The Hebrew Jubilee in Leviticus 25 may well represent an ideal rather than a reality. In any event, it is not in its literal sense an imperative for all time.  It made good sense in its specific provisions for “liberty in the land for all its inhabitants” (Lev 25:10): the redemption of property, care for the impoverished, ransom of country-men who had sold their services to a wealthy alien. Today, in our Jubilee year, we Christians have our own needs that call for various kinds of liberation. I shall focus on one such need: justice.  Specifically, justice for prisoners, for the men and women incarcerated for crimes. Three stages to my reflection: (1) the justice that is retributive, punitive, vengeful; (2) the justice that is restorative; (3) the justice that is capital punishment.

Retributive Justice

Two decades ago, Father Michael Bryant started as the District of Columbia jail’s full-time minister. In those early days he believed that the U.S. system of justice was fair, impartial, and balanced. After listening to thousands of prisoners in that jail, he is now convinced that “our system of criminal justice is not fair, is not impartial, and is not balanced”( WoodstockReport61 [March 2000] 4).   African Americans make up only 13% of our national population, Hispanics 9 or 10%; yet 48% in prison are black, 18% Hispanic. What do they have in common with the whites?  They are poor, addicted, uneducated, and jobless.

Our sentencing is more and more punitive: no parole on the federal level, minimum-sentencing legislation, “three strikes and you’re out” (in for life) in California. Prison sentences for minor offenses have tripled the number of inmates since 1980 to a total of 2.1 million. Two thirds return to prison: 70% for juveniles, 63% for adults.  Listen to Pat Nolan, president of Justice Fellowship:

I got a view of things after serving 15 years in the California legislature. I also served 25 months in a federal penitentiaty and four months in a halfway house. And I had a chance to see, first hand the impact of the policies that I’d advocated as a legislator. God really took the scales from my eyes and I’m gratefiilfor my time in prison, because he did expose me to what was going on.

(The system is) horribly broken. We lock up two million Americans. That’s one out of every 125 people in the United States of America.  If you add parole and probation, the people who are on supervised release, that’s six million.  That’s one out of every 42 Americans directly behind the walls of a prison or with a probation or parole agent to whom they report. One in every 42. Andyet victims aren’t healed from their wounds. Our communities aren’t any safer.  The crime rate is down, but there’s growing evidence that officials are “cooking the books,” misreporting crimes to drop it artificially.

Restorative Justice

Is there another model? Recent years have witnessed a growing movement in America and abroad. It rises from a conviction that the retributive system is counter-productive: it does not rehabilitate, is enormously expensive, leads speedily to recidivism.

Recommended in its place is restorative justice. In harmony with biblical justice, its aim is to heal. It has begun to show promise in New Zealand, was used in South Africa by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, enjoys early stages in about 600 U.S. jurisdictions.

Take New Zealand. There the juvenile system is currently 100% focused on restorative philosophy and practice. In 1989, after a 15-year trial-and-error period, a law mandated the restorative process for dealing with offenders under 17, while maintaining an ever-shrinking
traditional system for those who plead not guilty. With that legislation the government closed down all juvenile institutions; a few have reopened to cope with juveniles guilty of frightful crimes.

The approach? Within days of an arrest a facilitator from the Department of Youth Justice tries to arrange a family group conference: the offender, his/her family, and the victims. The offender admits the offense, explains relevant circumstances. A support person may add clarifying information. The victims are asked to express what they feel: anger, grief, greater understanding. Important here is the human face both sides bring to the situation. The victim is central. In the retributive system the victim can only testify; in the restorative system the victim is to some extent re-empowered, a balance is restored. And the offenders assume much more responsibility for their harmful actions.

Then the matter goes to a judge, who accepts the group’s recommendations in 95% ofthe cases. There are sanctions, but it is the community that does the restoring. The offender signs a contract to fulfil what is required, e.g. payment, return to school, alcohol or drug treatment.

Does it always work? No. The claim? The restorative philosophy offers better opportunities than the retributive for opening a healing process for victim and offender alike.  In 1998 New Zealand’s Minister of Justice presented a paper to the cabinet request ing approval offunding for pilot restorative-justice programs for adult offenders. He listed as potential benefits reduced costs to the criminal-justice system, decrease in incarceration, decrease in sentence length, less repeat offending, and more meaningful victim and community participation.

Is a ground swell in favor of restorative justice apparent in the United States? In some faith-based communities. I much fear thatpubl ic opinion still cries loudly for vengeance.  Hence the two million and more behind bars, with little hope for rehabilitation. The only growth? The prison industry.

Of high potential significance is a lengthy statement of the Catholic bishops of the United States, Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice. At once scriptural, theological, and sacramental, utilizing rich experiences of experts and communities, the document presents a detailed program for reshaping the criminal-justice system, policy foundations for new approaches that rebuild lives, not simply build more prisons. The document is a treasure for all who must preach justice, whatever their denominational allegiance. (This document can be web referenced at: nccbuscc.org/sdwp/criminal.htm)

Capital Punishment

During the 1990s America was awash in a new crusade.  Its background was a frightening escalation of violence.  One significant reaction was an angry demand for capital punishment that stemmed in large measure, but not entirely, from a twin conviction:

(1) that only execution is appropriate punishment for a number of particularly horrendous crimes, e.g. treason, abuse of children, indiscriminate bombing of buildings or planes; and (2) that capital punishment is an effective way to combat the contemporary trend to savage violence. Extensive research and reflection have brought me to the conclusion that capital punishment cannot be justified in America today. Consider the following 12 facts: (1) The belief that capital punishment actually helps the fight against crime is “a mirage,” said Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, “that distracts society from more fruitful, less facile answers, exacts a terrible price in dollars, lives, and human decency.” (2) Capital punishment carries an inevitable potential for irreversible injustice; and innocent people have been executed. (3) Convicts charged with capital crimes frequently do not have adequate defense counsel. Court appointed counsel rarely have the time and resources at the disposal of, say, O. J. Simpson. Virginia allows new evidence only within 21 days of conviction.

(4) Prisoners have spent as many as 15 years on death row before being found innocent. (5) A disproportionate number of those on death row are African Americans or Hispanics, poor, uneducated, even retarded. (6) States are increasingly declaring or considering a moratorium on
capital punishment because of acknowledged injustices in the system.

(7) Not a single European country sees the need for capital punishment. (8) Astute persons such as Pope John Paul II, not lacking in compassion for the families of victims, are convinced that humanity has reached a stage where capital punishment is no longer necessary for the
protection of society. (9) The primary motivation behind capital punishment is vengeance, a life for a life. A medical doctor kills a fetus, an antiabortionist kills the doctor, the state kills the antiabortionist — to show that killing is wrong.

(10) Execution rarely if ever brings genuine closure to the agony of the bereaved. (11) A good case can be made, on theological grounds, for the sanctity of all human life, even the life of a murderer or rapist. (12) Restorative justice can at times effect a transformation of even the
most hardened criminal.

Space prevents proof. But gospel truth demands that all who proclaim the gospel struggle with these facts.  After all, it is a question of life or death.

About the author

Walter J. Burghardt wrote 3 articles for this publication.

Father Burghardt was a Jesuit priest who spent most of his career -- much of it in Maryland and Washington -- as a scholar of church history and theology. He was never a parish priest, yet he was considered a spellbinding preacher whose powerful calls for social justice and understanding influenced generations of Catholic priests and Protestant pastors. In 1991, when he was 77, Father Burghardt embarked on what became a global project called "Preaching the Just Word." Traveling the world, he led more than 125 intensive, five-day retreats for 7,500 priests and deacons. The goal was to instill both moral fervor and a "fire in the belly" for preaching from the pulpit.

• Blog