The Focus Of The Criminal Justice System And Scripture

The Focus Of The Criminal Justice System And Scripture Sometimes Align

The focus of the criminal justice system and scripture sometimes align but not always. Sometimes there are “competing perspectives” in the criminal justice system but there are certain “Biblical Perspectives,” as well, one of which is restorative justice. Restorative justice focuses on restoring the victim by making the offender compensate the victim for the wrong and adding some punishment. Numbers 5:6–7 highlights this principle very well. "Say to the Israelites: ‘When a man or woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord, that person is guilty and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong, add one fifth to it and give it all to the person he has wronged" (NIV 1984). There is also a secondary emphasis of reintegrating offenders back into society. However, the topic of this course is criminal procedure. By nature, criminal procedure is “rights-based.” This is because much of the law comes from the Constitution, which was drafted to enumerate the powers of government. This limits government behavior to only those listed powers, but the Constitution also clearly lays out some rights (but not all) of states and citizens, particularly certain criminal procedure rights.

As such, it can be said that criminal procedure focuses on the offender’s rights and government behavior. Based on practical and educational experience, the primary focus of the criminal justice system leans toward protecting criminal rights, ensuring due process, and safeguarding individual liberties. For example, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a fair trial, legal counsel, and confrontation of witnesses, which serve to prevent government overreach and protect the accused. Similarly, the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, emphasizing the individual's privacy rights against government intrusion. These rights are fundamental in maintaining a balance between liberty and security, ensuring that justice is administered fairly and with respect to individual freedoms.

In contrast, restorative justice emphasizes repairing the harm caused by criminal acts through reconciliation and offender accountability. An example includes victim-offender mediation programs, where offenders are encouraged to take responsibility and make amends directly to victims. Such approaches aim to heal communities and reintegrate offenders into society, promoting harmony and reducing recidivism. This perspective aligns with biblical principles, like those found in Luke 19:8, where Zacchaeus offers restitution to those he has wronged. However, the criminal rights approach often defaults toward procedural safeguards that may limit swift resolution or reintegration efforts, reflecting a tension between community healing and individual rights.

Despite these differences, there is potential for these perspectives to be harmonized. The criminal justice system can incorporate restorative justice principles without compromising constitutional rights, creating a more holistic approach to justice. For instance, restorative practices can be integrated into the pre-trial phase to promote accountability and victim healing while maintaining procedural safeguards. Programs like community courts or restitution orders exemplify how restorative justice can be operationalized within existing legal frameworks. Such integration emphasizes both the protection of individual rights and the importance of repairing harm, aligning legal procedures with biblical and ethical imperatives for justice.

Furthermore, reforms such as diversion programs and restorative sentencing allow offenders to make amends while safeguarding their constitutional rights. These initiatives can reduce the cycle of recidivism and promote social reintegration, reflecting biblical imperatives of forgiveness and restitution. In conclusion, while the criminal rights and restorative justice perspectives may seem to be in tension, thoughtful integration and reform can create a more comprehensive system that honors both individual liberties and community healing principles.

References

• Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
• Bohm, R. M. (2011). DeathQuest: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Capital Punishment. Routledge.
• Davies, S. (2002). Restorative Justice: A New Paradigm or More of the Same? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 92(4), 789-812.
• Johns, J. M. (2020). The Philosophy of Criminal Law. Routledge.
• Miller, R. J. (2002). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press.
• Minow, M. (1998). Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence. Beacon Press.
• Shaw, M. N. (2013). Justice and the Good: An Introduction to Political Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.
• Walker, L. (2012). Restorative Justice and Its Alternatives: A Comparative Perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Zehr, H. (2002). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.