Who Ministers to Whom: Matthew 25:31–46 and Prison Ministry

This essay sees Matthew 25:31–46 as Jesus’ offer of both gift and challenge: disciples will simultaneously minister to and be ministered to by Jesus in jail and prison. Following a consideration of two different dominant ways of interpreting the passage in the literature—what are sometimes called the missionary and the social justice interpretations—and Luther's reading of the passage as falling under the Fifth Commandment, the essay invites the reader to engage the transformative consequences of  “seeing” Jesus imprisoned in the U.S. criminal “justice” system.     

Rethinking justice

Changes in the way people marry, bear children and live together, combined with the changing nature of support for families, has put pressure on the justice system to adjust to new family and community realities in order to accomplish justice goals. Although the entire legal system is implicated by the changing nature of families and communities, most scholars and practitioners have focused on the judicial system and those courts most relevant to family issues: namely, the juvenile, family, and criminal courts. As scholars and practitioners began to 'rethink justice,' whole new reform movements of therapeutic jurisprudence, restorative justice, and community justice (among others) have emerged to offer new paradigms for the administration of justice. In this essay we discuss ways in which families and the justice system interact to strengthen and weaken each other to accomplish justice goals.     

A Moral Predicament in the Criminal Law

Abstract

This essay is about the difficulties of doing criminal justice in the context of severe social injustice. Having been marginalized as citizens of the larger community, those who are victims of severe social injustice are understandably alienated from the dominant political institutions, and, not unreasonably, disrespect their authority, including that of the criminal law. The failure of equal treatment and protection and the absence of anything like fair and decent life prospects for the members of the marginalized populations erode the basis for its allegiance to demands of the political community. The criminal law thus occupies a problematic normative position with respect to lawbreakers in this population; in many cases, it finds itself in the position of convicting them for crimes for which the political community itself bears some significant responsibility. The attempt to administer criminal justice therefore faces a serious moral predicament; on the one hand, criminal law has a right and an obligation to protect citizens against serious crimes; on the other hand, because of its responsibility for the plight of many defendants, the dominant society is itself implicated in the wrongdoing in question. This paper tries to characterize the predicament in a perspicuous way and to suggest ways of proceeding in its face.     

Training in law and behavioral sciences: Issues from the criminal justice perspective

Interdisciplinary training in behavioral sciences and the law should be appropriate for a criminal justice education program. However, adopting such an interdisciplinary goal is problematic because the divisions in the types of educational curricula need to be confronted. The relationships of the criminal justice academic community with the profession, and of the behavioral sciences with present criminal justice policies, must also be addressed in the attempt to develop familiarity with behavioral sciences and their legal relevance in shaping the criminal justice system. These factors may hinder extensive implementation of such training. Suggestions are made for incorporating this raining in a criminal justice curriculum.     

Community psychology and injustice in the criminal justice system

In this short paper, we consider the partnership between psychology and the criminal justice system in Western societies and critically reflect on the notion of criminal justice as expressed in such a system. Focusing on how the criminal justice system operates in the UK, and in particular in Scotland, we consider the way the system criminalizes those who previously have been socially and economically disadvantaged. We ask whether community psychology has become negligent in the attention it brings to such a pernicious form of victim blaming and as such has shown insufficient critical engagement with systems that create social harm, and whether it is paying enough attention to the impact of a criminal justice system that is contributing to the creation of a more punitive, fractured and unjust society. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Apology in the criminal justice setting: evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system

The criminal justice system has reached unprecedented scope in the United States, with over 6.4 million people under some type of supervision. Remedies that have the potential to reduce this number are continually being sought. This article analyzes an innovative strategy currently being reconsidered in criminal justice: the apology. Despite a legal system that only sporadically acknowledges it, evidence for the use of apology is supported by social science research, current criminal justice theories, case law, and empirical studies. Social psychological, sociological and socio-legal studies pinpoint the elements and function of apology, what makes apologies effective, and concerns about apology if it were implemented in the criminal justice system. Theoretical evidence is examined (including restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, crime, shame, and reintegration) to explore the process of apology in the criminal justice context. Attribution theory and social conduct theory are used to explain the apology process specifically for victims and offenders. A brief examination of case law reveals that though apology has no formal place in criminal law, it has surfaced recently under the federal sentencing guidelines. Finally, empirical evidence in criminal justice settings reveals that offenders want to apologize and victims desire an apology. Moreover, by directly addressing the harmful act, apology may be the link to reduced recidivism for offenders, as well as empowerment for victims. This evidence combined suggests that apology is worthy of further study as a potentially valuable addition to the criminal justice process.     

Psychopathic traits in nursing and criminal justice majors: a pilot study

Prior findings suggest presence of psychopathic personality traits may be prevalent outside of the criminal sphere, such as in the business world. It is possible that particular work environments are attractive to individuals with higher psychopathic personality traits. To test this hypothesis, the current study investigated whether psychopathic personality scores could predict students' choices between two university majors, criminal justice or nursing (N= 174; 53 men, 121 women). Nursing education espouses nurturance and care, while criminal justice education teaches students informal and formal social control. Given these two educational mandates, it was predicted that students who scored higher on a scale of psychopathy would tend to enter criminal justice rather than nursing. Using logistic regression, results showed students with higher overall scores on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory, specifically higher scores on the subscale Machiavellian Egocentricity, were more likely to have chosen to major in criminal justice than nursing. Effects were generally weak but significant, accounting for between 5% to 25% of the variance in choice of major. Furthermore, this finding was not due to sex differences.     

Peace and Justice: A Limited Reconciliation

This paper aims to relax the tension between the political requirements of making peace and the moral demands of doing justice, in light of the ‘peace processes’ in South Africa and Northern Ireland. It begins by arguing that criminal justice should be reconceived as consisting primarily in the vindication of victims, both direct and indirect. This is not to deny the retributive punishment of perpetrators any role at all, only to insist that it be largely subservient to the goal of vindication. Why should we take such an account of justice to be true? The paper offers two reasons. First, Christians – and even secularist liberals – have a prima facie reason in the consonance of this account with the Bible's eudaimonistic conception of justice as ordered to the restoration of healthy community. Second, since all concepts of criminal justice share the basic notion of putting right what is wrong, it would be odd if the repair of damage done to victims (i.e., their ‘vindication’) were not prominent among its concerns; and there are reasons to suppose that this vindication should actually predominate in relation to the other principles of justice (the retributive ‘balancing’ of crime and punishment, and the reform of the criminal for his own sake). In its final sections, the paper applies the proposed conception of criminal justice to the ‘peace processes’ in South Africa and Northern Ireland, and concludes that in both cases, notwithstanding concessions to the politics of peace-making, considerable justice has been done.     

Moving Beyond the Individual: Examining the Effects of Domestic Violence Policies on Social Norms

To be effective, criminal justice policies should affect the underlying social norms for which the policies were enacted. This study sought to determine whether public perceptions of criminal justice policies on domestic violence affected social norms. Two waves of data were collected via a telephone survey where a random probability sample of 973 residents was drawn from 4 communities. A structural equation model was tested and confirmed. Results provided strong support for the hypothesis that perceptions of criminal justice policies have direct effects on attitudes toward criminal justice response, and indirect effects on victim-blaming attitudes, both underlying social norms related to domestic violence. The enactment of criminal justice policies, therefore, may have an impact beyond victims and perpetrators and lead to a transformation of the community through the emergence of new social norms. Public awareness campaigns designed to disseminate criminal justice policies may be instrumental in provoking social change.     

Responsibilities of Criminal Justice Officials

In recent years, political philosophers have hotly debated whether ordinary citizens have a general pro tanto moral obligation to follow the law. Contemporary philosophers have had less to say about the same question when applied to public officials. In this paper, I consider the latter question in the morally complex context of criminal justice. I argue that criminal justice officials have no general pro tanto moral obligation to adhere to the legal dictates and lawful rules of their offices. My claim diverges not only from the commonsense view about such officials, but also from the positions standardly taken in legal theory and political science debates, which presume there is some general obligation that must arise from legal norms and be reconciled with political realities. I defend my claim by highlighting the conceptual gap between the rigid, generalised, codified rules that define a criminal justice office and the special moral responsibilities of the various moral roles that may underpin that office (such as guard, guardian, healer, educator, mediator, counsellor, advocate, and carer). After addressing four objections to my view, I consider specific contexts in which criminal justice officials are obligated not to adhere to the demands of their offices. Amongst other things, the arguments advanced in this paper raise questions about both the distribution of formal discretion in the criminal justice system and the normative validity of some of the offices that presently exist in criminal justice systems.     

Finding Space for Criminal Prosecutions Post‐Conflict

Post‐conflict criminal prosecutions for the worst of crimes can play a meaningful role in achieving transitional justice. This once‐common view has recently been the subject of widespread criticism that is rooted in the belief that criminal prosecutions undermine reconciliation. This has lead some scholars to argue that we must either abandon criminal prosecutions post‐conflict or that we ought to use them for more general transitional justice aims, like restorative justice. This article argues against abandoning criminal prosecutions post conflict and against subsuming criminal justice aims under restorative or reconciliatory aims. When post‐conflict criminal prosecutions are properly structured and practiced they can bolster respect for the international, regional and domestic rule of law and in that way limit conflict in a number of important ways.     

Repairing the rupture: Restorative justice and the rehabilitation of offenders

Restorative justice is a social justice movement that aims to deal with consequences of crime through repairing and restoring relationships of three key stakeholders: victims, offenders, and communities. Unfortunately, it is often unclear where offender rehabilitation fits within the constructs of repair and reintegration that drive this justice paradigm. An analysis of the relationship between restorative justice theory and offender rehabilitation principles reveals tensions between the two normative frameworks and a lack of appreciation that correctional treatment programs have a legitimate role alongside restorative practices. First, we outline the basic tenets of the Risk–Need–Responsivity Model and the Good Lives Model in order to provide a brief overview of two recent models of offender rehabilitation. We then consider the claims made by restorative justice proponents about correctional rehabilitation programs and their role in the criminal justice system. We conclude that restorative justice and rehabilitation models are distinct, although overlapping, normative frameworks and have different domains of application in the criminal justice system, and that it is a mistake to attempt to blend them in any robust sense.     

Challenges in implementing evidence-based treatment practices for co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system

The presence of adults with mental health and substance abuse disorders within the criminal justice system has become increasingly evident over the past decade. Interventions and treatment services have been designed and research conducted in an effort to establish evidence-based practices that effectively address the complex needs of this population. However, adopting and implementing these evidence-based interventions and practices within the real-world setting of criminal justice environments is challenging. This article reviews the research literature related to evidence-based treatment practices for offenders with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders and explores the inherent challenges of fitting these interventions and services within criminal justice settings.     

Justice and forgiveness: Experimental evidence for compatibility

A 3 (justice prime: restorative, retributive, no prime) × 3 (contextual prime: criminal justice system, intimate relationship, workplace) experimental design was used with 173 participants reading hypothetical transgression scenarios to test the hypothesis that people associate forgiveness more with restorative justice than with retributive justice, and that such relationships hold regardless of the social context. As predicted, there were main effects for justice prime, with participants more likely to associate benevolent responding, and less likely to associate revenge and avoidant responses, with restorative justice than with retributive justice. They were also more likely to associate benevolence, and less likely to associate revenge and avoidant responses, with intimate relationships than with criminal justice and the workplace. Also as predicted, there was no interaction between justice and context for benevolence and revenge. Although one should be cautious about extrapolating from ‘no difference’ hypotheses, these results provide some indication that the forgiveness-justice relationship may be generalised beyond the criminal justice system.     

Law enforcement and criminal justice personnel interactions with transgender people in the United States: A literature review

This literature review examines research exploring the interactions between transgender people and law enforcement and criminal justice (LECJ) personnel in the U.S. to better understand the experiences of transgender people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. A search of existing academic literature, public health reports, and advocacy group publications revealed 33 studies that contained information about transgender people's interactions with LECJ personnel. Results highlight how large percentages of transgender people experience arrest and incarceration, unjustified stops and arrest, disrespect and poor case handling, and abuse and violence from LECJ personnel while in their communities. Large percentages of transgender people in institutional settings also reported abuse committed by criminal justice personnel, including harassment, assault, and a lack of protection from other inmates. This review also highlights evidence of discriminatory and abusive treatment when transgender victims seek assistance from the legal system. Taken together, this study suggests a need for further work to de-stigmatize the legal and criminal justice systems.     

Transitioning Between Systems of Care: Missed Opportunities for Engaging Adults with Serious Mental Illness and Criminal Justice Involvement

Individuals with serious mental illness are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and face difficulties accessing mental health services both during incarceration and upon re‐entry into the community. This study examines how such individuals describe their experiences receiving care both during and after their time in custody and explores the perspectives of mental health service providers who treat this population upon re‐entry. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 43 individuals identified as having a history of serious mental illness and criminal justice involvement, as well as with 25 providers who have worked with this population. Clients noted the stress of transitioning to criminal justice settings, the uneven availability of services within jail and prison, and the significant challenges faced upon re‐entry. Providers reported barriers to working with this population, including minimal coordination with the criminal justice system and challenging behaviors and attitudes on the part of both clients and providers. Findings identify potential target areas for improved care coordination as well as for additional provider education regarding the unique needs of this population. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Prison Theology: A Theology of Liberation,Hope and Justice

Abstract : In our nation today, the number of prisons and prisoners continue to grow at rates that are out‐of‐control. One in 100 of our citizens is in jail or prison, the highest ratio in the world. Unlike the poor, homeless, critically ill, and elderly, those in prison are separated from us to the degree they are unseen. Unseen also, is the oppressiveness of the criminal justice system that oversees more than 6.5 million people either in confinement or on probation or parole. Liberation theology, which advocates and works toward freeing people from oppression, includes feminist, black, womanist and Latino/Hispanic movements. This article proposes prison theology as part of the liberation theology family and identifies a prison theology based on liberation, hope and justice. It encourages a prison theology movement led by the church to liberate those under the oppressiveness of the criminal justice system, especially those confined and to energize a passion for justice and compassion for the oppressed throughout the criminal justice system.     

The Reality and Myth of Rape: Implications for theCriminal Justice System

This article sets out to evaluate the researchevidence for rape myths and the extent to which theyare causally related to rape proclivity; negativeattitudes towards rape victims; and the reporting ofsexual assault incidents to the police. In reviewingthis literature, we provide an evaluation of theimpact of this research on the criminal justice systemand possible future developments. We argue that thisresearch, while failing to provide conclusive evidenceof a causal relationship, has nevertheless played animportant part in shaping more sympathetic approachestowards rape victims in the criminal justice system.However, we also argue that the current research fallsshort of the level of proof required for it to beadmitted as evidence in criminal trials. We considera number of alternative uses including AmicusCuriae briefs, and the training of juries and judgesprior to hearing rape cases.     

Criminal Justice and Community Psychology: Our Values and Our Work—The Introduction to the Special Issue

This special issue of The American Journal of Community Psychology originated from the Society for Community Research and Action Criminal Justice interest group, with a goal of exploring the work of community psychologists intersecting with criminal justice research, practice, and policy and shaped by our shared values—equity, collaboration, creative maladjustment, social justice, and social science in the service of social justice. In this introduction, we discuss the socio‐historical context of the special issue, followed by an outline of the special issue organization, and brief summary of the included papers. Across 13 papers and an invited commentary, we see the ways in which community psychologists are: (1) delivering and evaluating services, programming, or other supports to address the needs of system‐involved people; and (2) working to improve the systems, structures, and interactions with units of criminal justice systems. Across these two sections, authors highlight the guiding role of our values to influence change within and outside of criminal‐legal systems.     

Let's Not Do Responsibility Skepticism

I argue for three conclusions. First, responsibility skeptics are committed to the position that the criminal justice system should adopt a universal nonresponsibility excuse. Second, a universal nonresponsibility excuse would diminish some of our most deeply held values, further dehumanize criminals, exacerbate mass incarceration, and cause an even greater number of innocent people (nonwrongdoers) to be punished. Third, while Saul Smilansky's ‘illusionist’ response to responsibility skeptics – that even if responsibility skepticism is correct, society should maintain a responsibility-realist/retributivist criminal justice system – is generally compelling, it would not work if a majority of society were to convert, theoretically and psychologically, to responsibility skepticism. In this (highly improbable) scenario, and only in this (highly improbable) scenario, the criminal justice system would need to be reformed in such a way that it aligned with the majority's responsibility-skeptical beliefs and attitudes.