Urgent! Asking English experts to help translate, thank you very much...

Punishment, Justice and Community

Look carefully at the punishment clauses in the Old Testament of Israel, and you will find: The values ??of justice in the Bible are clearly different from simple retributivism in human society. has been reflected. In fact, as a biblical example or model, the Old Testament of Israel has a careful study of morality and reality, and is considerate and caring for other social classes. The original intention of the punishment provisions in the Old Testament of Israel was a vision of social life. Although it achieved little in practice, it was intended to promote real economic equality, family unity, and moral improvement.

The administration of justice emphasized community participation: alleged offenders were brought to trial by the victim, a relative or an eye-witness, rather than public prosecutors; matters were often settled at the town gate by community elders. The administration of justice emphasizes community participation: those involved are brought to the gates by community elders for trial by prosecutors who are victims, witnesses or witnesses rather than the public; settlement matters are frequent. In terms of punishment, three prominent themes which emerge are now considered. In terms of punishment, three prominent themes which emerge are now considered.

Reparation

For many offenses, particularly theft and personal injury. Old Testament law required the offender to make restitution (eg Exodus 22:1, 4). Old Testament law required the offender to make restitution (eg Exodus 22:1, 4). As between offender and victim, justice had to be restored. Atonement for a wrong done to another person involves, so Richard Swinburne argues in Responsibility and Atonement (Clarendon Press, 1989), repentance, apology, reparation and penance, which together aim to remove, so far as possible, an action's malevolence and harmful results . One's atonement involves the wrongs of another, so Richard Swinburne argued in Responsibility and Atonement (Clarendon Press, 1989) that confession, apology, reparation and repentance all have the same goal of eradication whenever possible , the malicious and harmful consequences of the operation.

In a penal context, reparation might typically be exacted by compulsion and should include compensation for the wrongdoer's malevolence which has not been addressed by apology or penance: hence the Old Testament's requirement that reparation after theft should involve paying back more than the amount stolen. In criminal terms, reparations may usually be paid by force, and should include claims for restitution for the wrongdoer's malice without an apology or repentance to address: thus of the Old Testament, reparations after theft should include repayment of the excess amount stolen. To make the victim 'whole', to restore relations in formal terms, helps to build a just community. Notably the Hebrew for restitution ( shillum ) is derived from the same root as shalom. Restitution was so important that a thief who had nothing was to be sold to pay for his theft: he became the tied servant of the injured party for up to seven years or was, possibly, sold to a third party who would give a sum of money to the victim (Exodus 22:3; Deuteronomy 15:12-15). It is worth noting that the Hebrew word for restitution (shillum) is from restitution. The roots are the same as Shalom. So important is a thief who has nothing to do with selling to pay for his theft: he becomes the most common servant among the seven injured parties over the years and is, if possible, sold to a third party who gives a money to the victim (Exodus 22:03 ; Deuteronomy 15:12-15).

Reintegration

The extent of capital punishment in OT Israel is sometimes regarded as problematic. However, OT Israel resorted to capital punishment only after the stringent evidential requirements had been satisfied: two eye-witnesses were needed (Deuteronomy 19:15). Eyewitnesses are needed (Deuteronomy 19:15). In OT Israel, unlike Mesopotamia, no property crime ever warranted this ultimate sanction. In OT Israel, unlike Mesopotamia, no property crime ever warranted this ultimate sanction.

Human life was always more precious than mere property. Human life was always more precious than mere property. Even so, OT Israel was prepared through capital punishment to carry out the permanent removal of an offender from the community. Nonetheless, a key feature of OT Israel's penal code is that normally punishment, whether by restitution or corporate punishment, involved no severing of family or community links. Restitution, or corporal punishment, does not involve severing family or community ties. The principles governing corporal punishment involved respect for the offender: he was a 'brother' whose punishment must be limited to ensure he did not become 'degraded in your eyes' (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). He was an 'brother' and punishment had to be limited to ensure that he did not become 'a degenerate of your eyes' (Deuteronomy 25:1-3). There are hints here of 'reintegrative shaming', a process which John Braithwaite claims is the hallmark of successful crime reduction strategies, and requires expressions of community disapproval to be followed by gestures of reacceptance into the community of law-abiding citizens. 'Reintegration of shaming', a process that John Braithwaite claims is a hallmark of a successful strategy to reduce crime, and requires societies expressing dissatisfaction to be able to reacceptance follow the gesture into law-abiding civil society. This contrasts with disintegrative shaming, or stigmatisation. Which divides a community by creating a class of outcasts. Which divides a community by creating a class of outcasts.

The form of punishment conspicuous by its almost complete absence from OT Israel is imprisonment. Manslaughter led to temporary exile in a city of refuge until the high priest's death. Manslaughter led to temporary exile in a city of refuge until the high priest's death.

Apart from this, compulsory exclusion from community life for a period was not practised, an omission which invites a critical re-examination of the role prison plays today. Missing, please recheck the prison role play today.

The New Testament practice of excommunication sheds interesting light on these themes of removal and reintegration. CK Barrett, commenting on 1 Corinthians 5, notes: 'Any community inculcating moral standards ... is bound to recognize a degree beyond which transgression of its code becomes intolerable because destructive of the foundations on which the community itself rests, so that exclusion becomes necessary.' To society itself, necessitating exclusion. However, in 2 Corinthians 2, possibly a sequel, Paul urges the Corinthians in relation to someone who has been disciplined: 'reaffirm your love for him' (v. 8). , Paul urges the Corinthians to be punished in relation to someone who possesses: 'Your love for him is reaffirmed' (5:8). If punishment is to be part of a process whereby a person is restored fully to the life of the community, the community will need to demonstrate its reacceptance of the erstwhile offender. To live in society, society will need to prove its reacceptance against the criminals of the past.

Reformation

OT Israel's penal code contains no express references to seeking to reform an offender. OT Israel's penal code contains no express references to seeking to reform an offender. 1.

However, in some cases, penalties appear to 'fit' the crime and so serve to communicate something about the nature of the offence. related to its nature. Studies suggest that a factor behind offending behavior is an inability to grasp the impact of such behavior on others, a lack of empathy for victims. Studies suggest that a factor behind offending behavior is an inability to grasp the impact of such behavior on others, a lack of empathy for victims. A lack of empathy. Double repayment for theft, for example, forces the offender to stand in the victim's shoes, suffering a loss equal to the victim's loss at their hands (Exodus 22:8-9). The victim's shoes, the loss equals the victim's) loss is in their hands (Exodus 22:8-9. In God's dealings with Israel, when he punishes his people, his long-term goal is to foster a renewed commitment To himself (eg Hosea 5). Similarly, where God intervenes to judge individuals, He punishes His people and His long-term goal is to promote a new commitment to Himself (eg Hosea 5). an accompanying dialogue may seek to sensitize the culprit to the true character of his deed (eg God's interaction with Cain in Genesis 4:9-12) and so prompt repentance (eg Nathan's visit to David in 2 Samuel 12:1-12). Likewise, if God intervenes in personal judgment, concomitant dialogue to seek out the possible culprits may recognize the true covenantal nature of Genesis 4:9-12 (as in God's interaction with Cain) and so forth with prompt repentance (as in Nathan's visit to David). 2 Samuel 12:1-12). In short, there is wide-ranging, if indirect, support for the principle that punishment, particularly if tailored to the offence, can serve as an element in an offender's moral illumination and, thus , reformed behaviour. In short, there are very broad, if indirect, offensive principles supporting the principle that punishment, especially if suitable, can serve as an illuminating element for the offender's morality and, therefore, reformed behaviour.

The previous part was modified today and other modifications will be made next time.