So, in our criminal law class we have been talking about two different approaches to the punishment of criminals. These two approaches are retributivism and utilitarianism. I will give a definition of each, taken from lexisnexis.com, which is a legal research website.
Utilitarians consider the effect of a form of punishment in terms of both general deterrence and specific (or individual) deterrence. When the goal is general deterrence, punishment is imposed in order to dissuade the community at large to forego criminal conduct in the future. When the goal is specific deterrence, punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by an individual defendant by both preventing him from committing crimes against society during the period of his incarceration (incapacitation), and reinforcing to him the consequences of future crimes (intimidation).
That is the definition for Utilitarians in the law. I would like to add that by my reading in our text book, utilitarians don't punish unless there is utility for the punishment. The punishment must have a purpose, or use.
Retributivism – Under a retributive theory of penal law, a convicted defendant is punished simply because he deserves it. There is no exterior motive such as deterring others from crime or protecting society – here the goal is to make the defendant suffer in order to pay for his crime. Retributive theory assigns punishment on a proportional basis so that crimes that cause greater harm or are committed with a higher degree of culpability (e.g, intentional versus negligent) receive more severe punishment than lesser criminal activity.
That is the definition for Retributivism in the law. I would like to add that by my reading in our text book, retributists don't punish to reform, to deter, or to incapacitate, they simply punish because someone has done something wrong. They don't care about utility in punishment.
So my question is . . . which do you think God subscribes to? Or, in what way does God view punishment? I would guide your thoughts to ask this question, is there always utility when God punishes, does he ever punish just because somebody did something wrong?
I imagine that both points will be strongly argued. I hope that this is the case. I will add my viewpoint along the way. I have had this conversation with a couple of people and I think a lot of this discussion has to do with what you view punishment to be, so in a way it turns into semantics. That is fine with me, as long as we decide upon meanings for words. I may add more to the post when people start raising different questions/concerns.
I hope all who read my blog will post, even those who don't post very often . . . Becky, Sam, Cindy, Dan . . . anyone else. I think this questions shows us a lot about what we think about God and his laws. I would love to hear everyone's viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don’t usually walk down this alley, Matt, but since you asked, I’ll give it a shot. Bear in mind, though, that I’m writing late at night, in haste, and on my own hook. So this is just me, pure and simple.
My initial thought is that the binary is flawed in that the two categories overlap so completely that at a certain point it becomes impossible to keep them separate. This is especially true if we accept something like Nietzsche’s theory of masochism, which argues that part of the reason we punish others is to give ourselves pleasure—the pleasure of the sense of power we have over them. In that case, punishment serves a utilitarian function—the reproduction of pleasure—which is an inevitable corollary of the act of retribution. So poof goes the binary. I’m not particularly arguing Nietzsche’s view, just suggesting how fungible the categories are.
But with respect to your bigger issue, my opinion may appear to be heterodox, though I don’t think it is. I don’t think that God punishes us at all, at least not in a fire and brimstone sort of way. I don’t believe that He uses pain to purchase either utility or retribution. There are tons of scriptures that can be quoted in apparent support of a vengeful God, but I ultimately don’t believe it.
I believe that when we sin, we fail to become the kind of people through which faith and the spirit can work. Not as a form of punishment but because the connection literally doesn’t work under those conditions. We become nonconductors of the spirit. And until we get that straightened out, God can’t be with us. We’re damned, but not because God is punishing us. We’re damned because we’re, well, damned. So the consequences of sin are death and hell, but not because God gets really angry with us and decides to torture us for eternity, but because death and hell are the consequences of sin, pure and simple. Like gravity.
I’m not arguing this position, mind you, and in practical terms, it makes no difference. In both cases the consequences of sin are exactly the same. But it makes a big difference in terms of the way we view God. It’s a Whom do you love? sort of question. And I guess I think it’s hard to love a vengeful God. Fear, yes. Obey, yes. Love, not so much. And you know me: I think love makes the world go round (lol).
I'm never really sure when I should be flattered or fearful when you "specifically solicit" my opinion... :)
I'm with Dan, in that I do not believe in a vengeful God. My Heavenly Father does not punish in fits of anger and revenge. I also agree - to an extent - that the Lord does not punish us as much as we think He does. I think that a lot of the time punishment, as we see it, really is simply a natural consequence of sin.
I also think that there is no real way to separate utilitarian and retributive punishment. If God's punishment works generally as a natural consequence to sin, I think both forms come into play. I don't believe that God ever punishes just for the sake of punishing, but because He is absolutely just, it makes sense to me that even though He has a purpose in everything that He allows to happen to us, I think the consequence ultimately is equal to the sin, as a matter of structured justice.
I have another thought though. I think in large measure, we tend to over-judge ourselves, and in this world, we over-judge others as well. I don't think anyone really understands what true justice actually is, because we don't experience it in mortality. I think mortals are, by nature, retributive. Which is where Dan's point about Nietzsche comes in. Much of what we do to each other, in terms of punishment, doesn’t exactly have perfectly just or righteous motives attached. We glory in watching others suffer, which is a completely satanic (ab)use of power.
As I’ve been writing this, I’ve been thinking about the children of Israel being swallowed up into the earth. I’ve always thought that seemed a little harsh. But the more I think about it, the more it seems like a merciful intervention, not a vengeful one. Perhaps God intervenes with what often looks and feels like “punishment” in order to save us from ourselves. As a general rule, I really don’t think direct divine intervention is as common as we sometimes think. If you aren’t living right, the Lord probably isn’t going to send an angel to correct you. But the consequences of unrighteous living will eventually be so miserable, that they seem like a curse from God. On the other hand, a lot of our blessings and revelation come because we have been searching, reading, pondering, serving, and making all sort of choices that allow us to grow, and – to use Dan’s phrase – to be a conduit for the spirit. When we are at that point, we usually begin to look to God for guidance and direction, and if you ask for it, He’ll give it – so long as you keep moving forward. And people who do that, who actively try to align their will with God’s and continue to ask for direction as to how that’s done, feel far less “punishment” in their lives.
But after all that, if you’re asking me to pick ONE (even though I think they’re kind of inseparable), I’d opt for a utilitarian God, based solely on the principle of agency. I was thinking in terms of parental punishment. We have a certain set of rules and guidelines in my home (or rather, my mom’s home). There are specific things that she does not “allow.” But sometimes one of us does one of those things anyway. Did she “allow” it? No. We chose disobedience, and with that choice comes a certain repercussion. I suppose that’s why I don’t worry about final judgment as much as I used to when I was little. If I don’t want to be punished, or damned, or kept from exaltation, I won’t be, because I will have lived in such a way as to avoid those consequences.
Ultimately, however, I think God is actually neither a utilitarian nor a retributive punisher. I think He’s more of a life coach. Someone who is prepared to lead and guide when we ask for help, and to be there for us again after we mess up and have been “punished” by our own actions enough that we are ready to come back and try again. I guess I believe He loves us in a way that we don’t understand, because we aren’t seeing things from where He stands. He may require something of us, after we’ve sinned or made mistakes, but I don’t think that’s punishment. I think that’s tutelage.
So I think overall, my view on God is really similar to both of your view's.
I think that the categories hold rather well. I don't think a strange situation like masochism can really break down the binary. Usually, how I understand it, retributivism is either benefitting society as a whole or the person who is supposed to be punished. It seems to me like pleasure that derives from punishment, especially when that pleasure is experienced by the person inflicting the punishment, doesn't really count in the model. It seems that is an outlier that isn't necessarily in the equation.
I really think that is the case because if the person punishing is doing it for the purpose of pleasure that has almost no social utility. And the pleasure surely has no utility for the person being punished.
But on to weightier matters. I wasn't as much concerned about the binary (although I find the divide less fungible than most) as I was about what it said about the nature of God.
Here is another question that I have thought of that is directly related:
I was explaining the plan of salvation to someone the other day and explained how Christ suffers for our sins because someone needs to suffer for them. The girl I was speaking with said that the fact that someone had to suffer for them sounded an awful lot like retributivism. There simply had to be a punishment. I think he point was valid.
The only way I can see around this view of a retributist God is that there was a great deal of utility for Christ to suffer for our sins. Both because this would enable him to understand the plight of the sinner, but also because this would be the way in which he really claims us his.
So what do you think about this kind of God? I heard someone else bring up a good point though too. We don't know the nature of the rules we and God, presumably, follow. Does God have a say in whether or not Christ would have to suffer for our sins or was this just a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven, which Christ and the Father had to obey.
I think that is an interesting thought.
I probably think God is 99% utilitarian and 1% retributivist, if at all. But I think these questions are interesting. And I actually do think they matter, they reveal a good deal about the nature of God.
Post a Comment