The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the authoritative views of the Baha'i Faith.
The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury. – Marcus Aurelius
Our laws and our societies imprison criminals for four basic reasons: as punishment for crimes, as a means of rehabilitation, to deter others, and to protect the wider society from more crimes.
Some say, though, that we imprison criminals to exact our collective revenge on behalf of the victims.
The Baha’i teachings reject that reasoning:
There are two kinds of retributive actions: One is revenge and retaliation, and the other — punishment and requital. An individual has no right to seek revenge, but the body politic has the right to punish the criminal. Such punishment is intended to dissuade and deter others from committing similar crimes. It is for the protection of the rights of man and does not constitute revenge, for revenge is that inner gratification that results from returning like for like. This is not permissible, for no one has been given the right to seek revenge. And yet, if criminals were entirely left to their own devices, the order of the world would be disrupted. So while punishment is one of the essential requirements of the body politic, the wronged and aggrieved party has no right to seek revenge. On the contrary, he should show forgiveness and magnanimity, for this is that which befits the human world. – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, newly revised edition, p. 309.
Baha’is, however, do believe firmly that society must have practical, feasible ways of punishing crime:
The body politic, however, must punish the oppressor, the murderer, and the assailant, to dissuade and deter others from committing similar crimes. …
But the body politic has the right to preserve and to protect. It holds no grudge and harbours no enmity towards the murderer, but chooses to imprison or punish him solely to ensure the protection of others. The purpose is not revenge but a punishment through which the body politic is protected. Otherwise, were both the victim’s heirs and the community to forgive and return good for evil, the wrongdoers would never cease their onslaught and a murder would be committed at every moment — nay, bloodthirsty individuals would, like wolves, entirely destroy the flock of God. The body politic is not prompted by ill will in meting out its punishment; it acts without prejudice and does not seek to gratify a sense of vengeance. Its purpose in inflicting the punishment is to safeguard others and to prevent the future commission of such vile actions. – Ibid., pp. 309-310.
But what about turning the other cheek, as Christ advised? Abdu’l-Baha answers that question, too:
Thus when Christ said, “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the left one also,” (Mathew 5:39) the purpose was to educate the people, not to imply that one should assist a wolf that has fallen upon a flock of sheep and is intent upon devouring them all. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, He most certainly would have prevented it.
Just as forgiveness is one of the attributes of God’s mercy, so is justice one of the attributes of His lordship. The canopy of existence rests upon the pole of justice and not of forgiveness, and the life of mankind depends on justice and not on forgiveness. Thus, if a decree of amnesty were to be enacted henceforth in all countries, the whole world would soon be thrown into disarray and the foundations of human life would be shattered. Likewise, if the powers of Europe had not resisted the notorious Attila, he would not have left a single soul alive.
Some men are like bloodthirsty wolves: If they were to see no punishment ahead, they would kill others solely for the sake of their own pleasure and diversion…
In sum, the proper functioning of the body politic depends on justice and not forgiveness. So what Christ meant by forgiveness and magnanimity is not that if another nation were to assail you; burn your homes; plunder your possessions; assault your wives, children, and kin; and violate your honour, you must submit to the tyrannical host and permit them to carry out every manner of iniquity and oppression. Rather, the words of Christ refer to private transactions between two individuals, stating that if one person assaults another, the injured party should forgive. – Ibid., pp. 311-312.
The Baha’i teachings have a practical perspective on the continuing existence of imprisonment. It will, Abdu’l-Baha seems to imply, always be necessary given the current state of our world. But we can, through the implementation of Baha’i spiritual laws and principles, vastly reduce crime, and therefore reduce our need for prisons. In the next essays in this series on crime and punishment, we’ll examine the ways and means Baha’is propose for accomplishing that lofty goal.
Next: Six Questions toward Restorative Justice
David Langness writes and edits for BahaiTeachings.org and is a journalist and literary critic for Paste Magazine. He and his wife Teresa live in the Sierra foothills in Northern California.
READ MOREYou May Also Like
Comments
for your service in public protection!).
I'm sure there are times when an
officer has no choice but to fire his
weapon, hopefully to incapacitate
instead of kill, and definitely not to
execute. I would not want to "second-guess" the judgement of
a policeman who I thought had good
intentions, when it comes to those
quick decisions he must make about
some precise tactics needed, like
where to shoot a person, how many
times, etc. I respect your experience,
and would have been very interested ...
to audit your course to learn appropriate responses to all kinds of
situations. I definitely agree with you
that in police work, as in all interpersonal relations, minimum
force (and conflict-avoidance) is
the right philosophy. In international
relations, diplomacy and any needed
economic or legal sanctions are much better than war. I think I could
only be comfortable supporting a war if those things hadn't worked
(or if there was virtually no time to
try them) and innocent people were being killed by an agressor. I would
hope then that it be a collective decision by many countries to stop
the slaughter without delay.
Why do you sure there are times an officer has no choice but to fire his weapon? What is your background and training in "Use of Force." Officers do not shoot to incapacitate. The D.A.'s office, the public and the courts are always second guessing law enforcement. As for War, do not get involved in it. You never know the reasons behind it. War is mostly about the need for power or ...money. Avoid it.
and terms; these distinctions do
deserve our careful thought. Jay,
from Abdu'l-Baha's explanation
of Jesus' words, I would say individuals and whole nations have
the right to oppose aggressors. Baha'i scriptures don't command
us to be totally submissive; necessary force in personal and national self-defense are allowed.
On the personal level, according to
Shoghi Effendi, we become wrong
when we let self-protection turn into
revenge. Unfortunately, that seems
to be the normal sequence, given
human nature. On the national level,
with all the varied motives of those
in ...power, you are probably right that
we "rarely know" why we're asked
to fight. I think you're absolutely right to put God above country;
it's too bad that a lot of folks seem
confused about something so simple!
Question, Does ...this mean one nation may go to war against another nation? Should the individual get involved in the wars of his country? Who defines Justice between nations? I suggest putting God above country and do not fight at all because the individual rarely knows why his country goes to war.
all religions have taught us the same
basic moral principles, despite the
era-dependent details. These guide-
lines were the basis of many or all
major legal principles, in turn. When
we get into situations of moral
uncertainty like you described, it's
always safer to follow the scriptural
principle and violate the law of men
if we must. Usually it does not come
down to that, but there are such times, like the Nazi/Jew example.
I also have to agree with the "mens
rea" definition of crime you explained; in ...the "Sermon On The
Mount", Jesus said something to the
effect that contemplating adultery
was like committing the act. Maybe
I'm not stating that accurately, but
He obviously meant our intentions
are crucial and are always known
to God!
reason for punishment and how it's
very different from vengeance.
I also like seeing scriptural con-
firmation that society can not
endure in an atmosphere of
forgiveness alone, with no sanctions
to maintain justice.
thank you, Jules
Matthew 18:21, 22 - Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times…
(in other words be as steadfast in your resolve to tolerate and forgive as the one who sins against you)
Abraham Lincoln said: Do I not defeat my enemy, when I choose to love them?
Observer Jules