Regional Synod of Canada - Reformed Church in America

Pioneer Christian Monthly

Date - May/93

Contributor - J. A. Ramsay

Title - Justice... Or Is It?

Topic - Canada

Among other things, the state is ordained by God to protect its citizens from one another. In the last few years, more and more Canadians are expressing doubts as to how well those who govern us have fulfilled this task. Crimes which in recent memory were unusual have become common. Crack cocaine has brought with it murder, robbery and a proliferation of firearms in a country which never before had occasion to become familiar with armed violence. Many of these serious offenses are committed by young people. It used to be that the public showed little interest in law and order, perhaps because there was no particular problem in assuring the public that there was law and order. But today, government is faced with a public which more and more expresses concern with, if not outrage at, the justice system's response to serious crime. People want the system to change. The Criminal Code is constantly being amended and there is a proposal to replace it with an entirely new code of criminal law and procedure. Why does the system seem not to work as well as it used to?

First of all, it is important to recognize that the justice system is a system: that is, it is a machine which is made up of many parts. Parliament enacts the criminal law and procedure. Members of the public serve as jurors. Judges decide whether Parliament's enactments are constitutionally valid, and apply the laws to the individual case. The police apprehend criminals and prepare the prosecution's evidence. Prosecutors decide which cases proceed and present the cases in court. Prison authorities, psychiatrists, social workers, probation officers and other professionals deal with offenders who are convicted and sentenced. Academics and legal practitioners comment on the system and propose law reform. Are the various members of the system approaching their assigned tasks with wisdom?

The various members of the system, by and large, reflect Canadian society. The approach which we take to crime in Canada is one which you would expect from a western country in the late twentieth century. The system has its roots in traditional notions of morality. Certain things are right and certain things are wrong, and wrong conduct deserves to be punished. But the system has been infected by the ., medical" approach to crime, which considers crime to be a form of disease, which, if treated by the right methods, can be "cured".

The language of modern crime control gives away the assumptions which underlie it. Words which imply moral judgement are replaced by euphemisms. Criminals become offenders. Convictions become findings of guilt. Sentences become dispositions. Prisoners become inmates. Probationers become clients.

The Young Offenders Act is a product of recent law reform. We can use it as an example of the modem approach to crime control. Many of the provisions of this Act focus on the "needs" of the offender. They operate on the assumption that people are basically good, or at least that they can be made to be good, and that crime results when people's needs are not met. The answer to crime is to meet the offender's needs, so that he will not offend again. This approach turns the traditional view of a case upside down. The criminal becomes the victim, and the victim is reduced to the status of an unfortunate bystander. It also takes away the criminal's human dignity. Instead of looking at the criminal as a person who has chosen to break the law, we look at him as something like a laboratory animal: if we give him the right stimulus, we can cause the desired response.

In my experience with the Young Offenders Act, generally speaking, I have found it to be an effective tool of law enforcement, perhaps because the judges have used other provisions which it contains which encourage making young offenders bear responsibility for their actions. And yet public criticism of the criminal justice system The approach which we take to crime often centres out this Act for special attention. Much public dissatisfaction with the Young Offenders Act seems to focus on the maximum penalty available for young persons who commit murder. The maximum sentence of three years in custody (with the possibility of two additional years of supervision) seems inadequate to public opinion.

Why should this be so? For one thing, most people know that you can't cure someone of being homicidal in three years. If you could, that would be great. But experience has shown that you can't.

Secondly, when someone loses his life by the violent act of another, it doesn't seem fair to most people that the violent actor should thereby become entitled to receive all the help necessary to give him a good life. If the violent act is the result of the decision of an intelligent being to commit an immoral act, it seems only just to most that there should be punishment.

And finally, there is the degree of punishment. God decreed to Noah (Genesis 9:6) that "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed". Canadian society seems to have accepted the reduction of the biblical standard (a life for a life) to life imprisonment for a life. But three years in prison just doesn't seem enough. Why should the degree of punishment matter? Because we are talking about justice. That is, a penalty which is sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the crime. There must be a balance between the harm done and the penalty paid. Three years in custody in exchange for a life doesn't seem to balance.

The medical approach to crime does not satisfy the need for justice. An approach inspired by Christian morality would recognize the following principles:

1. Crime is caused by sin; left to our own devices, our inclination is to hate God and our neighbour; our choice to commit crimes is not a disease which is susceptible to manmade cures;

2. Justice demands a balance between the harm done and the penalty paid; in cases of non-violent crime, more must be done to effect reconciliation between the victim and the offender by meaningful restitution or reparation; in cases of violent crime, punishment must be meted out which vindicates the sanctity of human life;

3. We cannot control wrongdoing unless we recognize that there is such a thing as right and wrong; there are absolute values which transcend the laws of mankind.

Unless the various members of the system approach their tasks with wisdom, reform of the justice system will amount to nothing more than change for the sake of change. The wisdom which is needed to solve the problems of crime, like all wisdom, comes from God. Let us look to the Bible, where God's wisdom is revealed. And let us in the Reformed Church be faithful witnesses to that revealed wisdom.

Please click the "Back" button of your browser to return to previous page.