Tackling Crime by Other Means

If crime is a social problem, then ways of preventing it must be sought. Punishment has been the traditional approach to preventing crime, either as a deterrent, or as a means of reforming the offender. Neither of these approaches is wholly acceptable. Even if deterrence punishment, as grounded in utilitarianism, effectively prevents crime, there may be other methods which produce better results. Reform fails to justify any form of punishment since not only does punishment not reform, but it interferes with the reformative process. Reform is limited in scope to those people who commit crimes and are caught. If crime is to be prevented, then it is necessary to go beyond the crime and the criminal and consider the social contexts in which people act, and the ways in which they learn to react to them. By shaping both the environment and people's responses to it, society can solve the problem of preventing crime, without the need for punishment.     

“LOVE YOUR ENEMIES”: USURY,CITIZENSHIP AND THE FRIEND‐ENEMY DISTINCTION

Through an analysis of the Scriptural treatment of usury, a constructive theological analysis of the question of the friend‐enemy distinction as a political category, its relationship to a Christian conception of universalism as determined by being in Christ, and the nature of faithful citizenship is forged. This essay argues that usury is a paradigmatic instance of the friend‐enemy distinction as defined by Carl Schmitt and as such is primarily a political act. The article closes by analysing Schmitt's reading of Jesus’ commandment to love enemies and suggests that after Christ, the friend‐enemy distinction ceases to be political and becomes missiological instead. The implication of this missiological conception is then related back to the on‐going question of usury.     

Perceptions of Religious and Nonreligious Targets: Exploring the Effects of Perceivers' Religious Fundamentalism

While research has shown that religious individuals are perceived as being more moral than the nonreligious, the present studies suggest that these findings are affected by in‐group bias. Participants low and high in religious fundamentalism (RF) were asked to form an impression of a target's moral and social dimensions. The target's religious identity was presented either explicitly (in Studies 1 and 2) or implicitly (Study 3). Participants high in RF consistently rated the religious target more favorably than the nonreligious target on both dimensions. In contrast, LF individuals' morality ratings did not differ as a function of target religiosity across all 3 studies. Our results suggest that future research exploring the religion–morality link must control for perceiver religiosity.     

Perceived Deservingness of Outcomes as a Function of Religious Fundamentalism and Target Responsibility

We examined the perception of deserved outcomes associated with religious fundamentalism (RF). Interviews with videotaped targets varied in target's religiosity, responsibility, and outcome valence (good/bad). Participants either low (LF) or high (HF) on RF formulated an impression of how deserving a target was for a situational outcome. Participants low in RF held targets to be less deserving of a bad outcome than a good one; the HF group showed this to a lesser degree. HFs believed the target was more deserving of a bad outcome than did LFs, even when the target was not responsible for the outcome. Religious fundamentalism is related to attributing greater deservingness of bad outcomes, possibly because of a greater belief in a just world.