Mixed Emotions are the Required Response

Clayton Weatherston

The blogs have been sizzling and the airwaves have been reverberating over the Weatherston trial and verdict. There have been many aspects commented upon. The issue of provocation as a defence has been prominent.

The Government's signal that it will remove it as a defence (at the recommendation of the Law Commission) is troubling. It is a sound adage that extreme cases do not make a solid foundation for good law. Madeleine offers some thoughtful criticism of this move--although the Law Commission assures us that provoking circumstances can be accommodated in the current sentencing flexibility available to judges.

Questions have been raised about the mental state and wellbeing of Weatherston. Macdoctor argues that the case illustrates the need for more use of forensic psychiatric facilities. Zen, in his inimitable style, had extended the justification of provocation to all kinds of quixotic public behaviour--a post which we found--well--provoking. Zen gravely informs us that the defence of provocation should be referred to as "Clayton's defence".

Moving from the satirical we have also been confronted with outpourings of invective, disgust, and vituperation against Weatherston from many quarters. Today the newspapers are carrying stories of crims within prison putting a bounty on Weatherston's head; some are calling that fair justice.

Still others have expressed repugnance at the idea of retributive punishment and vengeance within the penal system--particularly after the recent speech by the Chief Justice questioning the utility and effectiveness of longer prison sentences. And so it goes on.

There are a few issues which go to the heart of the prevailing religion in any society. The dominant theory of the day of crime and punishment is one of them. Here you will find on display society's systems of ethics, its register of what it considers extreme sins, and its principles of justice, crime, and punishment. In the court house and what is subsequently inflicted upon the person of the convicted criminal you will find religious belief writ large.

It is also an area where you will find some of the starkest contrasts between the Christian faith and Unbelief. In the first place, Jerusalem resiles from invective, disgust and vituperation against the person of the criminal. Believers are pervaded with a deep sense of personal and corporate depravity which sees every guilty criminal as a potential mirror. The story is told of the Puritan watching someone being marched to the gallows who bowed his head and said, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Believers know that they can never say (at least truthfully) that they are so good that there are some crimes and despicable acts they could and would never, ever commit. Given the "right" circumstances and enticements every Christian knows that they would be capable of any and every bad thing--at least if they are walking in the light.

Moreover, Christians know and believe that all humans bear the image of God Himself--and therefore even the worst criminals must be treated with appropriate respect condign to their being an image bearer. Therefore, outpourings of contempt, vituperation, and hatred are inappropriate and unacceptable.

Furthermore, Jerusalem knows and understands that vengeance upon evildoers has been claimed by God as His exclusive preserve. Society is expressly prohibited from taking vengeance upon criminals. "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay, says the Lord.'" (Romans 12: 19) This undergirds all Christian justice, all Christian penology.

Vengeance will be taken, both in the life and the one to come, but it has been laid down for us that it is a realm exclusively reserved by God. This means that all justice, courts, decisions, and policy toward criminals is seen not as elements of public policy, but first and foremost as divine acts. Within Jerusalem, when a criminal is judged and punished in the manner commanded by God Himself, it is seen as a divine action not the will, act, or behest of the creature. In matters of crime and punishment, we obey; we do not command.

Further, for Christians capital punishment and the death penalty as the most extreme and final punishment in this life is accepted and submitted to because God, to Whom alone belongs vengeance and retribution, has stipulated it, and laid it down.

For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behaviour, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, and avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.
(Romans 13: 3,4)

Finally, Jerusalem knows that there is an important element of prevention which plays out when the system of crime and punishment is biblically grounded and understood to be the preserve of God Himself. Part of the actual effect of righteous justice is to lead people to fear to do wrong. Evil acts have consequences that are fearful.

We are thankful that we have a justice system in New Zealand that works, albeit imperfectly, inconsistently, and in part--despite it being terribly flawed. We are thankful that crimes such as murder are still regarded as criminal acts and criminals receive retribution and punishment, at least in some degree. However, our gratitude is always tinged with sadness and fear--lest we too fall into evil.

We cannot endorse in any sense whatsoever the idea that a criminal may deservedly suffer harm at the hands of other criminals in our prison system. The moment we do is the moment we, mere creatures, have claimed vengeance for ourselves. At that moment the foundations of justice itself have gone.