1957 murderer convicted

[Homer]

In the news recently was the conviction of Jack McCullough for the kidnapping and murder of a 7 year old girl in 1957. McCullough is said to have moved to Washington state where he was an officer in the state police.

It has been contended here that all God's punishments are corrective. Since this man committed his murder 55 years ago and since appears to have "corrected" himself, shouldn't we just leave him be?

[Paidion]

Perhaps WE should. But that's not the way the legal system works. They don't care whether you have repented or not. "You do the crime — you do the time." — even though, "doing the time" helps neither the criminal nor his victim. That is why there is a move today toward restorative justice which helps both.

Anyone who is not sure what "restorative justice" is, check out the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing.
God judges a person by his present character, and, if necessary, disciplines him that he may become righteous.

[Homer]

Paidion,

You have answered well, consistent with your position.

[mattrose]

As an aside (And without reading the story), I'm not sure how a man could have truly 'corrected himself' without confessing the crime to the proper authorities. Isn't part of repentance submission to consequences?

[steve7150]

Just for the sake of clarity i think the word "kolasis" can mean correction and or punishment. Sometimes on this forum the eternal punishment issue is framed as either there is eternal punishment or there is none at all.

I believe the verses re "some will receive few lashes and some will receive many" is a principal and is applicable to the lake of fire. In other words you can have punishment/correction and then restoration.

God can do it.

[Paidion]

As an aside (And without reading the story), I'm not sure how a man could have truly 'corrected himself' without confessing the crime to the proper authorities. Isn't part of repentance submission to consequences?

No, I think repentance refers to having a change of heart and mind concerning how you have been living. Why bring "consequences" on one self, if there is virtually no likelihood of repeating the crime or a crime of a similar nature. Indeed, what purpose do these "consequences" serve? They help neither the victim nor the criminal. Also, confession could bring hurtful consequences to the criminal's family if he confesses. They may no longer have any means of support.

But if he does confess, then there should be restitution to the victim — an attempt to make up in part for his crime, though it may be impossible to make it up in full, especially in the case of a murder. Nevertheless, we need to cease thinking in terms of penalizing the criminal, and begin thinking in terms of restoration. If the criminal has stolen, he should have to repay. If the criminal's crime has been against a local town, he should have to do community work. But what purpose is served to lock him in jail other than to wreak vengeance? Jesus told his disciples that they should NOT seek vengeance, but pray for their enemies and do good to them.

Did you read the article on restorative justice?

Nor does penal "justice" work as a deterrent. Consider the death penalty for murder. When it was removed from Canadian law, the murder rate in Canada went DOWN. When it was reinstated in the U.S.A., the murder rate there went UP!

[psimmond]

I hadn't heard about this case. I wonder whether or not McCullough ever tried to secretly pay this family back in some way.

Paidion wrote: Consider the death penalty for murder. When it was removed from Canadian law, the murder rate in Canada went DOWN. When it was reinstated in the U.S.A., the murder rate there went UP!

I don't know about Canada but I know that in the US capital punishment is administered in such a way that even when people receive the death penalty, it just means they will sit on death row, perhaps till they die, lodging appeal after appeal. It's big news when someone actually dies since it happens so infrequently. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it prevents it from being a real deterrent.

So when people say prison time or the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, I think you'd have to see if this is true universally. The US judicial system is not known for its swiftness, certainty, or severity. I suspect that a dungeon with bread and water would be more of a deterrent than a cell block with 3 healthy meals, cable tv, library, weight room, etc.

[Homer]

I don't know about Canada but I know that in the US capital punishment is administered in such a way that even when people receive the death penalty, it just means they will sit on death row, perhaps till they die, lodging appeal after appeal. It's big news when someone actually dies since it happens so infrequently. I'm not saying this is good or bad, just that it prevents it from being a real deterrent.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

New King James Version (NKJV)
11. Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

[Paidion]

So when people say prison time or the death penalty doesn't deter criminals, I think you'd have to see if this is true universally. The US judicial system is not known for its swiftness, certainty, or severity. I suspect that a dungeon with bread and water would be more of a deterrent than a cell block with 3 healthy meals, cable tv, library, weight room, etc.

Deterrence is not limited to the offender. It is also believed that the death penalty and other punishment will deter others from committing crimes. Both of these premises are faulty.

It seems clear when one notes the crime rate relative to increased penalties, that positive correlation between the increase in penalties and the decrease in crime rates. Rather increase in penalties seems rather to correspond to some degree to INCREASE in crime rates. I realize that this fact is contrary to our intuition.

I strongly recommend Howard Zehr's book Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice, a book that upholds restorative justice. Although this book initially was written over 30 years ago, it is just as relevant today as it ever was — perhaps more so.

http://www.amazon.com/Changing-Lenses-F ... 0836135121

http://books.google.ca/books/about/Chan ... QnRAAACAAJ

[mattrose]

I think confession is good for the soul. And it is appropriate for us to confess our crimes, not only for us, but for the victims as well. You (Paidion) state his confession could have hurt his victims? I see more of a possibility that it could have helped.

As for capital punishment as a deterrent, your Canada/USA stats are sometimes matched by stats that seem to suggest otherwise. I don't claim to know the truth of the situation, only that I've seen stats support both sides.

In general though, I agree with you that punishment should be more restorative in nature. I think prison sentences generally serve little good purpose and I recognize that the USA imprisons far too many people. I agree with the 'restorative justice' model (without reading the article, you don't have to convince me). But I think it can be taken too far to view punishment solely in this way. Imagine if we could know, for certain, that a murderer will refuse to be restored by even a perfect 'restorative justice' system on earth... in your view, what should be done to such a person in this hypothetical situation?