An article appeared in yesterday’s Sydney Catholic Weekly elaborating on the recent awarding of an honorary doctorate to Mr. Terry O’Connell for his work in ‘restorative justice’, so I thought I might elaborate a little on my own objections to this ideology. Now the article notes that
Now withholding adequate punishment from an offender would be an evil in itself. But we know that, as Pius XII taught in his allocution Ci Riesce, repression of evil is not the ultimate norm for the State; the State has the right to tolerate certain evils, subject to the norm that it only permit an evil in order to bring forth a greater good or avert a greater evil. So it can indeed be the case that the State might licitly forgo the satisfaction of justice through punishment, whether by incarceration or whatever, in order to rehabilitate an offender, if it judges that the value of rehabilitation would exceed the evil of the offender not receiving the punishment that he deserves.
So my problem is not necessarily with ‘restorative justice’ as a set of practices and policies, but as an ideology. That is because ‘restorative justice’ as an ideology dictates that rehabilitation always trumps retribution, so that if there is a conflict between the two, rehabilitation wins out. Yet at least in the case of pre-meditated murder, the value of rehabilitation cannot exceed the evil of withholding the death penalty, since it is a comparison of the value of one life with another life; what the offender took from the victim cannot be restored. Even as the offender might make some contribution to society through his rehabilitation, it is inconceivable that this contribution could outweigh the injustice of the offender’s on-going enjoyment of what he took from his victim. The only circumstances in which I could imagine the State licitly withholding the death penalty would be in the case of a dissident with a large number of supporters who would all rebel en masse if the dissident in question were put to death. But even in this case it is only a matter of delaying the execution until the situation has settled down. If justice is a cardinal virtue, on which both pagans and Christians should be able to agree, then the satisfaction of justice must take precedence over rehabilitation in the case of wanton murder.
(And MgS, you are most welcome to have your say here.)
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Cantius, Confessor, 2008 A.D.
[Mr. O’Connell] has done extensive work in broadening focus for law enforcers by conferencing with all parties affected by crime: victims, perpetrators and their families, in order to achieve understanding and reconciliation on both sides.Well and good. And the article notes further that
His work with criminal offenders has been accompanied by a remarkable decrease in repeat offences among those offenders.Excellent. Deterrence, rehabilitation and ‘closure’ for victims are all laudable outcomes. But they are distinct from and subordinate to justice, with ‘justice’ essentially being that each person gets what he or she is owed, so that good deeds are appropriately rewarded and bad deeds are appropriately punished. There is a hierarchy of virtues, and all other natural virtues hinge on the cardinal virtues of justice, prudence, temperance and fortitude.
Now withholding adequate punishment from an offender would be an evil in itself. But we know that, as Pius XII taught in his allocution Ci Riesce, repression of evil is not the ultimate norm for the State; the State has the right to tolerate certain evils, subject to the norm that it only permit an evil in order to bring forth a greater good or avert a greater evil. So it can indeed be the case that the State might licitly forgo the satisfaction of justice through punishment, whether by incarceration or whatever, in order to rehabilitate an offender, if it judges that the value of rehabilitation would exceed the evil of the offender not receiving the punishment that he deserves.
So my problem is not necessarily with ‘restorative justice’ as a set of practices and policies, but as an ideology. That is because ‘restorative justice’ as an ideology dictates that rehabilitation always trumps retribution, so that if there is a conflict between the two, rehabilitation wins out. Yet at least in the case of pre-meditated murder, the value of rehabilitation cannot exceed the evil of withholding the death penalty, since it is a comparison of the value of one life with another life; what the offender took from the victim cannot be restored. Even as the offender might make some contribution to society through his rehabilitation, it is inconceivable that this contribution could outweigh the injustice of the offender’s on-going enjoyment of what he took from his victim. The only circumstances in which I could imagine the State licitly withholding the death penalty would be in the case of a dissident with a large number of supporters who would all rebel en masse if the dissident in question were put to death. But even in this case it is only a matter of delaying the execution until the situation has settled down. If justice is a cardinal virtue, on which both pagans and Christians should be able to agree, then the satisfaction of justice must take precedence over rehabilitation in the case of wanton murder.
(And MgS, you are most welcome to have your say here.)
Reginaldvs Cantvar
Feast of St. John Cantius, Confessor, 2008 A.D.
