A judge is being investigated after he freed a child rapist who kidnapped and assaulted another youngster just eight days later.
Judge Adrian Smith spared the 16-year-old jail after the first victim’s family apparently forgave the teenager because of their Christian faith.
He was given a community order despite protests from prosecutors and police and went on to rape a five-year-old.
The story goes on to say:
Judge Smith, 58, is thought to have allowed him to go free after hearing statements from the victim’s father, who said his ‘religious faith’ had allowed him to forgive the attacker.
By all means Christians must learn to forgive on a personal basis. However scripture makes it clear that justice should be impartial. Allowing victims and their families to influence the outcome of a court case is undermining the role of the community in meting out punishment.
We seem to be on a slippery slope to making justice personal, rather than judicial.
Posts
2 comments:
Three points.
Victim statements were brought in by the current government.
No-one expected to hear about forgiveness.
The Judge is not supposed to take victim statements into account.
Legal theory envisages four main factors in sentencing criminals:
Retribution (i.e. punishment),
Deterrence (i.e. others will think twice before breaking the law),
Rehabilitation (i.e. the convict learns to mend his/her ways), and
Protection of society (i.e. there's one less criminal on the streets).
I'd suggest that Christ's teaching on forgiveness extends beyond what you term a 'personal basis', and I think we should be ready to critique the Retribution rationale in sentencing. However, I would also argue that the imperative of forgiveness does not lessen the validity of the other three sentencing goals.
In other words: I think I agree with you here, but for rather different reasons.
Post a Comment