Science in Christian Perspective
The Student's Corner .
RESPONSIBILITY AND RETRIBUTION:
A Narnian Dialogue
PHILIP ASHEY
1406 Mariners Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
From: JASA 31 (March 1979): 43-47.
Wan and weary, Peter stood with sword in hand surveying the
battlefield, lie had
hoped, as did most of his subjects, that complete peace would reign
after Aslan's
victory. And, indeed, Narnia experienced a veritable renaissance of peace and
happiness for what seemed like years. And then it happened. At first there were
only rumours of dark goings on near the borders of the kingdom, then isolated
raids into the countryside, and finally a direct attack on Narnian settlements
by remnants of the Witch's army. In fact, it was not unlikely that
she was behind
it all. Peter had underestimatecl the strength and numbers of those rebellions
Fauns, Giants, and talking animals, and had gone out to meet them
with inadequate
forces. But Lucy had
the foresight to bring along her horn and, when the tide of battle seemed to be
turning against them, summoned Asian himself. Of course, once Asian had arrived
the battle was decided. The enemy lost all courage at his sight and roar, and
those that didn't flee pell-mell into the forest quickly surrendered.
Peter ordered
Edmund and Susan to gather together the prisoners and, while they
were doing so,
approached the great Lion.
II
May I speak with you Asian?", he said bowing before his golden mane.
"Certainly Son of Adam," replied Aslan in his deep
sonorous voice. "What perplexes you?"
Peter was at once sad and happy-happy to experience again the warmth and joy of
Asian's presence, yet sad at having failed in judgment, and so in his duties as
High King of Narnia. "I am sorry you had to he summoned, but I'm certainly
glad that you are here now. Without your help I'm afraid to think
what might have
happened. But I must ask your further help in determining what ought to be done
with these rebels. On the one hand, they have clearly transgressed the law, and
yet I wonder how responsible they are for their actions. They have known only
eternal winter under the White Witch, How can I justly punish such
pitiful creatures?
If, indeed, their choice has been determined by their environment,
and their actions
are inevitable, what form of punishment is most just?"
III
Asian released a deep sigh. "Very well Peter. Summon your
brother and sisters.
We shall discuss this problem on the return to Cai Paravel."
When they were
all together, prisoners in front, Peter gave the command and all marched toward
the castle.
"Of course," said Asian, "before I can answer your question, we
must consider a number of subsidiary issues. Insofar as we are determining the
proper mode of punishment, and only indirectly touch upon the nature
of justice,
we cannot here discuss such questions as whether or not there is a
private sphere
of morality subject to criminal law. The real issue, however, is whether or not
these transgressors have freedom of choice, and if so, responsibility for their
actions. For this bears directly upon the kind of punishment you must
assign."
"But Asian these are creatures, not humans protested Peter.
"Son of Adam these are more than creatures," growled the
Lion. "These
are your subjects, and for our purposes we shall speak of them and treat them
as humans."
"Very well," said Peter, "oughtn't we then to define
human nature-that
is, oughtn't we to define those characteristics which make a creature human or
humanlike?"
"As you wish," replied Asian, "but conduct your
argument in a fashion
befitting a High King of Narnia. How then do you define human nature?"
"Well ...," said Peter, "in the interests of brutal
honesty I feel
constrained to define human nature strictly in terms of what is observable-that
is, in terms of the physiological. I suppose I would define human nature as the
peculiar interaction of inorganic matter that becomes humanly organic
life...,"
"And it seems to me," replied Asian, "that such definition will
not aid you in determining the degree of culpability one must assign
these rebels,
nor the appropriate punishment, regardless of its validity. Your
empirical definition
may be valid, but is it exhaustive? I think not. Human life is a
mystery insofar
as the whole of it is not simply the sum of all the physiological
parts. Is love,
for example, reducible to biochemical reactions? The mystery lies in the fact
that the whole is a kind of production from the interaction of all the parts.
In any case, reality-whether we are speaking of human nature
or history-requires different levels of description to capture its complexity.
'In the interests of brutal honesty' you have given me a scientific
or empirical
description of the physiological constitution of human life. But this level of
description is inadequate because it provides only empirical data, and no data
carry with them their own interpretation-which interpretation is necessary if
we are to capture the complexity of human nature. Moreover, science can tell us
only what is and not what ought to be-that is, science as methodology
is not helpful
in the realm of ethics, where we must decide what is right and wrong, and what
human conduct merits punishment. In fact, what makes one human is the fact that
one is a responsible being,' and this requires a level of description
beyond the
scientific or empirical."
IV
The children were all ears. Snowflakes drifted about them and muffled
their footsteps,
creating an eerie silence that accentuated the force of Asian's
words, Yet Peter
was troubled. "If that is so," he inquired, "then what is 'free
will'? Is it something we can observe physiologically, or does it
defy description?
Moreover, even if we speak of the will or mind of man as largely
controlling his
behavior, mightn't we conclude that the actual cells of his brain, in
a material
sense, and the mechanics of the way in which they operate and respond
to stimuli,
provide the all-sufficient explanation of how his mind works, of how
he chooses,
and how his personality develops?2 In this way he would have no free will per
se but would be mechanistically determined by his brain,"
At this point Edmund, Susan, and Lucy could no longer restrain
themselves. "And
what about psychological determinism from our genes or from our environment?"
asked Edmund.
"Or philosophical determinism," said Susan.
"Or divine providence," said Lucy.
"One at a time, please," said Asian. "Your point is well taken,
Peter, but I can turn the tables on you and argue with as much force that it is
the decisions that a man makes and the things he believes which
produce continual
changes in the chemical composition of his brain cells.3 One need only regard
the feats of ascetics, or the successful treatment of psychosomatic
illness with
placebos, for proof of this. The only way to resolve the polarization between
mind and body determinism is to posit the existence of a dialectical
relationship
between mind and body. In this sense, the individual choices cannot
be explained
on exclusively physical or exclusively mental, psychological, or
spiritual bases.
And, in fact, this is in accord with the unity and complexity of the
human being
as physical and other-than-physical, as I have already noted.4 From a
more theoretical
standpoint we can argue against the whole notion of causality, and so
determinism.
For even if we should he able to read every detail of the cellular activity of
a man's brain at a time when he was still in the process of making a decision,
and to confidently predict what decision that man would make, our
prediction would
have no validity for the man unless he accepted it-at which point his cognitive
processes would affect vital changes in his brain cells anyway!5
Until he ac
cepted the prediction, he would have considered the decision indeterminate, and
for him it would have been. But causality does not really apply here
because decision
and cellular activity coincide-they do not cause each other-and so reflect the
essential unity and complexity of physical and other-than-physical. Finally, if
thought is wholly determined by the random motions of atoms in the
brain, we have
no reason to suppose our beliefs to be true, or that the notion of mechanistic
determinism of mind by the brain itself is valid !"6
"But even if man is not physiologically determined in his choice
by cellular
activity in the brain," replied Edmund, "how do you answer
the assertion
that man's every action is so governed by the genes he has inherited,
and by those
traits of character and conscious or subconscious motivation inbred in him by
the experiences of infancy and early childhood, as well as by the
peculiar social,
economic or political relations he finds forced upon him by society,
that he cannot
in any real sense be held to he a morally responsible agent.7 It
seems to me this
assertion bears directly upon our situation, insofar as these rebels have lived
all their lives under the White Witch and in eternal winter. How can
we legitimately
hold them responsible for their actions when they are not responsible for the
environment that has shaped them?"
"Have you forgotten so soon that the spell has been broken, my son?"
replied Asian. "You especially ought to know that."
V
Edmund blushed while Asian continued. "Only the most extreme determinist
would maintain that man has no control whatsoever over his actions,
and that his
choices are inevitable and unavoidable due to inbred tendencies and the effects
of his environment upon him. There is a great difference between
strict determinism
and influence, between inevitability and causal determinatinn.8 The fact that
we often consciously struggle against those strong inbred tendencies
in ourselves
witnesses to the great faith commitment a strict determinist must have. We are
subject to many influences, within and without, which suggest but do
not constrain.
Granted, inbred tendencies, childhood experiences, and present environment all
limit the number of alternatives which one may choose, but within those limits
there is control over choice-there is freedom of choice. Indeed, we
all feel such
freedom in our daily lives. And because I have broken the spell of
the White Witch,
regardless of whether or not each person has a conscience upon which the law is
written, these rebels had as one alternative obedience to me and my
father. Moreover,
in spite of their strong inbred tendencies, they had access to resources beyond
themselves whereby they might have reformed their character had they
so desired.
But they did not."
"But Asian," interrupted Susan, "it still seems to ow that there
is a philosophical problem here for, if, as you admit, events are in
the slightest
degree causally determined, why can't someone yet maintain that
everything happens
through immutable laws, and that there is a vast complex of interrelated causal
chains behind each event?"9
"Again," said Asian, "it takes an enormous faith
The children were all ears. Snowflakes drifted about them and muffled their footsteps, creating an eerie silence that accentuated the force of Aslan's words. Yet Peter was troubled. "If that is so," he inquired, "then what is 'free will'?"
commitment to believe in an absolutely closed universe and to really accept the
idea that any sequence of events is wholly foreordained-and that is
the position
one must take as a philosophical determinist, for it would be absurd to propose
that one part of the world were arranged while another was not)10 Moreover,
such philosophical determinism has difficulty locating the ultimate
cause behind
the panoply of causation. Many such hard determinists throw up their hands in
surrender to pure chance.11 Of course, this renders the universe
utterly inscrutable
and meaningless-a worldview which some embrace but which I believe goes against
your experience. Of course, this raises again the problem of how
valid our thoughts
can be if our brain is but matter thrown up randomly. And if the ultimate cause
can be said to direct or order subsequent causes, is it else but God
disguised?"
Lucy had been disturbed by the conversation thus far, but couldn't
quite put her
finger on the problem. Suddenly, it dawned upon her what was so
bothersome. "Aslan,"
she mused, "If god is so omniscient and sovereign, how can man have a free
will and be held responsible for his actions? Don't the notions of
predestination
and free will contradict each other?"
"Daughter of Eve," smiled Aslan, "that is a very
difficult question,
but I think I might help you begin to understand. In the first place,
God's omniscience
is not determinative because it does not directly inform man's actions. Yet we
are left with the problem of reconciling Cod's sovereignty with man's
responsibility.
You must accept the fact that God's sovereignty and man's
responsibility coexist.
Indeed, if you look at your holy book, the Bible, you will find this principle
demonstrated throughout (Acts 2:23; Gen. 45:5)."
"But AsIan isn't that a contradiction in terms?" said Peter.
"No, Son of Adam. It is a paradox, because coexistence of the sovereignty
of God and the moral responsibility of man does not equal the coexistence of no
responsibility and responsibility. Again, you must realize that reality is so
complex and beyond your potential for understanding that you must necessarily
resort to different levels of description which may appear
contradictory, in order
to capture such complexity. An example of this necessity drawn from your world
of science is the Complementarity Principle formulated by Niels Bohr
and applied
to the description of light as both particles and waves ?12 Because no one has
yet succeeded in inventing a comprehensive philosophy at once credible and self
-consistent,13 and because your thought is by nature limited, the acceptance of
such paradoxes is not cowardly nor lazy but necessary. And you will find them
throughout your Bible. But in the unflinching pursuit of God's sovereignty and
man's responsibility you will find the razor edge of your belief. "14
"And yet it seems to me," said Peter, "that unless
there is a flaw
in your reasoning (which would be impossible), I must conclude that, from the
start, God's sovereignty does not equal man-without-responsibility if we are to
avoid logical contradiction and invalidation. But isn't that a
problem of circular
reasoning-that is, assuming what we are trying to prove? The only
solution would
seem to lie in the assertion that that is what the Bible presents and
so it must
he accepted on faith.'
"If it is the faith commitment that bothers you my son,"
said the great
Lion, "you will feel quite uncomfortable wherever you turn in all honesty.
For every philosophy demands some degree of faith commitment, and
even the scientific-empirical
methodology of investigation requires a faith commitment to rational
an(] predictable
order in the universe. But enough of this. Given our discussion so
far, that just
as the sovereignty of God and the moral responsibility of man coexist, so too
does the soft determinism we have described and
genuine-though-circumscribed free
will and moral responsibility; we must conclude that, regardless of cause, man
is responsible for his behavior. Now we must decide what mode of punishment is
appropriate for these rebels."
VI
"How about deterrence?" asnswered Edmund.
"Or rehabilitation . . ," said Susan.
"Or retribution ,.."added Lucy.
"And just what do you mean by deterrence," Edmund?"
asked Asian.
"I mean," said Edmund, "the inhibiting effect that punishment,
either actual-as in this ease-or threatened will have on the actions of those
who are otherwise disposed to commit crimes. Deterrence, in turn, has
two aspects:
after the fact inhibition of the person being punished or special deterrence;
and inhibition in advance by threat and example or general deterrence.15 Although
we might not reform these rebels by punishing them after the fact, as the high
rate of recidivism seems to indicate, we shall at the very least
discourage further
rebellion and save Narnia from further grief by making a show and
example of them."
"And where is justice in all this?" asked Asian.
"What do you mean ...."
"You see, Edmund," smiled Asian, "general deterrence
makes an example
of offenders-that is, it makes persons means to a larger end such as
the preservation
of peace and order in Narnia. But that alone is not justice. Any
punishment which
does not treat persons as ends in themselves by punishing them according to the
principle of desert is a perversion of justice, for it tramples upon
the dignity
of human life.16 The heartlessness and injustice of such deterrence
was well expressed
by one of its most vocal advocates-Oliver Wendell Holmes-who once
wrote to a friend
if I were having a philosophical talk with a man I was
going to have hanged (or electrocuted) I should say, "I don't doubt that your act was inevitable for you, but to make it more avoidable by others we propose to sacrifice you to the common good. You may regard yourself as a soldier dying for your country if you like. But the law must keep its promises." I fear that the touch of sentiment that I notice in your writing will be revolted at this, but personally I feel neither doubt nor scruple17
If in the process of punishing a person according to what he or she deserves, that person is made an example or means to the end of general deterrence, fine. But treating the person as an end by determining what punishinent they deserve must come first. Without desert, the morality of punishment disappears. Moreover, if the primary aim is deterrence, it no longer matters who is punished so long as the public think that the accused is guilty.'18
"But Asian isn't that a contradiction in terms?" said Peter. "No, Son of Adam. It is a paradox."
"What about rehabilitation then?" asked Susan. "After
all, punishment
may be used to prevent crime by so changing the personality of the
offender that
he will conform to the dictates of lawin a word by refoming him.
Admittedly, such
reform is by compulsion and primarily for our sakes. But it seems to
me both humane
and effective."
"However," said Asian, "that presupposes the definition of crime
as a disease and not as a transgression. Again, there is no justice
in this because
there is no principle of desert, and so no morality of punishment.
The responsibility
for determining what punishment is deserved is taken out of the hands
of jurists,
who deal with categories of rights and justice, and placed in the
hands of technicians-such
as penologists and psychiatrists-who are concerned only with finding
an effective
cure for the disease.19) And this does not even take into account
the failure
of these technicians to locate an effective cure. If crime is
regarded as a disease
only, there is also the danger that those in administrative positions
in government
will abuse their powers by defining anything they dislike-including dissent-as
disease and therefore subject to criminal punishment.20 Witness
Soviet Russia
and its psychological 'asylums' today. Yet another consideration is that mercy
has no place in rehabilitation, for mercy is expressed in pardon and one cannot
pardon a disease!21 But perhaps the greatest injustice of all lies in
the element
of compulsion involved in rehabilitation. To be cured against the will implies
a view of man as less than reasonable and responsible, weak, and determined by
his environment.22 Rehabilitation thus effects substantially the same reduction
of human dignity as deterrence."
VIII
"It would seem then that retribution is the only viable form of
punishment,"
said Lucy, "for if it is right for the wicked to be punished because they
have broken the law, then the dignity of human life is maintained inasmuch as
man is held responsible for his actions and receives his just deserts.23 And because
retribution operates off of the idea of desert-that is, that past conduct has
merited a deprivation of freedom-such
deprivations are turned into punishments, and justice
is supplied to punishment. "24
"And yet," said Peter, "retribution seems to me at
best vengeance
disguised, rendered obsolete by its subjectivity and emotionalism in the face
of personal experience with the causes of crime in particular cases,
and an obstruction
to the evolution of techniques for social control utilizing what we
now know about
the forces that control-or influence-human behavior,"25
"Indeed," replied Asian, 'There is the temptation for men to engage
in base vengeance, but that cannot deter us from implementing the
idea of desert.
Such temptations to engage in subjectivity and emotionalism must be resisted,
and retribution administered with both compassion for the offender and regard
for the law, above the interests of society. Man must do the best he can with
the limited knowledge that he has. Mistakes are inevitable. But he cannot omit
punishment on the grounds of fallibility.26 Of course we feel
especially reluctant
to punish those who feel humble and repentant, but the maintenance of order in
society demands that we must, for such order is in accord with the
will of God.27
As for your assertion that knowledge of the causes 'determining' crime inhibits
our implementation or retribution, or that it stands in the way of
our discovering
techniques for social control, may I remind you that regardless of the causes
of crime, man is responsible for his behavior. You must overcome your
sentimentalism
and accept the paradox of the coexistence of soft determinism and
moral responsibility.
Beyond this, there are some positive aspects of retribution.
Retribution contains
and reinforces both deterrence and rehabilitation: deterrence insofar
as a belief
in retribution is the deepest and most effective form of deterrent,
and rehabilitation
insofar as the first decisive step towards genuine reformation comes when a man
acknowledges that his punishment is deserved .28 And above all,
retribution witnesses
to the righteousness of God, to a character of unyielding justice and
incomparable
love, which demands that transgressors receive their just deserts."29
IX
"Well then," said Peter to the others, "it seems as if
the question
is settled. Retribution shall be the mode of punishment for these rebels,"
They all nodded solemnly in agreement, and for a moment their
statures reflected
a nobility and grace befitting the domain entrusted them. "We
must now choose
among a number of alternatives-fines, imprisonment, corporal or capital
Retribution contains and reinforces both deterrence and rehabilitation: deterrence insofar as a belief in retribution is the deepest and most effective form of deterrent, and rehabilitation insofar as the first decisive step towards genuine reformation comes when a person acknowledges that his punishment is deserved.
punishment-the appropriate punishment," said Peter. "Asian, what do
you think,..."
But turning around they saw only a curtain of black and swirling
white, and four
huge paw prints silently filling.
FOOTNOTES
1Wenham, John The Goodness Of God, (London: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1974), p. 66.
2Aodersoo, J. N. D. Morality, Late And Grace, (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1972), p. 14.
3
Ibid., p. 15.
4lbid.
5lbid., p. 17.
6ibid., p. 20,
7lbid., p. 21.
8lbid., p. 23.
9lhid.,
p. 28.
10lbid.,
p. 29.
11Ibid., p. 31.
12Bube, Richard H. The Human Quest, (Waco: Word, 1971),
pp. 168, 176.
13Wenham, p. 185.
l4Ibid
15Caplan, John Criminal Justice, (Mineola: Foundation Press,
1973), p. 16.
16Lewis, C. S. "The humanitarian Theory Of Punishment" in
God In The Dock, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 291.
17Kaplan, p. 16.
18Lewis, p. 291.
19Ibid p. 289.
20Ibid. 293.
21bid., p.
294.
221bid., p. 292.
23Kaplan, p. 9.
24Wenham, p. 59.
25Kaplan, p. 11.
26Wenham, p. 67.
27Ibid.
28Ibid., pp. 64, 65.
29 Ibid., p. 66.