Facing the other way

The reporting on the closing stages of the appeal of Scott Rush, one of the 'Bali Nine', who has been sentenced to death (Age 17 July 10) raises for me the very question of the purposes of prisons today. The penitential systems in place in most countries imprison a person for a length of time that is proportional to the severity of the crime committed and which seems, from the outside, to involve a process of degradation in the company of other inmates also under degradation and in which there is little opportunity for real change of outlook on life. Indeed it is popularly understood that young criminals can learn much of the profession from other prisoners. It seems too, that the process of degradation is likely to turn all but the hardiest of people against society, rather than to reconcile them. Further, the popular view of treatment of criminals is that there is a debt to be paid to society. That is a euphemism for society requiring vengeance. Indeed the howls for 'just' treatment of criminals and the use of terminology, like 'animals', which seek to deny the humanity of the person, speak of a society that has no interest in the outcome for the convicted person but is only interested in getting its own anger off its chest. Such a system then is aimed at punishment not reform. Is this really a penitential system in the true sense of this word, and is it what our society (apart from the tabloid media and shock jocks) really wants?

Penitence is a word that derives from the Greek, metanoia, which is used in academic theology as a technical term meaning to turn around, or, literally, face the other way. There is no hint in its ancient meaning of revenge or punishment, in fact it is an event that ought to bring joy. The parable of the prodigal son involved metanoia on the part of the prodigal son who is welcomed back by his father when he finally decides to change his profligate behaviour. It is a telling side element of that parable that the prodigal's brother is angered by his father's welcome to the one who has expended his birthright on foolishness and loose living. How like the angry brother are we? This parable encourages us to be more like the father who welcomes his son's return with feasting and celebration. The essential action of the father is to recognise the turning around (or return) of his son and to respond with extravagant forgiveness. There is no extravagant forgiveness in our penal system.

More to the point, in the case of Scott Rush, is the threat of capital punishment. It is a fundamental tenet of Jewish and Christian faith that humans have no right to take the life of another human for whatever reason. 'Vengeance is mine says the Lord' from the Hebrew book of Deuteronomy sets aside punishment as a right for God, not of humans. Paul in his letter to the Romans gives a Christian sense of this fragment directing that enemies should be fed and watered, that evil is not overcome by more evil but by good. The death penalty leaves no option of reform.

A system that is truly penitential would have as its primary function not punishment but the reform of the prisoner to be capable of returning to society in an acceptable functional state. The sentence would be more logically 'until reformed' rather than for a time set by retributive measures. Society would have a responsibility to welcome, as the father of the prodigal son did, the reformed one back into the fold, killing the fatted calf and clothing him or her with the finest robes in celebration. Scott Rush speaks to this possibility in his letter to his MP: “I truly feel sorry for the hurt and pain I've caused to my parents. I hope to have the chance to prove I am capable of reform. I want to give back to my community and be an ambassador against drugs ...”

It is tantalising to think of the impact on a prisoner if when released from prison is greeted at the gate by a society which welcomed him, clothed, fed, housed and employed him, and most of all forgave and treated like a normal member of the community?

(The Age article referred to is viewable at http://www.theage.com.au/national/on-death-row-in-bali-scott-rush-prays-for-last-appeal-20100716-10ea8.html)

Nasty Business

ABC Radio National, in its 30 June 2010 Rear Vision programme, broadcast an account of a recent enquiry into the probity of the UN WHO specifically its administration of its responsibility to monitor and issue warnings about potential pandemic disease outbreaks. It discusses accusations that a number of the people who were involved in the administration of the pandemic alert for Swine flu last year were also closely involved with and possibly paid by pharmaceutical companies who make the vaccines which have been acquired in large quantities by countries around the world. Australia purchased 21 million doses. Because the pandemic failed to materialise, Australia only used 9 million doses (and it might be argued how many of those were necessary), questions now arise over whether the alert was in response to valid concern of a likely expanded outbreak or was it simply to create a demand for pharmaceutical company product to their considerable profit? The programme does not come down one way or another, presenting both sides of the argument in a pretty balanced fashion. However, the scenario is sufficiently similar, I think, to have us nodding in agreement over the possibility of private and public sector misadventure. How often I wonder whether my local streets need more traffic islands or speed bumps, or whether the contractor is in the pocket of the local council!

For me the spectre of such public corruption raises an important question of the way in which we have structured the fabric of our society. A term in common use by the Boards of business is 'the social licence to operate', meaning the mandate from the community for the function the corporation performs. This term is being used by the top Australian Stock Exchange companies in their sustainability reporting in relation to their corporate social responsibility. If the implied accusations in the ABC RN programme are well-founded then we can characterise the actions of the pharmaceutical companies involved as deceptive in that they have acted to convince the international public of the existence of a threat requiring commercial action by them which is in fact not a threat. They have conspired to divert public money from useful social purpose to one that provides no public benefit. Their action has also consumed resources for no good social end. The profit of this wasteful action has been sequestered by the minority of the pharmaceutical company's shareholders, almost certainly a privileged group. Is this the social licence the international community has granted. Certainly not. While it is not explicitly discussed in the community, it seems to me that we would agree that a pharmaceutical company has the responsibility to attract (quite large amounts of) capital to conduct research that leads to treatments for the worst diseases we suffer, to do so in a way that maximises the public good. What does that mean? I think it means finding treatments for the worst diseases at the lowest cost to the community and distributing them as equitably as possible within it. This may not lead to the highest profit.

The behaviour of the pharmaceutical companies are accused of seems to me to be of the worst kind of individualism and exploitation. It is not the nature of community formation that is encouraged in Judeo-Christian scripture, in its most elemental form in the command to love one's neighbour. It directly contravenes the charges of the ancient prophets, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Micah and Zephaniah to seek the welfare of minorities and to protect the weak and oppressed. People question me on what role the Church can possibly have in business. I think it is pretty clear from this example that the Church indeed has a role, as a representative of a significant sector of the community, to voice its concerns over the action of business in the community and its governance by the elected authorities. The Church also has a view that is informed by revelation, its teaching and tradition that is as effective and meaningful today as it was in the time of the prophets.

(ABC Radio National is Australia's government sponsored radio broadcaster. The Rear Vision programme may be downloaded from: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/)

In Praise of Daughters

The June 2010 edition of The Monthly magazine has a disturbing article on the prevalence of gendercide (sic), the active killing of girl babies, around the world. It suggests that the rate of male/female births cannot exceed about 1.09 naturally (that is, 109 boy babies born for every 100 girls). In Australia we enjoy a ration of about 1.06. In a way I feel comforted by that data, that we here in this advanced society are not discriminating like those others such as the developing world and China which were singled out in the article for particular attention.

Then I read that in some communities in India one of the reasons for preferring a son in the family is that only sons can light one's funeral pyre and thus allow ascent into heaven. Such a scheme seems to me, having only daughters, to be unfair. Broad gender discrimination is tied directly in this social scheme, to gender discrimination in religious practice. Discrimination which systematically arrives at gendercide!

But can we be so smug? Where it disallows women to take on the role of bishops, our Church is also discriminating. Of course, we do not expect its consequences to be so dire as gendercide, but consequences there must surely be. Refusal of the appointment of women to this most senior role in our Church, or the administration of the Eucharist, or prevention of women's participation in any other normal leadership role in the community says much to them of how they are valued? Julia Gillard's acceptance by Australian society as its Prime Minister will be an important test of our social maturity. Can the Church afford not to take notice?

A socially-contextual reading of Christ's ministry shows he was insistent always on radical inclusion of the socially marginalised (and I would count women as socially marginalised in the Australian Church) even at the risk of his own social well-being. For instance, Jesus refused to condemn a woman accused on strictly male-dominated grounds of adultery (John 8:3-11) and even let one prepare him for burial, and ascent to heaven (John 12:6). Even Paul, caricatured so often as an unbending misogynist, claims Christ has done away with the old categories (Galatians 3:26-29).

So, while having a son may be good to light your funeral pyre, it seems to me that a loved and honoured daughter can also do much to aid the final ascent.