What do we do when justice fails?

The 2006 St Andrews Agreement has always been something of a tentative conclusion to the problems in Northern Ireland. Voting remains as polarised as ever - Protestants still overwhelmingly vote Unionist; Catholics still predominantly vote Republican - with the Ulster Unionists and SDLP continuing to play second fiddle to those parties once deemed (perhaps unfairly) more "radical" but certainly more virulently disposed to the aims and desires of their respective communities. The DUP, over the last 30 years, stood on a platform of being more Unionist than the Ulster Unionists and more robust in their rejection of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) to great effect. Likewise, Sinn Fein have positioned themselves as greener than the SDLP. That the DUP and Sinn Fein are the majority parties within their respective communities speaks to the nature of voting cleavages in the region and the primary concerns of both the Protestant and Catholic communities.

Given all that, what are we to make of the recent revelations that secret backdoor deals, including immunity, had been given to terror suspects? Unsurprisingly, such revelations are now threatening to tear apart the already fragile St Andrews Agreement. Peter Robinson, First Minister of Northern Ireland, is threatening to resign unless there is a full judicial review into what went on. David Trimble, former Ulster Unionist leader who was central in the formation of the GFA, has stated he was unaware of such deals and reiterated that no such provision was made in the GFA to grant immunity to terror suspects. In particular, the St Andrews Agreement marked the desire of Sinn Fein to submit to the rule of law and specifically the authority of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). The recent revelations of backdoor deals rather undermines the very agreement that led to power sharing in the first instance.

Sadly, this was all rather too predictable (indeed, I commented to that effect as an undergraduate student just prior to the signing of the St. Andrews Agreement). The central flaws in the power sharing arrangement were threefold: (1) The Arend Lijphart consociationalist model for Power Sharing giving the minority side a veto on any "petition of concern"; (2) As Col. Tim Collins argues, "the Good Friday Agreement was in fact a “peace at any price” deal where a militarily defeated IRA and the chaotic so-called loyalist paramilitaries were given the working-class populations of their respective communities as a blood dowry, to do with as they pleased in exchange for keeping the violence off the TV screens. The knee-cappings and beatings carried on out of sight. Only once – the brutal murder of Robert McCartney in 2005 – did the mask slip, but this was quickly covered up." St Andrews never dealt with this underlying and ongoing issue; (3) The DUP rampant rejection of the GFA was based on several factors, but one central issue was early prisoner releases. St Andrews never addressed this issue and these recent revelations were bound to reopen this old wound.

What hope of justice exists for the families of the victims of those who have been given immunity? Sadly, at the present time, not much. Unless a judicial review determines the letters granting immunity to be void (and one finds it difficult to see how they could do) terror suspects of historic crimes will remain immune. All the while, I think Tim Collins is right to feel aggrieved that "the Hyde Park murders, we are told by [Peter] Hain and others, are so far back in time that it is an outrage that anyone should be held to account. Yet he would be the first to bay for the prosecution of any soldier even vaguely associated with the event of Bloody Sunday, 10 years earlier in 1972". In the end, justice at the present time seems unlikely to be forthcoming. Expensive enquiries into the historic actions of state service men and women continue whilst equal energy is put into covering up the historic actions of terror suspects (on both sides). 

Nevertheless, none of us will escape the justice of the Lord. Whether British service men and women, Loyalist or Republican terrorist, the Lord sees all and knows what each has done. He will hold to account. For the Christian, though we may often feel like David in Psalm 73, we know that "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgement (Heb 9:27)". Likewise, "it is time for judgement to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? (1 Pet 4:17)"

"Whole-lifers", inhumane treatment and basic human dignity

A recent story, carried by various media outlets, reported whole-life jail terms without review have been deemed a breach of human rights by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Unsurprisingly, outrage has not been hard to come by. In a guest post on the Archbishop Cranmer blog, Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen seems miffed. Similarly, the BBC reports several UK government ministers are not best pleased. The usual scroll down the Guardian comments section will lead you to several other unhappy customers.

I want to limit myself to the following brief points:

1. The ECHR have not ruled that it is inhumane to imprison somebody for the rest of their natural life. They have merely stated that all prisoners should have a right to review with the possibility of release. It does not follow that, upon review, prisoners will be released necessarily.
2. The outpouring of anger in response the newspaper headlines seems to rest on the idea that heinous, inhumane crimes revoke one's right to humane treatment. "Whole-lifers" had such scant regard for the lives of those they attacked that their human rights should be treated with equal disdain, they aver.
3. Whilst there may be some debate over the nature of human rights and that which constitutes basic human dignity, scripture is clear that all humans are of inherent worth and value, worthy of respect and require a certain level of dignity by virtue of being made in the image of God
4. Scripture nowhere reasons that sin warrants the removal of basic human dignity, inherent by being God's image bearers (see here for a more full defence of this view). 
5. Therefore, even the most heinous crimes do not legitimise inhumane treatment. One may wish to argue against the notion that whole-life sentences without review are inhumane - that is certainly a legitimate debate to be had. Equally, there is legitimate debate to be had over what constitutes inhumanity. However, if our argument rests on the idea that inhumane crimes warrant inhumane treatment we may struggle to find biblical warrant for that view.
6. Equally, how would we determine which crimes are so heinous they warrant removal of basic human dignity and those which, although sinful and clearly viewed seriously by God, do not warrant such treatment? How far would we be able to move away from self-justification and existential arguments of sins most people commit and those particularly horrendous one's that are only categorised as such because we don't tend to do them?

Media silence lifted now Gosnell found guilty of murder

Now that Dr Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty of murder, the media silence surrounding this case has been lifted and the story is beginning to make headlines. Cranmer comments that this case once again raises serious questions about when life actually begins, noting that Pennsylvania and the UK are exceptional. He states "not everywhere has a 24-week limit... Across Europe, the upper limits are: France 12, Germany 12, Italy 12, Belgium 12, Bulgaria 12, Denmark 12, Czech Republic 12, Greece 12, Hungary 12, Luxembourg 12, the Netherlands 13, Poland 12, Slovakia 12 and Sweden, the most ‘liberal’, 18."

Cranmer is quite right to raise these issues. He is equally correct in highlighting the moral inconsistency, pointed out by former Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, that asserts "the pregnant woman who smokes or drinks heavily is widely regarded as guilty of infringing the rights of her unborn child; yet at the same time, with no apparent sense of incongruity, there is discussion of the possibility of the liberty of the pregnant woman herself to perform the actions that will terminate a pregnancy." Indeed, he is most likely correct that "the nation cries out for a latter-day Shaftsbury or Wilberforce in Parliament who will bang on about this barbarism ad nauseam, day after day, week after week, until something is done about it."

I was struck by one particular comment in the Guardian. Having stated that both sides of the abortion debate "endorsed the verdict", the paper offered statements from a pro-life organisation and a pro-choice group. Unsurprisingly, the pro-life spokesman endorsed the verdict and claimed the result "helped more people realize what abortion is really about" and went on to state that he hoped this would lead to further legislation reducing the number of terminations. So far, so expected.

However, the paper claimed "supporters of legalized abortion said the case foreshadows what poor, desperate young women could face if abortion is driven underground with more restrictive laws". Whilst that comment may be unsurprising, the argument is woeful. Specifically, the argument fails because this did happen without "restrictive laws". Indeed, this happened in a place with higher legal limits and more relaxed attitudes to abortion than much of Europe, and did so without driving anybody underground but to a known, community abortion clinic. This is not foreshadowing what could happen under tighter legislation but is the reality of what has happened under current legislation. Indeed, such was the work of Dr Gosnell that even the comparatively "liberal" Pennsylvanian abortion laws were flouted.

More interesting still, president of Naral pro-choice America  - Ilyse G Hogue - stated "Kermit Gosnell has been found guilty and will get what he deserves. Now, let's make sure these women are vindicated by delivering what all women deserve: access to the full range of health services including safe, high-quality and legal abortion care". This doesn't sound like somebody who has "endorsed the verdict". Indeed, her inference appears to be that Gosnell's main crime - though, nevertheless, still a hideous one - was the poor care for the women at his clinic. However, the verdict found him guilty of the first-degree murder of three children and was not primarily a result of his lack of care for the women in his clinic. Whilst Gosnell's lack of care for the women at his clinic was heinous indeed, it is not the primary atrocity. Ilyse Hogue passes no comment on the verdict of murder and sees vindication for these women as allowing further such abhorrent practices to occur, so long as it happens in a clean and safe environment.

Kermit Gosnell has now been found guilty of three charges of first-degree murder, infanticide, racketeering and more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania's abortion laws by performing third-term abortions or failing to counsel women 24 hours in advance. He showed no regard for the life of the children he terminated, the women who came to his clinic, the employees working for him nor the authorities to whom he was subject. 

Whatever side of the abortion debate one falls, these particular crimes cannot be seen as anything other than horrific. Nor can they be couched in terms of what happens under restrictive legislation. Indeed, these crimes occurred in violation of existing legislation that, in comparison to much of Europe, is "liberal". It may be a sign of what happens when legislation is poorly implemented, it may be what happens when legislation is not enforced or it may be what happens when legislation is too permissive. To be sure, there are many possible reasons and opposing sides of the debate are likely to cling to those that reinforce their predispositions. However, what this case most certainly does not show is this is what happens when restrictive laws are enforced.