Michael Welch wrote on Mar 6, 2008 11:38 AM:
" I have no objections to Christians 'fighting poverty'; au contraire I encourage them to do so! I encourage a compassionate view in any form and it seems to me that so does one of the Jesuses in the gospels -- the 'best' one. I see no reason governments mayn't 'help'; in fact NO sectarian organization has the financial resources for a 'war on poverty' that a government has. The New Deal mitigated the great depression of the 1930s AND the huge increase in defense spending BY THAT GOVERNMENT during the build up to WWII and beyond finally broke the economic catastrophe. The idea that governments CANNOT do positive compassionate things is wrong; they can but there has to be a popular will. Middle class folks are not all 'good' fersure but they often think before they, say, rob a convenience store... "
PHIL OSIFER wrote on Mar 5, 2008 2:58 PM:
" I see that between Phil and Michael there is some real substantive dialogue started with each have good valid points. Keep it up
"
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 5, 2008 1:04 PM:
" I am for the treatment and rehabilitation aspect of prisons, but I think that punishment and separation from peaceful society should not be hindered in the process. I also know that Christians do participate in prison ministries, food ministries, job ministries, and shelter ministries. The assumption that Christians aren't working against poverty is unfounded. Now, maybe there needs to be more of an effort by Christians, but where the efforts to fight poverty and crime fail the most is in the secular government area. Why? Well, I think it has a lot to do with these people who have separted God from anything government. You want more compassion, but the compassionate success stories are God related so government can't do those. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:53 PM:
" Well from my vast knowledge of prison gained from watching docu-mentaries on MSNBC and the History Channel, I agree that prisons are schools for criminals. I had a co-worker whos brother-in-law was in and out of prisons in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin for non-violent crimes. He supposedly enjoyed the con-man lifestyle and saw his prison terms as 'retraining' on the newest cons. According to my co-worker, he didn't want to change and he didn't even go to the supermax type prisons. What I'm getting to is that a large element of this is what people choose to do or become. I know of a person in my church who spent some time in the '80s in prison for drug possesion. He decided that was enough, and now he is a successful businessman. "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:16 PM:
" I really don't think you READ my comments -- I repeat: prisons are 'schools for crime' as they are constituted; they are mainly brutish systems controlled internally by the criminals themselves. That's not a 'fantasy' from television or the movies but a general reality in especially the largest and most populous states. People often come out of prison -- remember MOST prisoners are returned to society and I don't mean murderers but then most in prison are NOT murderers -- and they come back without ANY treatment and more angry than ever. I'm SAYING our prisons NEED to treat people AND OUR SOCIETY needs to fight poverty and therefore crime... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 5, 2008 12:06 PM:
" Michael, I don't see the all or nothing approach you seem to see. I can see justification for life in prison and even for the death penalty. I can also see that Christians still have a responsibility to minister to those in prison, whether or not they are there for life or waiting for death or just in temporarily. I don't see Jesus's command to visit those in prison as somehow eliminating life sentences or the punishment aspect of prisons. They both can and should be met. Are there better ways we can deal with criminals? I'm sure there probably is. I'm not an expert on prisons and punishment, but your idea that "prisons only increase the propensity for crime because they essentially do NOTHING but PUNISH." fails the test of reality. That's saying because of our harsh prison system, more people will feel inclined to commit crimes.??? "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 5, 2008 11:34 AM:
" I am saying that the 'responsibility' also applies to folks in prison as per 'When did I visit you, lord' etc. and the reply -- see below. I detect a 'throw away the key' aspect in your (and others) desire to punish criminals and I say what people really need is help out of their squalor, physical as well as emotional; prisons only increase the propensity for crime because they essentially do NOTHING but PUNISH. A society has responsibilities too; whatever good deeds you take with you are fine and dandy but they don't solve societal injustices... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 4, 2008 6:38 PM:
" Michael, I don't know why you are ranting about 'beams in eyes' and 'judge not lest you be judged' and pregnant women being criminals etc. I don't see any connection to the story or anything that has been commented about. Your bit about Christian responcibility to take care of others is noted and is done every day. In fact in the lean years of my youth, it was the Christians in the church we attended that did a lot to help our family eat and have clothes. "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:43 AM:
" By the way I don't believe most pregnant women are committing crimes. Raising children on their own is still difficult and many make heroic efforts and do very fine jobs. They rarely receive attention for that or praise -- but from those who know, the children they supported and cared for. Tolerance and openness to people encourages them to participate and feel welcome in a community; ostracization and condemnation make them (AND their children) feel more and more alienated and disconnected from community values. Remember 'Judge not lest ye be judged'? And how 'bout the BEAM in YOUR 'eye' hmm? The one that prevents your understanding the sliver in others'?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 4, 2008 11:36 AM:
" There was a great deal of crime during the depression of the 1930s -- ever hear of John Dillinger, Al Capone, 'Pretty Boy' Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, the Purple gang? In small towns there was mostly petty crime -- shoplifting, sneaking into a movie, joy riding -- but many worse crimes occurred that involved fraud, theft, assault. Chronic poverty obviously breeds gang violence, drug taking, prostitution -- if people had real opportunities encouraged and supported adequately by governments dedicated to providing them there'd indeed be less crime; no doubt. There is too a 'personal responsibility' (ESPECIALLY for Christians eh?) to help others, not just condemn them... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 3, 2008 3:23 PM:
" Michael, your idea that poverty causes crime is not true. If it was true, then the Depression Era would have been the time of the greatest amount of crime, but it wasn't. I grew up poor but neither me nor my siblings were forced into crime. In fact all of us are law abiding taxpayers. Growing up poor inspired us to work harder. I believe the biggest reason for this is that my parents were both their to guide us in Biblically based, Godly morality. The failure of men and women to take responsibility for raising their kids, I believe, has more to do with high crime then anything else. "
PHIL OSIFER wrote on Mar 3, 2008 12:59 PM:
" Ok, how about this it's the family structure. Or rather lack thereof. We treat unwed mothers with respect and put no stigma on then. Hold no men accountable for fathering indiscriminately. Then when there is no parental guidence, these kids go wrong we wonder what to do. Let's start further down the food chain. Let's start PREACHING personel responsibility. What a novel concept that would be "
Double A wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:29 AM:
" When people go down a path of crime, they are often viewed, and treated, from there on out, as lower life forms. That encourages a cycle of repetetive offenses. True forgiveness includes 'forgetting'. But it is nearly unheard of for human beings to truly forgive, like Jesus. Christians are really only supposed to fear the wrath of God, but it is hard to be so faithful. Fear is a big part of it. So we fear the terrorists (and so support the war and bombings, collateral damage and all) and we fear criminals (so we stuff them in cells and dust our hands of them, repercussions not-withstanding). I see all these faults and can't come up with solutions. I'm so sorry. "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 3, 2008 11:09 AM:
" I'd suggest you re-read my comments below. Of course dangerous violent criminals MUST be removed from society; my point is that they receive NO psychological counseling in prisons; IN FACT the most 'counseling' they get is from other inmates in HOW to be a more vicious criminal. It's the idea of 'put them all in jail and throw away the keys' that doesn't work: first it costs too much for most states' tax structures and constitutionally you can't imprison someone 'forever' for many crimes. AND I'm saying that the poverty and degradation that creates so many criminals ought to be addressed too. Orso is implying these things I think in a very short -- too short probably -- comment. What are you 'implying'?... "
PHIL OSIFER wrote on Mar 2, 2008 8:50 PM:
" I guess that I am puzzled by this article and still trying to figure it out. By compasionate should we just forgive the "sinners" and let them go there merry way. The reason they are in jail is that thy committed crimes and some even very horrific ones. Now granted there are probably some innocent people in jail, but give me a solution that would be fairer than that which we have, no to me you do the crime you do the time. An I have a relative who had a horrific crime done against her and their addopted son
"
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:44 PM:
" Prisons ARE as I've written indeed 'schools for crime'; yes Christian proselytizers oft 'reap a harvest' because there are virtually NO psychological counseling services whatsoever available to the vast majority. Hardly anyone is actually 'treated' for addictions and psychic traumas. In many ways the very lives of the imprisoned, inside and out, are one continuous punishment with drugs the great, however temporary and illusory, 'escape' from lives of inner and outer squalor. George W as governor of Texas even mocked a young woman condemned to death who wanted just to live -- forever in prison -- and minister to others. What then did W do 'to the least of these'?... "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 2, 2008 1:36 PM:
" Actually it was 'the innocent' who was killed for David's crime -- the first born child of Bathsheba. Uriah was deliberately placed in jeopardy in order to steal his wife; David not only got to keep the wife but her next child was Solomon, his great heir. 'Punishment' often depends on who you don't know; Bush administration criminals are protected by secrecy and, whenever one gets in real trouble, by well paid lawyers. George W himself not only avoided Vietnam for his connections but a prison term; the poor though barely receive much consideration for their parents or their status. Crime IS 'punished' but as Jesus said to those who asked him 'When were YOU in prison, lord, and I visited you?' -- 'What you do to THE LEAST of these you do TO ME.' Orso was speaking for compassion which seems what Jesus was saying too... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:49 PM:
" DJ, as Christians we are directed by Jesus to personally forgive an offender continuously. That however, doesn't mean that forgiving the offender releases the offender from recieving the due punishment for their crime. Although at times forgiveness can be tied to release from due punishment, it is not automatic or required for forgiveness to granted or for it to be Christian. Read the story of David as an example and see that he was truely sorry and was forgiven, but he still suffered for his offense. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:39 PM:
" Another thing Michael, why do you think a lot of criminals have a 'coming to Jesus' event? It's because literalists Christians are one of the main ways to get nicer treatment or early release. This shows that literalist Christians are more compassionate then liberal government employees. Prisons are about three things: punishment, separation from peaceful society, and hopefully rehabilitation. I and any Christian that I know will willingly look at better alternatives to dealing with crime. The libertarian in me questions why marjiuana is illegal and alcohol is not, but that isn't the law of that the people of America want so it is compassionate to enforce the law. It is NOT compasionate to let criminals go early or not recieve any punishment. That liberal experiment has proven worse to society then building more prisons. "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:31 PM:
" Michael, reread Joe's vague analysis. He essentially postulates that since the prison population is high then that questions whether that is Christian or compassionate. My point is that the two are not directly related. Now if he would have raised a specific issue like, is imprisoning drug users not compassionate because treatment is better. Then showed how treatment or something else is more effective in dealing with that specific crime, he might have made a point on the Judical system not being as effective as it could be. If he could also show that the Judical system was a Christian run organization, then he could question whether they were following Christian values. But to just question if high prison population shows lack of compassion, is very weak and vague and not really belonging on a Faith page. "
DJ: wrote on Mar 1, 2008 6:02 PM:
" Unfortunately, not only do we, in most cases, not throw away the key, we all to often don't even get a chance to close the door before the violator is out again, free to reoffend! A Christian nation is compassionate and caring, but you can only turn the other cheek so many times. There is at least an equal responsibility for the offenders to change their behaviors. "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:49 AM:
" For decades now, since the advent of Reaganist conservatism, the punishment thesis has been practiced, yet crime increases whenever the society feels economic strain and insists that maintaining the overseas empire is always more important than addressing health care, housing, the giant sucking sound of jobs going to China and India since the Republican AND Democratic backed NAFTA agreements and the bursting at the seams prisons and the brutality they inflict, brutality that ALWAYS comes back to the public face when prisoners complete their terms. 'Protecting the innocent' means addressing the causes of crime and not just the results... "
Michael Welch wrote on Mar 1, 2008 11:05 AM:
" Jail populations are rife with petty drug users who need medical and psychological care -- CARE is the operative word -- rather than more punishment. Too many folks -- especially literalist Christians -- want punishment tantamount to interring the 'sinners' in an earthly hell which is what prisons are. Also they are 'schools for crime' and if one is not a brute when one goes in, one likely becomes a brute simply as an act of survival. Compassion is NOT the same as vengeance; it is recognizing that even 'the least of these' deserves respect, care and attention, not just the locking of the cell door and throwing away the key... "
Phil O'Bates wrote on Mar 1, 2008 5:32 AM:
" Joe, you have so much apples and oranges going on, it's hard to know where to start. The bottom line is that Yes it is compassionate to punish wrongs and follow the law and protect the innocent, regardless of what percentage of people wind up in jail. It is NOT compassionate to ignore crimes, disobey the law and endanger the innocent just because a large segment of society chooses to be unlawful. Compassion deals in truth, it isn't based upon low jail populations. "
Advertisement 
