DELIVERING JUSTICE FOR ALL

Is there a better way?

Allegory of Justice - statue at court building in Olomouc, Czech Republic. Photo by Michal Maňas from Wikipedia Commons. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

For me, it is disturbing to consider the execution of four prisoners by November 16 in the #1 executioner state in the nation (Texas Execution Schedule).

I know that the murder victims and their families cry out for justice. Those who murdered are responsible for their actions and are accountable to society for the pain and suffering that was inflicted. There must be consequences for murdering people.

But why do we have a system of justice in place? Is the system of justice in place to punish or to restore societal harmony? How does executing a criminal improve our society, public safety, and quality of life? How is more killing capable of restoring or at least transforming, as much as possible, the lives of victims and society after atrocious acts are committed? 

Could the principles of restorative justice be applied to achieve better outcomes?

Howard Zehr has provided guidelines for us in The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Zehr brings extensive, worldwide experience to the field of offender conferencing and societal healing. He seeks to identify the justice needs of all who become involved in a criminal event: victims, offenders, and communities. This is a very worthwhile book to read; it is short and to the point— a very practical approach to these kinds of circumstances.

The principles of restorative justice compel us to address the needs of victims, offenders, and society in reaching a proactive and effective engagement that will lead to transformation in society after violent acts are committed. The principles are about returning to the “best selves” that we were before the crime was committed. Reconciliation and forgiveness are painful undertakings and are not prerequisites to applying restorative justice principles. However, at times they are the outcomes of applying those principles. There are some fundamental questions raised by Zehr’s approach from which society may find new and effective ways of dealing with criminal offenses.

1.     How are society and the justice system providing adequate support to those who have caused harm so that they can carry out their obligations and change their patterns of behavior?

2.     How are we giving offenders the opportunity to make things right for the victims, their families and society?

3.     How are the justice system and society addressing the harms that have led the offenders to become who they are?

4.     How is the community encouraged to assume the obligations that civilized society requires of its individuals?

And in pondering those questions, how does capital punishment allow us to effectively answer those questions?

The thinking process that Zehr suggests causes me to consider if we are focusing too much on retribution.  We cannot gloss over the pain and suffering a murder causes. Yet, if we are trying to heal those who have suffered and are suffering from the murder, and if we are trying to heal the breach in trust among humans that a murder has wrought on society, we must ask ourselves those questions.

Will executing these convicted murderers make us a better society? Will executing murderers prolong the climate of death? Will the executions mitigate the culture of death that continues to grow in our midst?

Is it not time that we wake up, end capital punishment, and tackle the causes of our dysfunction?

What do you think?