Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: March 26, 2006
JUDGE CASHMAN AND GOVERNOR STONEFELLOW
Gary W. Summers
The Batman television series in the mid-sixties be¬came an immediate hit—
largely due to its campy humor. The underlying fallacy of the liberal philosophy of
rehabilitating criminals was exposed in almost every program. Batman and Robin
would round up the bad guys, who would then be imprisoned, where the
pro¬grams of Governor Stonefellow (a play on the name of the governor at that
time, who was Rockefeller) would theoretically transform them into productive
citizens— something that never happened and which was laugh¬able. Even
Batman and Robin were in on the joke, along with Commissioner Gordon,
because they too affirmed that, no matter how vile and ruthless thugs became,
there was a social cure to their problem. Regardless of how many times the
Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, or Cat Woman broke out of prison or were
re¬leased, presumably "fit to take their rightful place in society once more," they
would immediately resort to their dastardly designs of ridding Gotham City of the
dynamic duo.
Apparently Judge Edward Cashman takes this enthusiastic optimism seriously,
since he recently sentenced a child molester to 60 days in prison. The little girl
had been abused for four years, starting at the age of 6 or 7, depending on the
source of information. What on earth could possibly be his rationale for such a
horrendous sentence? The Vermont Guardian stated on January 20th:
Cashman never said that he did not believe in punishment. He said he did
not believe in retribution—two very different terms, especially in a legal context.
And he's right.
Sentencing should never be based on retribution, as Cashman pointed out in
his ruling; rather, it should be a balance between the need to protect the
individual victim in the case at hand, and the need to guard against future
victims.
What legal scholar came up with that tripe? Bill O'Reilly has had several guests
from Vermont on his television program, The O'Reilly Factor, and most of them
have defended the judge in one way or another. One man tried to convince the
audience (unsuccessfully) that the sentence was much harsher than it
appeared—that it was 60 days to life. Can he be serious? Is there really a crime
with such a variation of penalties? If so, something is drastically wrong with the
legal system. Others say the options were 60 days to ten years. Although better,
the leeway re¬mains too broad.
As O'Reilly mentioned on Thursday, January 19th, another judge sentenced to 60
days someone who cursed her in the courtroom. Apparently, in Vermont four
years of raping a child equals one curse of a judge. How fortunate for the rapist
that he kept his temper, or his sentence might have been doubled.
Rehabilitation Versus Retribution
One law professor said that Cashman erred in judgment by placing the
defendant's need for rehabilitation above society's demand for justice. Ya think?
In the history of jurisprudence, where did the idea of rehabilitation come from? It
does not come from the Law of Moses. Raping a betrothed woman was a capital
offense, which merited the death penalty (Deut. 22:25), and so was incest with a
father's wife, a daughter-in-law, or a wife's mother (Lev. 20:11-12, 14). The sexual
abuse of a child, apparently, was such a perverted thing that it is not even
mentioned as a possible occurrence. If such had ever happened, however, the
perpetrator would likely have not seen another sunrise. The Bible does not
emphasize rehabilitation too often; it deals with retribution and prevention—the
latter being achieved by the practice of the former. What does the Word of God
teach, and what applies today?
God authorized capital punishment prior to and under the Law of Moses for
various crimes: murder (Gen. 9:5-6; Num. 35:16), adultery (Lev. 20:10), incest
(Lev. 20:11-12, 14), bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16), sodomy (Lev. 20:13), kidnapping (Ex.
21:16), and several other offenses (see Wave's Topical Bible 1087). Under the Law
there was even a person who functioned as the Avenger of Blood (Deut. 19:12).
Was no one ever given a second chance? Yes, King David was; God forgave him of
his sins and let him continue to rule, although he was temporarily ousted by one
of his own sons. In the New Testament, many people repented of their sins, but
they did not have rehabilitation counseling. They confessed that what they had
done was wrong. Saul of Tarsus was forgiven of persecuting the church and
putting Christians to death. Even those who crucified Jesus were granted
salvation when they obeyed the Gospel (Acts 2:36-38). Jesus also gave the
woman taken in adultery a fresh opportunity (John 8:1-11).
The Gospel and the laws of the land, however, operate in two separate spheres.
The Gospel pertains to the salvation of men's souls—the laws of the land to
criminal wrongdoing. The spiritual kingdom of Christ (the church) does not rule
over the civil government, and likewise government has no right to legislate in
spiritual matters. A person might commit a crime and repent of it, but a
conversion to Christ does not mean he is any less guilty of said crime or that the
punishment can now be dismissed. The state has the right to pronounce a
punishment upon evildoers—even if they do have a change of heart afterwards
(Rom. 13:1-7).
Retribution (rather than rehabilitation) is necessary for at least four reasons.
First, the offending party de¬serves to receive the fruits of his actions. He has
inflicted pain and suffering upon others, and it should be returned upon his own
head (Pr. 12:14). Frankly, most Americans have zero concern with the defendant's
"right" to be rehabilitated. He gave up his "rights" when he repeatedly committed
such a heinous act upon a child. If he never underwent a single counseling
session, the public would not feel cheated. This category of crime is not on a par
with someone who stole $20 and immediately experienced remorse. He is
perverted and has made an unwilling innocent child part of his perversion,
inflicting upon her an indelible nightmare. Frankly, it does not matter if he is the
sole support of his elderly grandmother or his cat purrs when he pets her. His
actions cannot be dismissed as a matter of personal tastes, like opinions over
an art object. He has greatly offended both God and society. He not only needs
the maximum sentence the law al¬lows, the law needs to be more severe.
Second, the victim needs to be made to feel as though she is a valuable human
being—not the equivalent of her weight in dirty laundry. Cashman's sentence is
an outright insult to the very personhood of this little girl. In effect, the
"penalty" says to her: "You don't really count for much; we're concerned about
rehabilitating the man who violated you." James de¬scribed such lack of
consideration as telling a cold, hungry person, "Be warmed," and "Be filled." What
about therapy for her? What about some sympathy that lets her know that the
actions of her rapist will not be tolerated in this society? Sixty days in prison will
not convey that idea to anyone. Judge Cashman ought to be ashamed. With
judgment this poor, he ought to resign.
Third, this lack of an equitable punishment will serve as an encouragement to
others. Solomon wrote that a sentence that is not speedily executed encourages
criminals all the more (Ecc. 8:11). The same can be said of ineffective,
inappropriate sentences. Our justice system is almost a laughingstock. Killers
sit on death row for ten to twenty years (or more), and smaller crimes (such as
auto and home theft) the police greet with a collective yawn. Is it any wonder (in
a day when moral values can scarcely be mentioned in public, let alone taught)
that criminals feel no intimidation? They already know that their chances of
being caught are slim, their chance of being punished is slim, and that even if
they are sentenced, it will probably be light. One would almost need to be a self-
confessed mass murderer, who acts surly in the courtroom and curses the judge
to get any significant attention.
Fourth, people will think God does not punish. If parents refuse to spank their
children, and the schools can no longer administer corporal punishment, and
judges dispense soft penalties like soft-serve ice cream, why would anyone have
any respect for the laws of the land or fear of God? Every time people get into a
scrape they come out all right. Oh, they may have to pay some money or issue an
apology—maybe even spend two months behind bars, but they always come out
okay. Surely, they may reason that God will commute their sentence from
eternity in hell to just a few years—or perhaps just substitute annihilation
in¬stead. No, unlike men, God means what He says. He does not rejoice in
anyone's eternal death, but die he will—forever, in the lake of fire, along with
Satan (Rev. 20:8-15). God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but
His Word is reliable. Earthly judges should strive to show some semblance of
justice. (Actually, many do what they can, but they are restricted by a system of
weak penalties for serious crimes.) [MORE NEXT WEEK]