Modern Souls

I agree with Tippens on many points in the first part of his book. I have seen many of the “modern souls” in this world that are disconnected from their families, churches, and society. In the technologically based world that we live in, this is so easy for many of us to do. We work on sending emails to family members that live far away and friends that we no longer see that we forget there happens to be a world around us that we have disconnected ourselves from. I do not think it is a bad thing to stay connected to people that were close to us, but we need to also reconnect with the world around us. I like the idea of traveling in community, because this is how Jesus traveled. The further Jesus traveled, the larger his community got. This is because he did not go at it alone, and Jesus calls us to a communal way of life.

Like Tippens, I grew up in a church where the body was looked at as separate from spirit, we focused more on the afterlife than the present. My pastor was a fire and brimstone pastor that never preached a sermon that would make a Christian feel good about himself. We were told every Sunday that because we did not look at our bodies as a mere temple, then we were flawed and sinful. Never once did the pastor preach how we could use our bodies to help others, or how valuable our bodies were. Perhaps this is one reason why I had left that church. It seemed no matter what I did, it was, in that church, a sin and it was wrong, even if I was trying to be a good Christian. I think I have, since, gained a great deal of clarity on Christianity, and I am still learning.

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. ~ Acts 4:32-35

If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God. ~ Leviticus 25:35-48



Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. ~ 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

Sentencing for Sex Offenders

Morally speaking, most of us can agree that sex offenses are immoral acts. If not, let me clarify it for you: Sex offenses are rape; rape is immoral; therefore, sex offenses are immoral. Although all people have a right to do what they want with their own body, they only have this right if and only if what they choose to do with their body does not infringe on the rights of others. Because law requires us to be a minimally decent Samaritans, then sex offenders have violated the law. According to the Texas Department of Public Safety, sex offenses occur “every one hour and three minutes.”  The U.S. Department of Justice reports that “1 rape occurs every five point six minutes” in this country, as of 2004. Most offenders do not spend a day in jail, and these sex offenders are living among us.  I will cover the statistics, how this affects citizens, the current legislation, the need for stiffer sentencing laws, and the ethics behind the need for stiffer sentencing.  I believe if we do not make stiffer laws for sex offenders, we are making our family members prey for such predators.  Many sex offenders are in the public when they should be in jail.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “209,880 sex offenses were reported in the U.S. in 2004.” Texas Department of Public Safety’s Crime Report for 2004 states that “sixty-seven sex offenses were reported in Abilene.”  This report also states that “15,673 sex offenses were reported in the state of Texas in 2004.”  It was discovered in this same report that “ninety-three percent” of reported sex offenses in Texas were committed against children. The Texas Department of Corrections states that “fifty-seven percent of sex offenders in Texas are on probation and only forty-three percent of sex offenders in Texas are in jail.”  This seems to be a national trend.  According to a report released by the American Correctional Association, nearly “99,300 of 233,600 sex offenders are on probation or parole.”  This, too, is forty-three percent living in our communities.

Now that the numbers have been addressed, how does this affects American citizens?  Most people are unaware that the majority of those murdered by sex offenders are murdered by repeat offenders. Most repeat offenders are only sentenced to probation for their first offense.  Carlie Brucia from Sarasota, Florida was raped and murdered on February 1, 2004 by Joseph Smith, a repeat offender.  This was a senseless crime that ended a bright future of a young girl.  Had Smith remained in jail for his first offense, Carlie may still be living among us.

Surprisingly, there are fifty-two sex offenders in the 79605 zip code alone.  This is not including the rest of Abilene.  Of these, five are repeat offenders.  One of which was arrested four times for molesting seven, eight, nine, and ten year old girls.  Each of these four times he only received probation.  When he molested the fifth girl in 1996, (an eight-year-old) he finally received a twenty-year prison sentence. Unfortunately, he was released in 2004 after only serving nine years of his sentence.  It bothers me, and should bother you that this man lives only one block from an elementary school.

Now that the standard for sentencing has been addressed, I propose drastic changes in the sentencing of sex offenders. It is my proposal that a minimum sentence of twenty-five years for a sex offense with no possibility of parole be implemented.  This may seem drastic to many of you, but I feel that since a sex crime is a lifelong sentence for the victim, it should also be for the offender.  Most states have a minimum of twenty-five years for the third violent crime. In other words, they allow sex offenders to, more-or-less, get away with their first two crimes before they are taken out of society. These same states only require a sentence of probation for the first two offenses. Texas, unfortunately, is one of these states. With new laws, our family members can be better protected.  Parents would no longer have to live in fear that when their children walk out the door, they may never come home again.  Our safety and family’s safety must be the number one priority in this country once again.  The fact that the government has lost sight of this is very disturbing to many parents.

For this purpose, “Megan’s Law” was pushed through after the death of seven-year-old Megan Kanka. Megan was raped and murdered by a repeat offender, who was her neighbor. The law requires all sex offenders to register as such. Currently most states have a version of the federally mandated “Megan’s Law” enacted. However, it is not enough. According to Candice McLean in her article, “Offenders who do not register could face a 25,000 dollar fine and a year in jail” (24). There are questions that arise from such legislation. Do we value money over human life? If you cannot find the sexual offenders, how can you fine and arrest them? If we look at the ethics for sentencing of sex offenders, we may be able to find these answers.

The difference between sex offenders and the majority of the population is what we put value on. Most of us put a great deal of value on human life. Because this value is based on much more than pleasure, we have a non-hedonistic view of the world. Unfortunately, a sex offender puts a great deal of value in his own sensual pleasures. This gives him a hedonistic outlook on the world. In fact, most sex offenders are complete moral relativists. However, the majority of Americans are conventionalist. We see the world as whatever society thinks is right or wrong for society is right or wrong. As a society, we have decided that sexually motivated crimes are wrong. As a society, we feel that it is the responsibility of legislators and judges to protect us from such crimes. Current laws are not effective in protecting our children from sex offenders. In order to protect citizens, we need to keep sex offenders in jail and off of the streets. This will effectively create the most good for the most people.

From a deontological standpoint, keeping sex offenders off the street is the right thing to do. The assumption is that long term placement of sex offenders in prison violates the offender’s autonomy. Why should this not be the case? The offender has done the same to the victims. It is right to keep the offender away from other potential victims. The Kantian system may dictate that we are treating the sex offender as a means to an end. I would agree, but from a more pluralistic stance. Taking the sex offender off of the street is for the betterment of the community. No longer would we have to live in fear, and no longer would a victim be re-victimized.

I am using a Christian Pluralistic Deontology to prove that the removal of sex offenders from society is for the betterment of society. Scripture tells us that a man who rapes a woman that is married or betrothed shall be put to death. A man that rapes a virgin that is not betrothed is responsible for the permanent welfare of the woman that he had raped (Deuteronomy 22:13-29). Leviticus 18:6-18 speaks out against incestuous relations, which is the case of most molestation cases. 2 Samuel 13:11-22 tells the story of Amnon and Tamar. Amnon had forever disgraced his sister Tamar, which he had raped. “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman” (2 Samuel 13:20).  The previously mentioned verses of scripture support how heinously brutal sex crimes are. They support the inaction of stiffer sentencing requirements. What America is doing today is not enough.

Because Jesus told us to love our enemies and to love our brothers, I am not proposing death for the sex offender. The cliché “two wrongs do not make a right” stands firm in this case. After all, death is the easy way out. A sex offender should have to live with the consequences of his actions. Mandatory jail terms for a minimum of twenty-five years would be in everyone’s best interest. Especially in the way the prison systems are run today. Prisoners are allowed Internet access, cable television, access to a gym, three square meals a day, mental and medical health care, and a free high school and college education. It is a far cry from the death that was implemented to sex offenders in the past. The only thing they loose is their freedom to prowl the streets and commit more sex crimes. Twenty-five year jail sentences are also in the best interest for society. Law-abiding citizens will be more apt to live a less fearful life. Such stiff jail sentences would also deter other offenders from committing such crimes. To that end, these sentences could also deter repeat offenders. As one can see, there is not much of a downside to a proposed twenty-five year jail sentence for sex offenders.

Our main conflicting duties are those of “do no harm” and “respect for autonomy. Is there a value on the life of the victim? Yes. Is there a value on the life of the offender? Yes. How do we decide which is more valued? If we run stiffer sentencing for sex offenders through the prima-facie duty system, this is how it would look:

1. Do No Harm – Stiffer sentencing works on both sides of the issue. It does not harm the sex offender; instead it gives him all of his basic needs for survival. On the victim side, stiffer sentencing gives the victim more time to heal. It also protects others from a repeat offense. For a matter of fact, stiffer sentencing protects the sex offender from a repeat offense as well. If the offender is behind bars, then he is unable to commit another sex offense. 
2. Beneficence – Stiffer sentencing protects the population as a whole.
3. Tell the Truth – Does not apply unless either side is not being honest about the sex crime.
4. Promise Keeping – Legislation has been put into place to protect the citizens. Prosecutors and judges have taken a vow to uphold such laws. If they let a sex offender escape from justice by releasing them back on the streets, then they are not upholding their end of the promise.
5. Respect for Autonomy – Stiffer sentences for sex offenders respects the autonomy of the victim. If the offender is released on probation, the victim may shut down and live in fear. They may become a prisoner in their own homes because of such fear. The “do no harm” duty trumps the respect of autonomy of the sex offender. If a sex offender is only sentenced to probation, then the judge responsible for sentencing the sex offender has done harm to the current victim as well as future, potential victims. In essence, because the sex offender has violated the first duty, “do no harm,” he has trumped our duty to respect his autonomy. Taking away the offender’s autonomy is for the greater good. If we remove his autonomy, we preserve the autonomy and rights of others.
6. Justice – With respect to the victim, stiffer sentencing is the just thing to do. Once a victim of a sex crime is molested, they relive the crime on a daily basis. They normally have nightmares for the rest of their lives; these nightmares re-victimize the victims. Opposition to stiffer sentencing for sex crimes state that current legislation re-victimizes the offender, and they should not have to relive their crime for their entire lives. This is not a just attitude. If the victim must live with the consequences of the crime, so should the offender. When looking at the fairness point to stiffer sentencing, we must realize that some sex offenders get prison sentences for their first offences. Other sex offenders do not. Sex offenders with low socio-economic status and from minority groups do receive longer and tougher sentencing than others. There are certainly exceptions to the rule, such as Michael Jackson. His money bought him a defense team that found him non-culpable for his crimes. Like crimes should always have the same sentencing. If one man is sentenced to twenty-five years for a sex crime, then all sex offenders must get twenty-five years as well. This premise also meshes with the principle of universalizability. 
7. Reparations – “The time should fit the crime.” We have all heard this cliché, and must expect it to hold true when it comes to our legislative and judicial systems. Again, if a victim has to permanently deal with the consequences of the sex crime, then so should the sex offender.
8. Gratitude – The victims and the majority of the population will be grateful for the added protection that taking sex offenders off of the street provides. 

Sex offenders obviously do not have a sense of what is right and wrong. To many of them, the sex crimes and other crimes they commit are ethical. For instance, Ted Bundy stated, “Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’?” (Pojman, 30). To Bundy, the sex crimes he committed were ethical. Like Bundy, the opposition to current sex offense laws feel that the laws are unethical. They fear that Megan’s Law may cause vigilante style crimes to be committed against the offenders. In the article “Double Punishment,” “The problem, writes Sheppard, who teaches journalism at Auburn University, is that while publishing the information may alert residents to potential dangers, it may also encourage vigilantism. This is the exception rather than the rule.” Sexual predators also state that the proposed laws can result in vigilante style crimes that could be committed against them while they are incarcerated. Such crimes may include rape and murder. However, the Doctrine of Double Effect supports current sentencing and proposed sentencing. Both actions are intended to protect society as a whole from violent sex offenses, which is a positive intention. An unfortunate, and unintended consequence could be, but would not always be retaliative crimes. Offenders also feel that a national registry violates the Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment. Many Americans disagree. Fran Koopmans, the grandmother of five-year-old Jessica Koopmans, states, “If they’re that evil, they don’t deserve privacy. I think they should be fixed. If it’s against their rights, that’s fine. Why should only the guilty have rights?” (McLean, 25). Jessica was raped and murdered by a repeat offender.

To sum up, changing laws can help there be a bigger gap between the sex offenses committed.  They can help us to protect our families.  Perhaps you are now more aware of the lack of laws protecting our families.  Now that you have the numbers and how this directly affects you and your family; it is hoped that you, too, can see the need for stiffer sentencing laws.  As you have read, it is unethical to allow sex offenders to walk freely among innocent people. It is the responsibility of citizens to stand up and do something about the need for stiffer sentencing for sex offenders.  Write to your congressman, state representative, and governor to try to get these laws changed.  One voice alone may seem weak in the middle of a crowd.  However, all of our voices together can be strong and heard, even in a large crowd.

Works Cited

Clayton, Susan L. “Most Sex Offenders on Parole, Probation.” Corrections Today. Apr. 1997: 16.

Gibeaut, John. “Defining Punishment: Courts Split on Notification Provisions of Sex Offender Laws.” ABA Journal. Mar. 1997: 36-37.

McLean, Candice. “Too Evil for Privacy.” The Report. 9 Jul. 2001: 21-25.
“Megan’s Law: Pointing the Finger of Blame.” Economist. 15 Feb. 1997: 27-28.

Pojman, Louis P. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. 2006. Thomsom Wadsworth.
“Sex-Crime Laws Draw More Flack.”  Christian Science Monitor. 13 Aug. 1998: 3.

Sheppard, Judith. “Double Punishment.” American Journalism Review. Nov. 1997.

Texas Department of Public Safety. “Crime In Texas: The Texas Crime Report.” 2004. <https://records.txdps.state.tx.us/soSearch/default.cfm&gt;

Affirmative Action

Almost no one who advocates for affirmative action fully understands it. Affirmative action is primarily concerned with fairness and justice, and the significant discussion about what is just or fair.

Affirmative action starts with certain basic assumptions:

1. 1. Past injustice has made the playing field unfair; it is an uneven playing field. It is  NOT ABOUT the playing field being unfair because of the lottery of life.
   2. This field is unfair to identifiable groups, which tend to be minorities and women.
   3. Unfairness is statistically demonstratable. If we start out with assumptions that women and minorities are not equal, then the playing field is not even.
   4. Success equals correcting the statistical imbalance. There is a theoretical stopping place. We are trying to make the playing field level; and once those in power look like the distribution of the race and gender, then the playing field is level and affirmative action must stop.
   5. Affirmative action involves unfairness to individuals for the sake of a fairer playing field for the whole.

What affirmative action is meant to do is take race, gender, ethnicity, and religious beliefs out of the equation. Once they are removed, the most qualified person should be hired. If not, then an injustice has occurred.

Myths:

1. 1. Affirmative action is about meeting quotas.
   2. Affirmative action means hiring or admitting unqualified people and gives preferential treatment to minority groups that have been historically discriminated against among the pool of qualified people.
   3. Affirmative action is about the person hired or admitted. It is not about us, it is about our children, and it is about working a generation forward.
   4. Affirmative action can and does lead to reverse discrimination, such as the Bakke Case, where a white male applies to medical school in California and is refused admission. Several African Americans with lower qualifications got in. Bakke sued for racial discrimination and won.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unconstitutional the admission process of the Medical School at the University of California at Davis, which set aside 16 of the 100 seats for “Blacks,” “Chicanos,” “Asians,” and “American Indians” (and established a separate admissions process for those 16 spaces). Several years later, the African American man, who won the final position, had his medical license revoked, because of medical incompetence in the deaths of two women, and the maiming of a third. 

From a Christian Pluralistic Deontological stance, ask yourself if affirmative action benefits all of the people. Does a minority group have an even playing field that can either help the community or harm the community depending on the circumstances? If a person with inferior qualifications gets a job based on his/her race and is not the most qualified person for the job, then the playing field has not been fairly leveled. An example of this would be that the the gentleman in the Bakke case, that was admitted to the University of California, severely altered the lives of three families. So, in cases like these, should we listen to God’s word which states, Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favouritism to the great, but judge your neighbour fairly. ~ Leviticus 19:15?

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” So, does that mean that Dr. King would have been against affirmative action?

To take the other side would be for us to say that affirmative action is just, as disciples had commanded that affirmative action was warranted when Hellenistic widows were being neglected in receiving daily sustenance.

In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them. So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith. ~ Acts 6:1-7

This, in essence, is a form of affirmative action.

Continuing to take a Christian Pluralistic Deontological stance, we run through each of the seven prima facie duties put forward by W.D. Ross.

1. 1. beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc.) – Improving a person’s station in life can and will help increase their pleasure and improve their character. A person that lives in poverty and has difficulty finding work because of the race, gender, and religious beliefs will have a decreased sense of pleasure in their lives. Furthermore, a person who is not pushed to strive for more in their lives may become very weak of character. For instance, many youths involved in gang activity believe that the playing field is not level, and they have no choice but to commit crime.
   2. non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people) – Improving one’s station in life does not hurt that person. However, giving a person a job that they are under qualified for, depending on the job, due to their race, gender, and religious preferences, can and sometimes does result in the subsequent harm to others in the community.
   3. justice (to ensure people get what they deserve) – If an under qualified person receives a job because of affirmative action, and a more qualified person is overlooked because of their race, gender, and religious preferences, then justice has not been served. The qualified has been passed over for a job that he/she deserved or earned, while the under qualified has received a job that he/she did not deserve or earn. Furthermore, the more qualified person may end up in poverty and not be capable of providing for himself/herself or his/her families due to not being able to obtain suitable and deserved/earned employment.
   4. self-improvement (to improve ourselves) – Affirmative action can work to improve us as a whole, but may not be able to improve us as individuals. This happens when people living in poverty who have been overlooked due to their race, gender, and religious beliefs are raised to the level of their peers of different races, genders, and religious preferences due to affirmative action. However, people who are in the majority may be lowered in social station and economic station due to not being able to obtain adequate employment due to affirmative action.
   5. reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them) – Many people believe that affirmative action is just, as it provides minorities with a reparation promised to them by the U.S. government after the abolition of slavery. But when should affirmative action stop according to Christian doctrine? Do we hold a man responsible for his father’s sins?The Bible states, The word of the Lord came to me: “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: “‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die. ~ Ezekiel 18:1-4
   6. According to the aforementioned verse, we shall not pass the sins of the father to the child. However, the two following verses from Deuteronomy contradict one another on the topic.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. ~ Deuteronomy 5:9

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. ~ Deuteronomy 24:16

Should we believe to place the sin on the child? This is a very controversial topic. Therefore, for the sake of compromise, should we say that if the sin is to be passed to the child, then it should not go passed four generations? Does this mean that reparations should end, as more than four generations have passed since slavery was abolished?

With that being said, we should look to the next part of the sentence, “showing love to a thousand generations.” Does that mean that a child, who loves God and is also a child of a man who hates God, would that child still carry the burden of his or her father? Deuteronomy 24:16, leads me to believe this is not the case.

So, does that mean that four generations of whites, whose ancestors maintained slaves within their custody should be held responsible for the reparations of the ancestors of the slaves? But, what if the family, whose ancestors owned slaves, are devoutly religious and love God within that four generation time period, are they still responsible for reparations?

Then what do we do to the thousands of descendants whose ancestors did not own slaves? Should we declare that thousands of descendants of Celtic ancestry should not be held responsible for the sins of the other Anglo-Americans due to their lack of involvement in slavery and the poverty level of the Celts, which deterred them from owning slaves?

Next, what do we do about several thousand American ancestors that did buy slaves and technically owned slaves, but they bought the slaves only in order to free the slaves. Should the descendants of these Anglo-American ancestors be held responsible for reparation? I conclude that this question cannot be rightfully answered without knowing the specifics of each individual case, in which reparations are to be awarded.

1. gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us) – Affirmative action cannot be answered by this question unless the nature of the situation is directly and fully discussed. If a job is given to a person due to gratitude, they have earned that job, as the person was given the job on the basis of his/her character. In essence, affirmative action has, most likely, been removed from the equation.  This is why the nature of the situation needs to be known and understood in order to determine if affirmative action is warranted or even a contributing factor.
2. promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth) – Affirmative action is warranted in this case due to the Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmative action is to be used in order to level the playing field for all people regardless of race, age, gender, and religious beliefs. Furthermore, freed slaves were promised reparations for the injustices that befell them due to slavery.

In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may “trump” another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.

In conclusion, the answer of whether or not God believes and approves of affirmative action cannot be answered on the text of the Bible or through ethics. It is possible that God is for affirmative action, as it evens the playing field for all people. However, it is also possible that God is against affirmative action due to his doctrine stating that we have shown partiality to the poor and are not judging our neighbors fairly. The question is put to you, do you support affirmative action?

Personally, I do as long as it is used properly. Many companies misuse it by using quotas as a way to gauge whether a person is hired or not. Furthermore, schools that use affirmative action as a way to determine entrance to programs should use it rightfully and fully. If a person is not qualified for the position in which they have applied, they should not get the position as it could cause harm to others in the community. I will strive to give anyone regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, and gender a fair advantage to obtain any position that I am told to fill.