To the Churches!
Bay Minette, a city in my home state Alabama (woot!), recently launched “Operation Restore Our Community.” It sounds super legitimate, but I can’t say that I am too proud of it. Essentially, Bay Minette is now offering some offenders the choice between “Jesus time” and “jail time.” The ones who choose church over jail will have to check in with a local church of their choosing every Sunday for a year. This Operation aims to provide a more long-term solution to some offenses and is projected to save $75 a day per inmate. Only churches are participating in the Operation because there are no synagogues/mosques/temples in the region.
And it is also being sued by the ACLU on the claims that the city government is forcing religious participation (surprise!?!?).
I am guessing that most of you agree with me that it is not exactly ethical to offer such choices to people, but what is really interesting me is the long-term solution approach: The fact that the judicial system is willing to address how to really fix the problem is a good sign.
But how do you really fix the problem in the long run without encountering ethical problems? Sure, forcing people to go to church may reduce the offenses a little bit by providing the offenders a potential community, but then how do you reconcile the fact that you are telling people to go to church?
This reminded me of a piece by Malcolm Gladwell from a while back - in which Gladwell discussed unconventional approaches to solving some of the hardest problems in America today. He talked about offering free housing/food to the chronic homeless with virtually no conditions – giving them chance after chance even though there are other people who “deserve” more help – such as single mothers working three jobs – arguing that this aids the chronic homeless more and saves the system a tremendous amount of money in the long run. There is certainly a lot of room for ethical debate in these types of tactics.
But going back to the Operation, sure, the approach sucked. It favors Christians, it forces people to go to church because to be honest, would you rather go to church every Sunday or go to jail everyday? Its primary rationale lies somewhere on the line of “You show me somebody who falls in love with Jesus, and I’ll show you a person who won’t be a problem to society” (trust me, I can certainly name more than a handful of “Christian” lunatics). It’s most likely against the Constitution and it is definitely not something that immediately provokes a “Wow! Good idea!” response from the general population.
But the motive – the idea of trying something “different” that just might solve the problem is something worth applauding. In the heart of Dixie, the state where the phrase “Pro-Choice” is usually not met with popularity, a better choice can be offered to these minor offenders, and I believe that although the Operation is not going in the right direction, it certainly has the right idea – simply putting people in jail does not solve problems. There will be some tough ethical questions to answer, but I hope my state recognizes its mistakes and improve for the better.
P.S. On a kind of related side note: While imprisoned in Birmingham, Alabama, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wrote a famous letter to various churches and clergymen. I find this connection to be interesting.
I wonder if this would be more ethical if there were mosques/synagogues/temples in the area?
Do you think this is unethical because the government is compelling people to attend a Christian religious institution, or that the government is compelling people at all?
If it is the former, then I agree. But in this case, it is kind of inevitable because there are no alternatives. There seems to be a lack of religious diversity in the city, and atheists just don’t congregate in the same manner.
If it is the latter, then I think the argument is kind of contradictory. We think it is perfectly legitimate to force people to go to jail for their crimes, so why would it be unjustified to “imprison” them once a week in a community of the government’s choosing? Sure, this place happens to be a Church, but the government isn’t forcing anyone to convert.
Either way, this was super interesting, Chad!
I think it is not ethical for the government to offer these kinds of unfair options to people when the clearly favored choice is religious participation. I would still not be okay with it if there were temples/mosques/synagogues involved because I think religion and secular policies should be separated. True, the government isn’t forcing anyone to convert, but they are still mandating attendance in a religious institution. I guess I kind of think of it as how public schools are not allowed to be religiously affiliated – the government can’t tell people to go to a Christian school even though technically they aren’t forcing the atheist kids to convert.
It is unethical to provide inmates who have committed crime and potentially harmed society an alternative to a legitimate punishment. What ideals are we proclaiming as a nation if we lessen proper punishment in the interest of money? This means that an inmate who may have committed murder receives the ‘OK’ if he or she decides to accept Jesus Christ into their life. Essentially, a treacherous act as such has been condoned because Jesus has been found. And, in the process, a sovereign saves money. Win, win? Not quite.
Another aspect to consider is the aftermath. After an inmate completes their mandatory ‘Jesus encounters,’ will they even perpetuate their faithfulness? As unfortunate as it sounds, the answer to the previous question is probably no. It is often said that inmates find God in jail, in moments of distress and despair. However, once they receive freedom, they forget about God and the Christian faith. This same concept can be applied to the situation presented in the blog. Inmates find God because they are supposed to. And once they fulfill their required church visits, they revert back to their old ways due to a lack of jail time- a proper punishment. From here, ex-convicts feed the cycle, ending up behind bars yet again.
So, what are we really accomplishing here? While attempting to save money by giving inmates an alternative punishment, are we offending the faithful who attend the inmates’ prospective churches? This is also something to consider.
When you commit a crime, the only ethical punishment is jail, whether costly or not. If an inmate feels faithful and inclined to foster their salvation, they will do it willingly. If it is forced, it loses its effect and validity.
The thing I really liked about this initiative is the attempt to solve problems for the long term. I agree with you that using Church and Jesus as the “solution” is not ideal, but I do like how the judicial system is addressing these kinds of problems and trying a different approach. You may be right in that going to jail is the only ethical punishment (I hesitate when I say only though), but sometimes it is just not practical. In my opinion, it is much more unethical for the government to use taxpayers money on say imprisoning a traffic violator over providing free school lunch for the underprivileged kids. Besides, if there is a better method to “fix” these problems instead of jailing, I’d be all up for it.
Reading through this article I have two main thoughts on what has been stated. First, you are quick to write-off the government’s attempt to provide more choices than are currently offered in the current system. I think we often do so because we are conditioned to reject any idea that includes religion as something untouchable. I also believe that forcing people to convert is clearly unethical, but allowing them the choice of joining a supporting community does not force them into anything. Religion, if they were so inclined, provides many structures for ethical lifestyles, most of which can be adopted without adopting the religion itself. In addition, if they chose this option as non-Christians, interacting with a new community could help expand their perspectives and tolerance of those different from themselves. I would think that it is more unethical to restrict the choices of individuals who should have a say in how they choose to pay or rehabilitate for their crimes. After all, the government’s role is to protect law and order, and as long as those ends are met what exactly is it about more choices that would cause harm.
Second, the fact that you say this law would favor Christians seems as if criminals were prizes to be handed off. I see communities with a moral structure choosing to step forward and play a part in the rehabilitation of those who pose a problem for society. Our current system of separation of religion and state is effective in that it protects and provides for any variety of religious choice or even lack there of. However, I think that in many ways attending and participating in an institution with a strong moral structure would be positive, either making them consider their adherence to their current set of ethics or give them a base to better build a strong set of ethics to begin with. I would whole-heartedly support the inclusion of other religious groups, and nonreligious ethical communities because all contain that moral and ethical structure necessary to aid rehabilitation and beyond that the more options the better.
Malena, is jail the ethical punishment or just the most convenient one? Is it not within the ethical interests of a society to rehabilitate the dysfunctional parts of their society rather than to contribute to the cycle of abuse? We contain criminals because they pose a threat, whether physically or socially, to the community, not because of some mixed up idea of an eye for an eye kind of justice. I think that a move away from the jail system is necessary and experimenting in new ways to do that is a step in the right direction.
As Chad says in his post, society ultimately saves money by moving away from the jail system. This does not, however, justify using religion as an alternative. I agree with you, Kevin, that we need to move away from this kind of “justice,” but perhaps other forms of rehabilitation (other than giving the choice of attending religious services) can be explored. Also, I think it is easy to sit here and discuss different ways to deal with inmates, but realistically, how many of these other programs are feasible or even more ethically right. In fact, could using these organizations as an alternative to jail time lend a levity to crime. That is to say, if jail is removed as a deterrent, would criminals be more likely to commit crimes in the first place?