwhelm both of us. Anyone who wants to defend her should let her come stay in their home. Would you trust her with your children? No? Then you you don't believe in forgiving her either.
I say good job Mrs. C. We need more people who understand the difference as you posted. Of course, in a society that allows women to murder their unborn, why are we ever surprised that a women who murdered her five born children would get off. Some justice system. God is a God of justice and He says vengence is His. I believe that Yates will get what is coming to her. _ And for anyone who thinks I don't understand mental illness, I do. Both my parents were supposedly mentally ill. I could go into specifics but I won't. I think that the truly mentally ill is such a tiny fraction of what people think there is. It's all an act and humans being self centered. I know, God has convicted me of my bad attitude before too.. DMG
Posted by: Mrs. DMG | July 27, 2006 12:19 PM
Note: Paigeu's textbook stated that the THREAT of death does not deter crime. I bet the CERTAINTY of death would!
Posted by: gendifrank | July 27, 2006 12:57 PM
It is based on the fact that very few criminals assume they will be caught and if they are suspected very few believe they will be found guilty.
I don't believe everything I read (and I admit that the accusation annoyed me) but if the study is based on factual statistics then I see no reason to assume it is wrong. My text book included the crime rates of areas where the death penalty is frequently given, as well as surveys given to convicted criminals.
Maybe it would be different if the process was faster, but I think that to do that would jeopardize the fairness of the legal system. Inaccurate convictions DO happen and the appeals process has gotten a lot of innocent people off of death row.
Posted by: paigeu | July 27, 2006 2:08 PM
I don't even know what to think about all this . Like Dr. Phil says "I can't even wrap my mind around this."
Posted by: Christina | July 28, 2006 11:30 AM
As a midwife, mother of 4 living children and 2 who died of a still undiagnosed genetic disorder and a Christian; I am appalled, simply appalled, at the level of hatred and anger levelled towards Andrea Yates. Please understand that psychosis is a complete break with reality; a psychotic person lives in a distorted and disordered world; they hear voices telling them to do horrible things but that doesn't prevent them from "planning" the actions that they feel they are being told to do. In other words; the fact that Mrs. Yates was able to be systematic and even "cunning" about her actions is not "proof" of any sort that she could therefor, "reason" and then respond appropriately. In discussing the Scriptural and Christian understanding of forgiveness; please remember that we were forgiven by Grace alone; not out of any deserving or any action of our own and we were "FOR-given" which means literally, "done before"....before we asked; before we knew to confess. Jesus forgave all of our sins, for once and all, when He paid for them on the Cross. Andrea Yates is a sick woman who deserves our pity and compassion not our condemnation and conviction; God will judge as as we judge; DO remember that one folks'.
Posted by: Michelle | August 1, 2006 6:35 PM
