I declare an interest in Jon Venables. For the first five years they were in prison, I prayed daily (aside from personal failures) for the welfare, repentance and reform of Venables and his partner in crime Robert Thompson. They were eventually released in June 2001. Venables is now back in prison. At the time of writing, it is not public knowledge what he has now done - perhaps that will have changed by the time you read this.
Doubtless many people will suggest that if Venables is imprisoned once more (and especially if it turns out that he has committed some serious crime) that will prove that he should never have been released. I do not propose to consider the arguments behind his release in 2001, or indeed to consider his case specifically at all. My interest is slightly different. I wish to dispute a certain thought that I believe lies behind some of this discussion, namely the idea that those that commit certain crimes prove that it can never be safe to release them.
Note that this is a different question from whether they ever ought to be released. Perhaps there are crimes that imply that those that commit them ought, for reasons of retribution, to remain in prison for the rest of their lives (perhaps there are even crimes that should attract the death penalty - I leave that question open in this discussion). And of course there are people that do remain dangerous and should not be released.
My question is a narrower one. It is whether the mere act of committing a certain crime demonstrates that one will always be a danger and should never be released for that reason. Are there certain crimes that place one beyond possibility of repentance and reform? Many people believe this is indeed so with a number of crimes. Sexual crimes against children are probably the most obvious example. But particularly brutal murders are another. I suspect that for many people, this was a key reason they opposed the release of Thompson and Venables, and now Venables has been returned to prison they will consider their view proven by events.
I deny this. It is often suggested that psychological or genetic studies of one sort of another demonstrate that child molesters are beyond reform. As it happens, my understanding is that reoffending rates amongst child molesters are not higher than for other criminals in the way often assumed, but let us set that aside for the moment. Let's just suppose that there were all kinds of studies suggesting that child molesters are very likely to repeat their crimes. Let us suppose that, similarly, there were many studies suggesting that child murderers are very likely to commit further crimes in adulthood. Would that mean that no-one convicted of child molestation or of murder as a child should ever be considered safe to release?
I say no. I assert that, as a sacrificial principle, we should always operate, both as individuals and as a society, on the basis that anyone can repent and be reformed from any crime (or other misdeed) whatever. I assert that we should also operate on the principle that, both as individuals and as a society, we can forgive (totally forgive) any crime (or other misdeed) whatever, if there has been repentance and restitution.
Does that not mean that we will waste much effort and resource on seeking the reform of those that will refuse to be reformed? Yes. Does it not mean that we will be deceived by some that pretend to have changed knowing that no such change has occurred, and that will then harm us or others later? Yes. Does it not mean that we will be let down by some that believe themselves reformed but then fail when the time of testing comes? Yes.
"So you are proposing that other people bear the pain and misery that is the inevitable partner of your openly delusional tale?" Yes. "How can you defend this?"
Well, fundamentally it comes down to a view about what sort of society we want to be. It is often argued that "it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned", and my tale has something of that flavour about it - even if the odds are stacked against someone's reforming, it is better that the chance to be reformed and then to live as a reformed person be there for those few that can grasp it. But there are three other parts to my case, perhaps more important.
First, there is the point that forgiveness is to the benefit of the forgiver as well as the forgiven. It does not edify our society to carry hatred against those that have committed horrible crimes.
Second, there is the point that by being ambitious in the doctrine that all can repent and reform, we make it more likely that we maximise the scope of repentance and reform. A society that begins to consider certain criminals as beyond reform is likely to start to make less efforts on those that have committed similar crimes, even if the evidence of unreformability is weaker. Our sacrificial ambition to seek the reform of all is of benefit and protection to those for whom reform is merely very hard, but who might easily be given up upon.
A third thing I would add is that all of us have done bad things to other people (I know I have), and many of us will have experienced forgiveness for our errors, after being offered the opportunity to repent, reform, and make restitution. Our offering of opportunities for forgiveness to others is an appropriate response to the forgiveness we ourselves receive in life, many times over. It is far too easy, instead, to fail to repent properly of our own errors, comforting ourselves that at least we are not as bad as those to whom we deny forgiveness. The danger of using extreme cases such as child molestation or child murderers as excuses for our own less spectacular failings is so great that sacrificial offers of forgiveness to such criminals is an important protection for us from ourselves.
So, I operationally deny, both as an individual and in my ambition for society, that anyone is beyond the pale. That hurts me sometimes, but is also to my great edification. As a society that will hurt us sometimes, also, but likewise be to our great edification and to the protection and flourishing of those whose repentance and reform is thereby achieved and accepted.
