So . . .
As I hinted at in a previous post, I have a few things to say about adoption, most of them really positive. I think adoption is a great idea, and applaud the government for trying to make the process a bit faster and easier for all concerned. Some friends of mine are seeking to adopt a little girl that they are currently fostering, and I admire them hugely; they already have loads of children, so to take in another is a real gift, both to the child and the local authority that currently supports her. I won't mention them by name, if there's even a chance it could affect the adoption process negatively, but if you know who they are, you probably admire them too :) .
I know there have to be careful assessments of the prospective adopters, but the thing that keeps coming back to me is how demonstrably harmful it is for children to not be living in a family. Some children simply have to be taken out of a dangerous home environment, I recognise that too, and fostering is a good short-term solution to keep a child from significant harm, but nothing replaces the knowledge that they're in the family for good.
I think adoption is such a good idea that I hold a belief which will seem obvious to most "on the left", but is unusual for an evangelical Christian like myself. I believe that gay couples should be actively encouraged to adopt, just as much as straight ones, and that sexuality should play no part in the assessment for suitability for adoption. The improvement in the life outcomes for a child who is successfully adopted (and yes, I know that adoptions can and do break down sometimes) is so great that any of my issues with homosexuality as a lifestyle, whether my concerns are legitimate or just prejudice, are trivial compared to the thought of a child being welcomed by loving, committed, sensible parents.
Fellow Christians will probably be aware that Paul, in several of his letters in the New Testament, uses the concept of adoption as a picture of our being accepted by God, our heavenly Father. The sense of acceptance and security, of joining a new family and truly belonging there, makes the analogy very appropriate.
In short, yay adoption!
Friday, 20 November 2015
Monday, 16 November 2015
Prison reform?
So . . .
Prison reform has been on my mind for a while now. It seems to me that our current system of custodial sentencing is very good at achieving some objectives, and pretty poor indeed at achieving some others.
Prisons are excellent at preventing prisoners from committing crimes outside the prison for the duration of their custodial sentence; escapes are rare, and mostly from "open" prisons when they do occur. Prisons are usually a punishment, unless the prisoner's life conditions before incarceration were so terrible that prison represents a definite improvement. Prisons can be a deterrent, but again, the level of deterrence depends on the quality of life "on the outside" of which the potential criminal would be deprived by a prison sentence. Rehabilitation is pretty hit-and-miss, as the reoffending rates are worryingly high; this is another indication of a failure in deterrence. All of this is done at a pretty staggering cost per prisoner per year.
I believe that one big factor which leads to many of these failings is the acclimatization effect. The longer someone spends incarcerated, the more that life inside prison will feel "normal", while departing that environment will feel abnormal, perhaps intolerably so. The one released will, consciously or subconsciously, engage in behaviour that will lead to a return to "normality", i.e. commit crime so that they may return to prison. This effect will be more pronounced for younger inmates, with less experience of outside society, and more pronounced the longer the sentence.
I would therefore propose a different model of incarceration, in which the focus of the sentence is not on duration, but on intensity. If certain categories of prison sentences were much shorter (weeks rather than months, months rather than years), then acclimatization would be much reduced, as it always takes time to acclimatize. If the sentences were also much tougher to experience (e.g. limited entertainment facilities, nutritious but bland food), then punishment would be still be served, with deterrence maintained. The prisoner should be left with a memory of an experience that they actively wish never to repeat, but which didn't become familiar enough to feel like the new "normal". If these "short, sharp sentences" were combined with thorough psychological evaluation, then the causes of each prisoner's offending might be determined, with the possibility of targeted support (court-appointed therapy, educational opportunities, drug rehabilitation, etc.) reducing the reoffending rate.
Obviously, this approach would not be a panacea; if there is not to be capital punishment, there will remain a need for long custodial sentences; in some cases, lifelong sentences. The evaluation procedures would be real costs, as would the post-sentence support, although not, I believe, as much as the costs of repeated long-term incarceration, not to mention the social costs of crime between custodial periods. One benefit of this new approach is that it could be tested on a trial basis first, in just one or two prisons, with assessment of results such as reoffending rates in just a few years (due to the shorter sentences).
The other fairly obvious point is that any adjustment to the prison system would need to be carried out in conjunction with both social services, and the care system, as there is a statistically significant correlation between children growing up in care of the state, and then going on to be imprisoned. Social services, although politically unexciting, need more funding, and alternatives to institutional care of children need to be sought wherever possible; I may well blog more on this point in the future.
Finally, I feel compelled to say that, in one sense, all of this would only be applying a more effective sticking-plaster to the ailments of modern society. The true cause of almost all crime is the selfishness and lack of self-control of individual humans, living in an unjust society, and as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only true solution to the problem of the human heart, and the oppressive structures that humans have created.
Prison reform has been on my mind for a while now. It seems to me that our current system of custodial sentencing is very good at achieving some objectives, and pretty poor indeed at achieving some others.
Prisons are excellent at preventing prisoners from committing crimes outside the prison for the duration of their custodial sentence; escapes are rare, and mostly from "open" prisons when they do occur. Prisons are usually a punishment, unless the prisoner's life conditions before incarceration were so terrible that prison represents a definite improvement. Prisons can be a deterrent, but again, the level of deterrence depends on the quality of life "on the outside" of which the potential criminal would be deprived by a prison sentence. Rehabilitation is pretty hit-and-miss, as the reoffending rates are worryingly high; this is another indication of a failure in deterrence. All of this is done at a pretty staggering cost per prisoner per year.
I believe that one big factor which leads to many of these failings is the acclimatization effect. The longer someone spends incarcerated, the more that life inside prison will feel "normal", while departing that environment will feel abnormal, perhaps intolerably so. The one released will, consciously or subconsciously, engage in behaviour that will lead to a return to "normality", i.e. commit crime so that they may return to prison. This effect will be more pronounced for younger inmates, with less experience of outside society, and more pronounced the longer the sentence.
I would therefore propose a different model of incarceration, in which the focus of the sentence is not on duration, but on intensity. If certain categories of prison sentences were much shorter (weeks rather than months, months rather than years), then acclimatization would be much reduced, as it always takes time to acclimatize. If the sentences were also much tougher to experience (e.g. limited entertainment facilities, nutritious but bland food), then punishment would be still be served, with deterrence maintained. The prisoner should be left with a memory of an experience that they actively wish never to repeat, but which didn't become familiar enough to feel like the new "normal". If these "short, sharp sentences" were combined with thorough psychological evaluation, then the causes of each prisoner's offending might be determined, with the possibility of targeted support (court-appointed therapy, educational opportunities, drug rehabilitation, etc.) reducing the reoffending rate.
Obviously, this approach would not be a panacea; if there is not to be capital punishment, there will remain a need for long custodial sentences; in some cases, lifelong sentences. The evaluation procedures would be real costs, as would the post-sentence support, although not, I believe, as much as the costs of repeated long-term incarceration, not to mention the social costs of crime between custodial periods. One benefit of this new approach is that it could be tested on a trial basis first, in just one or two prisons, with assessment of results such as reoffending rates in just a few years (due to the shorter sentences).
The other fairly obvious point is that any adjustment to the prison system would need to be carried out in conjunction with both social services, and the care system, as there is a statistically significant correlation between children growing up in care of the state, and then going on to be imprisoned. Social services, although politically unexciting, need more funding, and alternatives to institutional care of children need to be sought wherever possible; I may well blog more on this point in the future.
Finally, I feel compelled to say that, in one sense, all of this would only be applying a more effective sticking-plaster to the ailments of modern society. The true cause of almost all crime is the selfishness and lack of self-control of individual humans, living in an unjust society, and as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is the only true solution to the problem of the human heart, and the oppressive structures that humans have created.
Islamic State?
So . . .
Islamic State / IS / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh are big in the news after the attacks in Paris on Friday. The slightly bewildering list of names for this murderous organization may be symbolic; the great powers of the world can't even decide what to call them, let alone what to do about them. Daesh (a name based on the acronym for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" in Arabic) is the name the group itself likes the least, so from here on, I'll refer to them as that :) .
They're callously violent, but clearly not all stupid; some are experts at online recruitment, and France's security services can't have been slack after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, so Daesh clearly have members who are effective at planning and operational execution (a regrettable grisly play on words here, I know). They define themselves as Muslims, but have mostly killed other Muslims so far, Muslims who don't share their love of killing or enslaving everyone who disagrees with them. They distribute an apocalyptic vision that is drawing in disaffected Muslim twenty-somethings in their hundreds and thousands; they say, "The end of the world is nigh, and we're the winning side, so you'd better join up, or else."
Daesh specialise in creating atrocities so horrific that the Western press apparently cannot help but report on them in graphic detail. This serves several purposes for them; it spreads fear through the populations of their enemies, it functions as free advertising for them as an aid to their recruitment, and it creates anger in the minds of opposing political and military leaders, potentially clouding their judgment, and possibly leading to ill-considered reprisals that fuel Daesh recruitment rates even more.
Daesh are selling oil from the oil wells they've captured on the black market in Turkey. They sell antiquities and artifacts (when they don't blow them up for publicity). They extort money from local citizens in the areas in which they have a military presence. They do a little heroin trafficking from Afghanistan. They also get direct donations, through various phony charities. They are, therefore, extremely rich, which enables all of their activities.
So, solutions? Ground forces in Iraq AGAIN are not a popular concept in the US and UK, and I don't think any other European democracies are keen either. The Counter-DAESH Coalition drops some bombs and provides some humanitarian support, but that doesn't seem to have a decisive effect. The states appearing to have most success against them are Iran (not popular with the West), what remains of Syria's "official" government (even less popular with the West), Russia (are we seeing a pattern here?), and Iraqi Kurdistan (not technically a sovereign state); the official Iraqi government and military are doing what they can, and Turkey has started to get more involved, but the situation grinds on.
Perhaps the only plausible resolution, and I know many won't feel this is plausible either, is if the members of Daesh decide they don't want to continue as part of a murderous organization, and if Daesh are no longer successful in recruitment. This is where Christians have an advantage over sovereign states, as the power of prayer can change hearts and minds in a way that military power simply cannot. I humbly suggest to all who claim faith in Jesus Christ that we pray that all members of Daesh start frequently having doubts about the rightness of their actions, and that they start to listen to their doubts, and that those considering joining would have the same doubts, and decide not to join as a result. Repentence is what these people need, beyond all else.
Islamic State / IS / ISIS / ISIL / Daesh are big in the news after the attacks in Paris on Friday. The slightly bewildering list of names for this murderous organization may be symbolic; the great powers of the world can't even decide what to call them, let alone what to do about them. Daesh (a name based on the acronym for "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria" in Arabic) is the name the group itself likes the least, so from here on, I'll refer to them as that :) .
They're callously violent, but clearly not all stupid; some are experts at online recruitment, and France's security services can't have been slack after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, so Daesh clearly have members who are effective at planning and operational execution (a regrettable grisly play on words here, I know). They define themselves as Muslims, but have mostly killed other Muslims so far, Muslims who don't share their love of killing or enslaving everyone who disagrees with them. They distribute an apocalyptic vision that is drawing in disaffected Muslim twenty-somethings in their hundreds and thousands; they say, "The end of the world is nigh, and we're the winning side, so you'd better join up, or else."
Daesh specialise in creating atrocities so horrific that the Western press apparently cannot help but report on them in graphic detail. This serves several purposes for them; it spreads fear through the populations of their enemies, it functions as free advertising for them as an aid to their recruitment, and it creates anger in the minds of opposing political and military leaders, potentially clouding their judgment, and possibly leading to ill-considered reprisals that fuel Daesh recruitment rates even more.
Daesh are selling oil from the oil wells they've captured on the black market in Turkey. They sell antiquities and artifacts (when they don't blow them up for publicity). They extort money from local citizens in the areas in which they have a military presence. They do a little heroin trafficking from Afghanistan. They also get direct donations, through various phony charities. They are, therefore, extremely rich, which enables all of their activities.
So, solutions? Ground forces in Iraq AGAIN are not a popular concept in the US and UK, and I don't think any other European democracies are keen either. The Counter-DAESH Coalition drops some bombs and provides some humanitarian support, but that doesn't seem to have a decisive effect. The states appearing to have most success against them are Iran (not popular with the West), what remains of Syria's "official" government (even less popular with the West), Russia (are we seeing a pattern here?), and Iraqi Kurdistan (not technically a sovereign state); the official Iraqi government and military are doing what they can, and Turkey has started to get more involved, but the situation grinds on.
Perhaps the only plausible resolution, and I know many won't feel this is plausible either, is if the members of Daesh decide they don't want to continue as part of a murderous organization, and if Daesh are no longer successful in recruitment. This is where Christians have an advantage over sovereign states, as the power of prayer can change hearts and minds in a way that military power simply cannot. I humbly suggest to all who claim faith in Jesus Christ that we pray that all members of Daesh start frequently having doubts about the rightness of their actions, and that they start to listen to their doubts, and that those considering joining would have the same doubts, and decide not to join as a result. Repentence is what these people need, beyond all else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)