Awake!, January 8, 1972

Download: PDF — Awake!, January 8, 1972

Awake! — January 8, 1972

Source: jw.org

Contents

Can Laughter Benefit Your Health?

Fathers and Children

What Is Happening to the Prisons?

Do Prisons Accomplish Their Goals?

What Solutions Do They Offer?

What Is the Answer?

The Giant of Kodiak Island

To Drink or Not

School on Safari

How Can You Get Better Use from Your Clothes?

Who Pays for It?

From Joppa to Caesarea

Watching the World

A People Without Racial or National Boundaries

A Peaceful and Unpolluted Earth Will Soon Be a Reality

Can Laughter Benefit Your Health?

DO YOU find that the daily pressures of life cause you to become tense and make it difficult for you to relax? Does that at times contribute to a feeling of tiredness and depression? If so, laughter may be an excellent medicine for you. It tends to relax a person, thereby lessening tension and lifting his spirits.

The emotions are known to have a pronounced effect upon the body. Anger and rage, for example, can contribute to or even cause such ailments as asthma, skin diseases, ulcers and digestive troubles.

On the other hand, the relaxed and jovial frame of mind associated with laughter can shield one from the bad effects of harmful emotions. True, even persons given to rage and morbid fears may laugh at times, but their laughter does not bring lasting relief to them. The real benefits come to persons who maintain a cheerful disposition despite adversity.

There are those who believe that the very action of laughing in itself is beneficial to the body. The abdomen having no hollow spaces, the up-and-down movement of the diaphragm in laughter is said to affect the internal organs much like wholesome exercise. As a result they would function better, circulation would be improved and wastes would be discharged more readily from the body. Hence laughter can contribute toward helping the body to ward off disease.

The heart is one of the vital organs thought to benefit from the massage it gets from laughter. This would mean that laughter can assist the heart to accomplish its amazing task of pumping blood through about 100,000 miles of blood vessels, thereby bringing nourishment and oxygen to the cells. It is significant that laughter has been noted to affect blood pressure. According to one study, hearty laughter was found to lower high blood pressure or increase low blood pressure by ten or more points.

The largest and most important gland in the body, the liver, is likewise believed to benefit from hearty laughter. In young people the liver is kept in good shape by exercise in the form of running, jumping and throwing. As a person gets older, hearty laughter can be an aid in this regard.

Considering the many vital functions the liver performs, we can appreciate how valuable laughter may be for us. The liver removes certain wastes and poisons from the blood. It transforms some sugar from the blood into glycogen. The glycogen is then stored in the liver and released as sugar at such time as it is needed in the blood. The liver also stores vitamins and minerals, and both makes and stores such blood proteins as albumin, globulin and fibrinogen. Another substance manufactured by the liver is bile. This fluid aids in the digestive process.

The fact that laughter has been found to improve digestion evidently indicates that it increases the flow of bile. Then, too, most of the digestive process takes place in the small intestine. Thus the small intestine also apparently benefits from the massaging it gets through laughter.

Yet another benefit: Massaging of the large intestine through laughter is said to aid the large intestine to rid the body of fecal material.

A Balanced View

Though beneficial, laughter, as wise King Solomon stated, has its “time.” (Eccl. 3:1, 4) Even good things, when indulged in to excess, can be detrimental. Laughter is no exception. Observes the Illustrated Medical and Health Encyclopedia (page 1345): “Laughter is, then, like every other function of the body, a mechanism that should be used enough but never too much. Overexercise or overuse of any function of the human body is not conducive to its best development.”

Excessive laughter can at times lead to vomiting. Especially in the case of children, too much laughter can cause the sphincter muscles of the bladder and the rectum to relax suddenly, with embarrassing results. Some doctors even believe that laughing is dangerous for those suffering from heart or upper respiratory afflictions.

Of course, such adverse physical effects from laughter are relatively rare. There is a more vital reason for controlling laughter. For one thing, laughter should be controlled when it is wholly inappropriate to the occasion. Thoughtless laughter can grate on the ears of others. Rather than proving to be a source of encouragement, such laughter tends to discourage others. The Bible compares it to the noisy crackling of thorns under a pot.—Eccl. 7:6.

There are times when we must take a sober view of our life. If we note that we are wasting too much time in frivolous laughter and not making a good name by doing fine works, we have reason to be vexed with ourselves, to be sorry for our course of action and change. This will make our heart better, as was recognized by wise King Solomon.—Eccl. 7:3.

To be a source of encouragement we should strive to have intense feeling for others, rejoicing or mourning at the appropriate time and occasion. Unselfishly we would want to rejoice when good comes to others and they are bubbling over with joy. At the same time we should be alert to opportunities to comfort those who have experienced adversity. How inappropriate it would be to forget them and carry on in a lighthearted way!

Laugh when it is fitting to do so. But, even more importantly, cultivate a pleasant and joyful disposition. This, rather than mere laughter for laughter’s sake, will make you a source of encouragement to others and will benefit you mentally, physically and emotionally.

Fathers and Children

● One of the most beneficial things that a father can do for his children is to show deep love for their mother.

What Is Happening to the Prisons?

THROUGHOUT history it has been the recognized right of societies to punish crime. Today, the way nearly all countries deal with persons who commit serious crimes is to confine them to prisons. Some stay there for the rest of their lives.

How many people see the inside of a prison in this way each year? In the United States alone about 2,500,000 do. On any given day, some 1,250,000 are awaiting trial or are serving sentences in prisons, reformatories, work camps and clinics, or are under parole or probationary care. They are cared for by about 120,000 persons. At what cost to the taxpayer? About one thousand million dollars annually.

In recent years, prisons in many lands have been brought to the public’s attention by large-scale rioting and bloodshed. This is particularly true in the United States, where prisons face a crisis. In September of 1971 that crisis exploded in the bloodiest prison clash of this century.

The scene was the Attica State Correctional Facility in New York, where 1,200 rebelling inmates held captive 38 guards and employees. After four days, more than 1,000 state troopers and national guardsmen stormed the prison. The shooting that followed left this final toll: 32 prisoners and 10 hostage guards and employees killed, over 200 inmates injured. Nine of the hostages were killed unintentionally by the bullets of the invading law officers.

Since prisons in many places are in trouble, it is timely to ask the following questions: How did modern prisons originate? Are they accomplishing what they were designed to do? Does prison life help to reform criminals? What about the victims of crimes—who compensates them? Is there a better way to handle crimes against society? Will there ever be a time when prisons will no longer be needed?

How Did They Originate?

It may surprise you to know that prisons, as they exist today, are of relatively recent origin. In ancient times there were very few prisons. Before the 1700’s people were not usually imprisoned as a punishment for crime. It was only the special offender that was punished in a prison, perhaps by being shackled there, or forced to work at hard labor in confinement, or brutalized in other ways while in custody.

In earlier times, prisons generally were merely places of detention to house people who had been accused of a crime but who had not yet been tried. After their trial, they were sentenced to a punishment if found guilty. But, with few exceptions, that punishment was not a prison sentence. They were either executed, usually by beheading or hanging, or they were given corporal punishment, that is, physical punishment, which could include flogging, branding or maiming, and then they were set free.

Some criminals were punished by being put in stocks, which consisted of a wooden framework with holes for the ankles and sometimes the wrists. In this way, seated, the guilty party would be exposed to public ridicule for a period of time, and then released. The pillory was similar, being a wooden framework erected on a post, with holes for the head and hands of the offender, who would be in a standing position. It, too, was used to expose him to public ridicule for a brief period, after which he was released. At times criminals were sentenced to be slaves, often in galleys. These were ships that were propelled by banks of oars. The offender, usually chained, would have to serve a period at the oar.

In the United States and England during the early 1700’s, capital punishment (the death penalty) was used for over two hundred separate offenses. For lesser crimes the offenders were given corporal punishment, such as flogging, mutilation or being put in stocks. But they were then released. Very few served what is today known as a jail sentence.

In ancient Israel, the law given by God through Moses had no provision at all for prisons. The only time persons were detained temporarily was when a case was particularly difficult and had to await clarification. (Lev. 24:12; Num. 15:34) But no one ever served a jail sentence in the early history of ancient Israel.

These early methods of handling criminals meant that very little public money was spent on offenders. There were few jails or guards to maintain.

Concept of Punishment Changes

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, reform movements began to change the method of treating law violators. These reforms gradually did away with the death penalty for many crimes. In recent years, many countries have abandoned the death penalty altogether. Also, physical punishment was gradually done away with. Instead, prison sentences became substitutes for the death penalty and corporal punishment.

This meant that prisons would now have to hold many people, some for long periods of time. Thus, large numbers of prisons had to be constructed to hold these offenders. Some prisons built in the United States were called “penitentiaries,” because it was thought that in them the criminal would be penitent. It was hoped that he would take time to meditate on his crime and be sorry, so that he would not want to commit another crime after being released.

However, these early prisons were often chambers of horror. At first, both the convicted and those awaiting trial (including the innocent), men and women, old and young, well and sick, first offenders and hardened criminals, were thrown together. The prisons were usually vermin infested, filthy and overcrowded. They quickly became centers of physical and moral degradation. Of a typical prison in England, The Gentleman’s Magazine of 1759 said:

“It is become a seminary of wickedness in all its branches. The idle apprentice, as soon as he is committed to the house of correction, becomes the associate of highwaymen, housebreakers, pickpockets and strolling prostitutes, the witness of the most horrid impiety and the most abandoned lewdness, and generally leaves whatever good quality he brought in, together with his health, behind him.”

In 1834, an official traveled to Norfolk Island, a penal colony located some nine hundred miles northeast of Sydney, Australia. He was sent there to console some men who were about to be executed. Of his experience he wrote:

“It is a remarkable fact that as I mentioned the names of the men who were to die, they one after the other, as their names were pronounced, dropped on their knees and thanked God that they were to be delivered from that horrible place [by being executed] while the others, those to be reprieved [not executed], stood mute and weeping. It was the most horrible scene I ever witnessed.”

As late as this twentieth century, prison conditions were often abominable even in the United States. After one prison inspection in the early 1920’s, an official was so horrified at the treatment of prisoners that he declared: “We were dealing with atrocities.”

So instead of places of detention before trial, for most of the last several centuries prisons increasingly became places of punishment. The confinement, the conditions, the attitudes toward prisoners, were all a terrible ordeal. But most persons seemed to accept this as the better way to deter others from committing crimes, and also of deterring the one who had served a sentence from committing additional crimes. It was thought that he would surely not want to undergo that ordeal again. But little or no attempt was made to reform offenders so as to make them more useful members of society.

So at this stage of handling lawbreakers, prisons were considered a regrettable but necessary evil. When other persons decried the hardships suffered by prisoners, a frequent comment heard in reply was: “They should have taken care to keep out.”

Yet, under this concept, did prisons prove to be a better deterrent to crime? Were they superior to the previous methods of capital and corporal punishment?

[Picture on page 5]

400,000 average—behind bars daily

Each prisoner costs $2,500 yearly

[Picture on page 6]

Pillory (left); stocks (right)

Do Prisons Accomplish Their Goals?

NO, THE concept of prison as a punishment to prevent people from committing crimes did not really work. In fact, crime increased.

Nor were those who had served prison sentences benefited. Usually, prison had a negative effect. This was ironic, for society jailed the offender because he was bad for that society, but because of the pitiful prison environment the offender was usually made worse. Then he was released back on society, often to end up in jail again for a longer term!

In more recent times, the basic idea of prisons underwent another considerable change. The new idea promoted by sincere reformers was to make the rehabilitation, the reform of prisoners, a major goal in prison life. The confinement was considered enough of a punishment in itself. No physical mistreatment was to be inflicted upon a prisoner as had often been the case previously.

James Bennett, former director of federal prisons in the United States for twenty-seven years, said concerning the abandoning of physical punishment in this new concept: “The officers in the federal system are strictly forbidden to use anything resembling direct action or anything that could be construed as corporal punishment, however. They do not, partly because this is undesirable and also because it is less effective than removal of privileges, a job change, or canceling treasured visits.”

Uncooperative prisoners could also lose ‘good-conduct credits,’ which would have made them eligible for parole sooner, resulting in a longer stay in prison. Fear of this loss was thought to be an inducement to good behavior.

But aside from abandoning brutality, and improving living conditions, upon what was rehabilitation to be based? Supposedly it was teaching a prisoner to turn from his wayward course by proper education. That would include training him in new work skills so that upon release he would be a more useful member of society.

Is this what has actually taken place? Are modern prisons realizing these goals?

Prison Conditions

There can be no doubt that prison conditions generally are much improved over the horrors of a century or two ago. Yet, are the conditions such that they have a good effect on people, improving their mental outlook?

Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts stated that ‘prison conditions are almost universally deplorable and have a dehumanizing effect.’ Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee stated: “The U.S. system of corrections is a total national disgrace.”

Federal authorities who toured a West Virginia state penitentiary called it “a complete disaster,” and “a custodial nightmare.” Violence was largely uncontrolled. Drugs and alcohol were prevalent. A prosecuting attorney said of the prison: “It is absolutely senseless to send a man into that prison, because he’s going to come out worse.”

The San Francisco Chronicle reported the case of one of Jehovah’s witnesses who was in prison because of his conscientious objection to war. One day this peace-loving man observed a disturbance in another cell. Later, the guards came and beat the prisoners, including the Witness! The newspaper said: “They choked and hit him on the throat and then took him to the end of the corridor, where ‘the brutal and inhuman beatings being visited upon the other prisoners was such that he could not stand to watch’ and he turned his head away.” He charged that a guard also struck him in the eye and temple with a club. He was then thrown into solitary confinement and kept without medical care. Yet he was not even involved in the original disturbance.

Also, because of the unavailability of members of the opposite sex, homosexuality is rampant in men’s prisons, as is lesbianism in women’s prisons. Mass homosexual rapes are common. In the book I Chose Prison, a former federal prison official says of this matter: “No one has come up with an answer to the problem.”

In Canada, the Windsor Star reports that after an investigation into the problem twenty-three judges were “appalled” at what they found. The paper stated: “Former inmates have reported to official commissions that it is almost impossible for a young man to escape sexual assault for any length of time in most jails across the country. ‘It happens all the time,’ says John Tennant, who has spent 13 years behind bars. ‘I’ve seen young guys attacked by three or four inmates night after night.’”

For women, prison life can also be demoralizing. The limiting of movement, the petty details of prison life, the strict regulating of schedule, the infrequent contact with loved ones, the threat of sexual immorality, all are extremely depressing.

Krishna Nehru Hutheesing, the sister of India’s former prime minister, said of her stay in an Indian prison on political charges some years ago: “I found the lack of human touch, the insolent way we were talked to and the oppressive atmosphere of the place, at times became unbearable.” She spoke of a life “full of menace, violence, meanness and graft and there was always cursing on one side and cringing on the other. A person who was at all sensitive was in a state of continuous tension with their nerves on edge.”

Regarding children sent to detention centers by family courts, the New York Times of July 27, 1971, reported: “At the detention center he is incarcerated with children who have committed homicides, robberies, assaults and other crimes. Homosexuality is prevalent. In the attempt to resolve one problem, the court has placed him in a situation which can only lead to more problems.”

What About Reform?

Clearly none of these conditions is conducive to reforming a person. But what about rehabilitation programs, such as acquiring new work skills? Can they counteract those other negative influences?

The consensus even among prison officials is, No. They candidly admit that few useful skills are learned, that the work is dull and monotonous, and that there is really no sound program for improving the mental condition of the prisoner, which is the key to reform.

The New York Post of September 18, 1971, quoted Chief Justice Burger of the U.S. Supreme Court as saying: “Few prisons today have even a minimal education or vocational training program to condition the prisoner for his return to society as a useful self-supporting human being.”

England’s Guardian Weekly carried a letter from a prisoner who had been released recently after a prison term there. He said: “It was unhealthily overcrowded and the sanitation facilities so short that ‘filth’ in the worst possible sense is the only word to describe it. . . . A prison sentence may be a humiliation, a degradation, and a slur to one’s pride and character . . . What it is not in any way, shape, or form is a reformative period for the criminal or a preventive against further crime.”

That assessment is backed up by evidence on all sides. Modern prisons are not deterring crime, as it is ‘exploding’ in nearly every country on earth. And prisons are not doing what reformers had expected, they are not rehabilitating criminals for more useful lives after returning to society. As U.S. News & World Report of September 27, 1971, said: “Failure of prisons to reform criminals is evidenced by statistics showing that about 80 per cent of all felonies [serious crimes] are committed by ‘repeaters.’”

[Blurb on page 9]

A former prisoner in England says: ‘A prison sentence is not in any way, shape, or form a reformative period or a preventive against further crime.”

A news magazine says: “About 80 per cent of all felonies are committed by ‘repeaters.’”

[Picture on page 8]

Children sent to detention centers are often placed in a situation that can only lead to more problems

What Solutions Do They Offer?

SINCE prisons generally are not reforming offenders, and they certainly are not deterring the spread of crime, what now? What should be done with people who commit crimes?

The answers coming from officials, police and the common man are conflicting. There is no consistent pattern. Authorities themselves contradict one another.

Harsher, or More Lenient?

One school of thought is to stop “coddling” prisoners. Those holding this view say that the punishment should be much worse, the jail sentences more severe.

The London Times notes that Britain’s Police Review says that “the time has come to hang, flog, starve, or do a variety of things to certain criminals to make them suffer.” It says that people are “getting fed up” with the leniency shown to criminals.

Even some prisoners agree to the use of physical punishment—provided it means shortening the sentences. One who had been in Alcatraz said to a prison official: “There are three reasons why men are sent to prison. For punishment, for rehabilitation, and to protect the public. Sometimes, I think the last two are lost sight of in giving sentences. If a man spends three, or five, or ten years away from his family and friends, under fair but repressive treatment, shut up inside a cell, deprived of all the graces of normal living, and forced to follow a monotonous routine, isn’t that too much?”

What does he recommend? This prisoner said: “I think most prisoners would say no to prison reform—they’d say, ‘Go on, make the prisons tough, make them really rough, even brutal, but make the sentence short and get it over with.’ Nobody would think of whipping a man, day after day, month after month, for the same offense. But years of imprisonment are worse.”

Yet, there are others who say just the opposite. They say that prison life is already too brutal. They would like more tax money put into prisons to make them places where prisoners could live decently and be given productive, stimulating work to do. They want to make the lot of the prisoner easier, happier.

Obviously, there is no agreement on the matter. But one thing should not escape our notice. In recent centuries just about everything related to prisons has been tried. What some recommend now as to more brutality or less brutality, longer sentences or shorter sentences, reforms or no reforms—have been tried before. And they have generally failed. Does it seem reasonable to go back and try past failures again?

Prisons Themselves Questioned

That is why some authorities are now beginning to question the entire concept of prisons. They wonder whether the overwhelming majority of persons in them should even be there.

The book The Ethics of Punishment says: “After more than 150 years of prison reform, the outstanding feature of the present movement is its scepticism concerning imprisonment altogether and its search for new and more adequate methods of treatment outside prison walls.”

Former federal prison head James Bennett said of prison life: “It takes men from their families and friends for extremely long periods. It imposes a lifelong stigma. It confines them to a few dreary acres and enforces a monotonous clockwork of hours. It clothes them in cheap uniforms from which individuality has been expunged. It destroys their privacy and clusters them with fellows they might loathe. It deprives them of normal sexual relationships and imposes a temptation toward homosexuality. A prison sentence at its worst amounts to a refined torture much harsher than corporal punishment.”

Others agree. A lawyer who was at a meeting of prison administrators writes this about their views:

“Each man headed a major prison institution; all were veterans in the business; none were ‘bleeding hearts,’ ‘soft’ on crime or naive about criminals.

“I asked the warden sitting next to me what percentage of the people under his supervision needed to be in prison. ‘By what standards?’ he asked. ‘In order to protect society from personal injury,’ I replied. ‘About 10 to 15 percent,’ he said. We canvassed the other wardens in the room; none disagreed.

“Since then, on visits to numerous prisons around the country and abroad, I have always asked the same question. I have never received a different answer.”

Ramsey Clark, former attorney general of the United States, has much the same viewpoint. He emphasizes “a philosophy of avoiding detention wherever possible through prevention efforts, community treatment and probation supervision.”

Hence, after years of trial and failure, the conclusion now being reached by more and more officials is that prisons are neither deterring crime nor reforming offenders. They are simply not doing the job anticipated, and something else is needed. But as to what the standard should be for arranging a substitute, there is no agreement. Instead, there is an anarchy of ideas.

More Involved

One should not be quick, however, to jump to the conclusion that the failure of prisons generally is the basic cause of the exploding crime situation. This is not the case, although the failure of prison does make a bad situation worse.

What is involved is far more fundamental. There is a basic sickness that pervades mankind in general. The bulging prison population merely reflects this sickness of society.

For a long time, especially since World War I, nations have been saturated with negative influences. There have been mass violence and destruction in warfare, racial prejudice, growing slums, ghettos, poverty, and selfishness and hypocrisy on the highest levels of political, religious and economic life. Permissive teachings regarding morals have further eroded high principles and have encouraged criminal tendencies.

You reap what you sow, aptly says the Bible. With such negative influences bombarding minds for more than half a century now, it should really come as no surprise that a gigantic crop of lawbreakers is being reaped.

Also, a report issued by the U.S. Department of Justice notes “that 75% of all persons arrested for robbery were under the age of 25.” It shows that, of those, “33% were juveniles.” Therefore, many young persons commit crimes before ever having seen the inside of a prison. So prison life cannot be blamed for most of the crime increase. The defects in society are spawning it.

Nor is it just a few people involved in crime and supporting crime. The responsibility lies on a large part of the population. Former presidential consultant on organized crime, Ralph Salerno, addressing a Canadian audience said:

“The people who bet and cater to the offer of goods and services from syndicate criminal figures are the same people who tell your pollsters and mine that they want law and order and justice.

“[Do you] want to stop Organized Crime tomorrow morning at 8:00? You get every Canadian and I’ll get every American to stop supporting their illegal activities and Organized Crime goes out of business. You don’t need policemen. You need honest citizens. You need to attack hypocrisy.”

Thus, reform efforts inside prisons fail for the very same reason criminals are spawned outside of prison: the world’s teachings, attitudes and actions work against creating healthy minds. It cannot realistically be expected that prison reforms will work, or crime will diminish, in view of the mental diet people are now getting. What is the answer? What can be done in regard to prisons themselves? Will anything ever be done about the conditions that breed lawbreakers?

[Blurb on page 10]

SOME MAIN CAUSES OF CRIME

Mass violence in warfare, racial prejudice, slums and ghettos, poverty, political and religious hypocrisy and permissive teachings.

[Picture on page 11]

Former federal prison head says: “A prison sentence at its worst amounts to a refined torture much harsher than corporal punishment”

What Is the Answer?

PRISON population continues to grow. So does crime. How obvious it is that something else must be done. But what?

There are several things to consider. One is what is within the scope of humans. Another is what is outside their power, but will be done without fail.

What are some of the things people and governments could change if they would be so inclined?

Uniform Justice Needed

One thing they could change is the lack of uniformity that now exists. The penalty for an offense in one place is not always the same as in another. That discourages respect for law and embitters offenders.

For instance, a rapist in Connecticut is said to serve an average of one year and nine months’ imprisonment. But just across the state line in New York the average term is said to be four years and two months. A killer in Texas serves about two years and nine months on the average. But in Ohio, the same kind of offender generally serves fifteen years and two months.

One man, aged thirty-two, unemployed and with a wife who had just suffered a miscarriage, forged a check for $58.40. He had no previous police record and was an honorably discharged war veteran. The judge sentenced him to fifteen years in prison. In the same year, another thirty-two-year-old man, also unemployed, forged a check for $35.20. However, he had been in jail twice before, once for six months for failure to support his wife and child. Yet, the judge who handled this case sentenced him to only thirty days. The man with the better record received about 180 times as severe a punishment!

In Atlanta a middle-aged credit union treasurer was sentenced to only 117 days for embezzling $24,000. In prison he met another embezzler his own age, with no previous record and a good family life, who was serving twenty years’ imprisonment with five years of probation to follow. A stripteaser in Texas received a fifteen-year jail sentence for possessing marijuana. But three drug company scientists who pleaded guilty to falsifying data on drugs that hurt hundreds of people were given suspended six-month sentences.

Such cases illustrate the need for the law to be uniform, fair, with consideration given to the record of offenders. But that kind of fairness, that kind of uniform justice, is nowhere on the horizon from man’s point of view.

What About the Victims?

An element that is almost entirely missing from the treatment of criminals is consideration for their victims. A person can be crippled, robbed, defrauded, raped, and yet little is done to compensate the victim. Instead, the offender is given a prison sentence, and later the weight of sympathy seems to go to the criminal, with the innocent victim often forgotten.

What alternative is there to this unbalanced state of affairs? Washington, D.C., lawyer Ronald Goldfarb had this to offer:

“A full-blown victim-compensation program is a major alternative to imprisonment. Over 80 percent of crime relates to property, and punishing the offender does little to protect the victim or make him whole.

“In most cases, it seems to me that the one thing the victim of, say, a theft wants and society in general wants for its collective peace of mind is redress for the victim.

“If someone steals $100 from me, it does me very little good if the thief is sent away to prison for a year. I would rather have my $100 back, possibly a little more to pay for my trouble.”

How does he suggest that this be done if the criminal has no money? He says: “The criminal without money could serve his sentence on a public-works project to earn money to pay the cost of his crime. The extraordinary offender might be deprived of the right to work outside of prison on probational control, but even he should be required to work in prison to pay his victim.”

Could such a system work with some of those who are in prison now? It would seem so, since most are not what one would call ‘hard-core’ criminals. In fact, prison administrator Bennett observed:

“One of the misconceptions about prisons is that they are filled with sadistic murderers, desperate gunmen, romantic cracksmen, and cunning swindlers. In fact, the ‘big shots’ amount to no more than one in ten . . .

“The rest are what I call ‘eight-ball Willies,’ and the typical prisoner has never made more than fifty dollars out of a single crime. He is a young auto thief riding off in search of his El Dorado, or a fool who would risk ten years in prison to get ten dollars out of a drug store cash register.”

It is the opinion of a growing number of officials that many of these prisoners could have been left out of prison altogether without endangering society. In fact, some of these types of prisoners are already in an ‘open prison’ system that Sweden and a few other lands have experimented with. These institutions have no walls, no bars, no patrolling armed guards. Prisoners are on an honor system and report back to their rooms after work. For such kinds of prisoners, if work were tied to compensation for the victim, some authorities feel that most prisons could be practically emptied. They feel that only the hard-core criminal would need to be kept in jail.

Was there ever a time when an entire nation used a similar system of compensation made by the offender rather than imprisonment? Yes. Did it work? Yes. It was used on a national scale by ancient Israel.

How Israel’s Law Worked

The laws governing ancient Israel were given by God through Moses. Since God made man, he surely would know best how to deal with the full range of human activity, including the treatment of offenders.

As noted previously, God’s law through Moses made no provision for any prison sentences. It provided other specific penalties for crimes. Crimes against property, such as theft, destruction or fraud, were never handled by imprisoning the offender. Instead, the basic punishment was compensation to the victims.

For example, if a person stole a bull or a sheep, and was caught with the animal, he would have to compensate by giving the victim two bulls or two sheep. The penalty was double the amount of the theft or of damage done. If the thief had already slaughtered or sold the bull or sheep, then the compensation went up: for the bull he would have to pay back five bulls; for the sheep, four sheep. Stolen items other than livestock required double compensation.—Ex. 22:1-9.

But what if the offender could not make compensation for the theft? Then he would be sold into slavery and the price used as the compensation. He served his master until he had worked out his debt. As a slave, however, the law required him to be treated kindly as a hired laborer. Thus, the victim would be compensated, and so would the one who paid for the slave, since he would be getting work in return.—Ex. 22:3.

Today a person who assaults another is given either a jail sentence or a suspended sentence on probation. But his victim may miss weeks or months of work. Who pays the victim’s bills while he is incapacitated? Not the offender. In some places the victim may have no income of any kind and thus become a burden on the community.

But under the law that God gave ancient Israel the offender would have to compensate the victim for his time lost from work: “In case men should get into a quarrel and one does strike his fellow with a stone or a hoe and he does not die but must keep to his bed; . . . then the one who struck him . . . will make compensation only for the time lost from that one’s work until he gets him completely healed.”—Ex. 21:18, 19.

This is not to say that in today’s complex and bewildering state of affairs precisely the same methods could be used. But surely some method by which the offender compensated the victim would be superior to a prison sentence for the offender and no compensation for the victim, as is now the case.

What About Capital Punishment?

Today the trend is away from capital punishment, even for hardened murderers. The guilty are imprisoned instead.

Yet, after a few years in prison, some are released. Sometimes they kill again. President Pompidou of France recently noted an incident where prisoners in a French jail killed two hostages. He used the occasion to tell of a man who had killed his wife, served time in prison as a ‘model’ prisoner, was released, married the prison social worker—and killed her two years later.

Another killer boasted that he had murdered twenty-two people. He vowed that he would murder a prison guard to make it twenty-three. While in prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, he accomplished that threat. He killed a guard. Another innocent victim had died.

All too often, that is the pattern. Released murderers kill again. And all too often the innocent first victims, as well as the innocent later victims, are lost sight of in misplaced sympathy for the murderer.

What was God’s law to ancient Israel concerning such offenses? The convicted murderer would, without fail, be put to death. This served as both a punishment and a deterrent. And there was no ambiguity on the matter. One court would not decide one way, and another court some other way. The matter was handled uniformly all over the country because the same laws applied everywhere.—Ex. 12:49.

Thus, in ancient Israel there would never be the possibility that murderers would be released to kill other innocent persons. They, the guilty, being forewarned by the law concerning the preciousness of life in God’s sight, would pay the price.

Accidental manslayers were handled differently, although they still were not put in prisons. But because they had taken life, they were required to live for a specific period of time in areas set aside for that purpose. There they could carry on the normal pursuits of life, but could not leave, under penalty of death. So a restriction was imposed because they had taken life, but a merciful arrangement was allowed them because it had been unintentional.—Num. 35:6-32.

Also of great interest is how unreformable criminals were dealt with in Israel, even where their crimes would not have originally merited the death penalty. If persons deliberately refused to abide by the law, if they were beyond reform, they were put to death. In this way two things were accomplished. As Deuteronomy 17:12, 13 says: “You must clear out [by execution] what is bad from Israel. And all the people will hear and become afraid, and they will not act presumptuously anymore.” Yes, unrepentant criminals were ‘cleared out,’ executed. This served as a punishment, as a deterrent and also as a protection to the innocent who desired to live law-abiding lives.

So there were no prison sentences in ancient Israel. Costly prisons and the huge taxes needed to maintain them were unknown. And as long as the rulers and the people obeyed these laws, the nation prospered. But when they failed to respect and uphold those divine laws, then the nation began to degenerate into lawlessness. Eventually, the decline resulted in the destruction of the nation.

Permanent Reform

The key to real reform is education. Education in what? In the right standards of living, right morals, right attitudes. Who can guarantee that a certain pattern of education is right, the best one for people? Only the instruction that comes from God could possibly be so.

This is not to say that you should expect the arrangements for handling offenders in ancient Israel to be adopted by the nations today. None of them are submitting to rule by God. Therefore, it cannot be expected that they would employ God’s laws and principles to the full. However, the closer they get to doing so, the more just and humane will be their law enforcement and the more effective it will be in deterring crime.

At any rate, real reform, even in this corrupt system of things, is possible on an individual scale. Today, there are people who are definitely making the mental change that produces right thinking and conduct. How? By heeding the Bible’s counsel: “Quit being fashioned after this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”—Rom. 12:2.

Even former criminals have done this. They have been totally reformed by their study of God’s laws as recorded in his Word, the Bible. Adopting the superior way of life God recommends has led them to become law abiding, an asset to a community.

What would happen if masses of people would do this? Well, we do not have to wonder. It is not just a theoretical question. It is actually being done by masses of people today! Jehovah’s witnesses in 207 lands throughout the world, over 1,500,000 of them, have adopted God’s superior code of living. They can testify that it is effective, practical. And one evidence of this is the fact that as a society of people Jehovah’s witnesses find their ranks virtually crime free. It is one reason why hundreds of thousands of persons have associated with them in recent years and continue to do so.

But Jehovah’s witnesses face things realistically. They know that this system of things as a whole is beyond reform. So they do not at all expect to convert the world so that everyone adopts God’s code for human behavior. Indeed, God himself has decreed the end of this lawless system of things. The history of his dealings with men also contains this prophetic guarantee: “Evildoers themselves will be cut off, . . . The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”—Ps. 37:9, 29.

The time is soon to come when God will bring this system to an end. Then he will rip away all authority from human governments. (Dan. 2:44) Their conflicting law codes will thus disappear in one swift stroke.

After that, only God’s laws will govern people. Those laws will be fair, loving, uniform, based not only on the ideals of the law given to ancient Israel, but on the principles of Christianity as taught by Jesus. God’s superior standards will be enforced by a loving but firm and incorruptible government, God’s heavenly kingdom under Christ, the one for which Christians have been taught to pray.—Matt. 6:10.

In that new order every inhabitant will be taught God’s superior laws. Then it will be true as never before that “the earth will certainly be filled with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea.” (Isa. 11:9) With what result? The law-abiding inhabitants of the new order “will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.”—Ps. 37:11.

Will there be any prisons in that new order? No, instead we could expect that any offenses would be taken care of in a way similar to that in ancient Israel, without the use of prisons. Hence, those who put their trust in God’s promises and live by his laws right now will without fail see the time come when prisons will disappear from the face of the earth.

[Diagram on page 16]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

EXAMPLES UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW

CRIME COMPENSATION

STEALING ONE SHEEP TWO SHEEP

STEALING AND KILLING ONE BULL FIVE BULLS

STEALING BUT UNABLE TO WORKING TO PAY DOUBLE THE

MAKE COMPENSATION VALUE OF WHAT WAS STOLEN

MURDER DEATH PENALTY (USUALLY BY STONING)

UNREFORMABLE CRIMINAL DEATH PENALTY

[Picture on page 14]

What compensation does the victim get from the criminal?

The Giant of Kodiak Island

By “Awake!” correspondent in Alaska

WHEN Russian fur traders explored Kodiak Island in the 1760’s, they encountered a nine-foot-tall, shaggy monster with menacing teeth and huge paws. The startled men had seen brown bears in Siberia but none like this gigantic fellow! Traders dubbed him “Ivan the Terrible.” Today this giant bruin is called the Kodiak bear.

Suddenly to meet a papa bear standing over nine feet high and weighing more than 1,300 pounds could give one quite a terrifying impression. As for Mr. Kodiak Bear’s distinguishing features, these are his high, humped shoulders, which conceal a large mass of muscle above the shoulder blades. You might call him the “muscle man” of his domain.

Life on an Island Home

Papa bear may reach 1,500 pounds by the fall of the year, but mamma, considerably smaller, seldom weighs more than 650 pounds. However, you will be more impressed with their full-grown size when you learn that three newborn cubs, born in midwinter, are small enough to fit in a man’s cupped hands. How pathetic baby looks at birth—hairless, blind and weighing about one pound! It may seem difficult to imagine that he will grow up to the majestic stature of his parents.

After a couple of months come spring’s warming temperatures, and the cubs weigh from ten to fifteen pounds. All healthy growing children put on weight rapidly, so, by midsummer they weigh fifty pounds. When they are ready for their winter nap with mother next fall, they will weigh one hundred pounds. Baby brother keeps enlarging until he is “grown-up” at between eight and ten years of age. Baby sister is finished growing at six years.

While the older, mature bears often appear very dignified and solemn, the young are playful and mischievous. Their cuffing and wrestling can even entice mamma into the fun. In the spring, when snow remains at the higher elevations, bears have been observed sliding down snowbanks, often repeating the performance a number of times. Like all of God’s creatures, the sight of these wild animals at play is a delight to man.

Off the coast of southern Alaska is Kodiak Island, the sole home of this giant bear. It is largely mountainous, and steep slopes and dense tangled undergrowth make travel difficult for man. But for Mr. Bear it is a different matter. He ambles along faster than a man can walk, and steep and rocky slopes do not seem to slow him down either. Sometimes he is seen in areas that make us wonder if he is part mountain goat. When frightened, he will increase his speed to a running gallop that carries him over logs and through brush at a surprising rate. While he is often depicted standing on his hind legs, this is not done while walking any distance. But it is a common practice for him to stand nine feet tall when his curiosity is aroused or when he needs to identify an intruder in thick vegetation.

An island of natural rugged beauty is a suitable habitat for this magnificent animal. Preferring to be near the salt-laden breezes from the sea, this brown giant does not wander very far inland. In the summer the temperature seldom rises above 75° F. Thickets of alder, willow and cottonwood make fine resting-places for Mr. Kodiak Bear and his household. Though winter temperatures rarely drop below zero degrees F., not all is calm in this island home range. In the winter, howling gales work their fury out by sending towering waves against the rocky coastline. Fog and drizzling rain are common. How appropriate that the fur coat provided by the Creator is not only warm but also water repellent!

Fattening Up for a Good Sleep

Though a meat eater, the Kodiak bear enjoys vegetation. In fact, about 75 percent of his yearly diet is from grazing on vegetation and berries. To “balance” his diet he enjoys carrion, and, in the summer months, a plentiful supply of fresh salmon is available.

During midsummer, these giant bears congregate along the many salmon streams. If an observer watches closely, he will see that the popular artist’s conception of the big bear’s slapping a fish out of the water with his paw is seldom true. As he stands in the stream he pounces on a salmon with his forepaws. Occasionally, he will simply thrust his head underwater and snap at a fish with his teeth.

As in the case with humans, there are experienced fishermen and there are novices. The older bears seldom move any distance to make a catch and usually come up with a choice morsel right away. Junior, on the other hand, often races up and down the stream frantically bounding here and there, with fish slithering in every direction except under his paws.

This year’s cubs let mamma do the fishing for them, and they can be seen on the bank, eagerly awaiting her return. After a successful catch, the family will move to a thicket where mamma will intentionally eat just a portion of the fish, leaving the remainder for the youngsters to quarrel over. After their fill of this plentiful food, the family will often retire to a nearby meadow and sprawl out in a variety of poses for an afternoon nap. Some have been observed sleeping on their backs with all four paws sticking up in the air.

By the middle of August the family often leaves the stream for the ripening berries. They will gorge themselves on salmonberries and blueberries as long as they are available. By early October, many are drawn back to the salmon streams to take advantage of the late run of spawning fish.

As winter closes in on them, they are usually well prepared to sleep out the most harsh weather. Good summer appetites help to fortify them with a dense layer of fat and a lush new fur coat. From summer to late fall, growing bears increase in weight by about 30 percent. In checking on this weight gain, biologists tabulated a gain of forty-five pounds for one three-year-old male in just twelve days. That is an average gain of 3.7 pounds per day. No concern over reducing diets in this family!

Zoologists now recognize that the Kodiak bear does not truly hibernate but is better called a winter sleeper. One can quickly see the difference by contrasting the bear with the woodchuck, a true hibernator. Viewed during the winter, a woodchuck appears as though dead and is completely unconscious. Its normal body temperature of 96.9° F. is reduced to 38 degrees, and it takes only one breath every six minutes. The bear, on the other hand, maintains a normal body temperature and his breathing is reduced to four or five complete respirations a minute. When you are in deep slumber, your breathing rate is about the same. The bear’s heartbeat is slower than normal but he is semiconscious. His sleep is not always uninterrupted, as he can be routed out of his winter home without too much difficulty.

Unaggressive, but Caution Advised

Although men have dubbed this gigantic beast as being “terrible” and “ferocious,” some opinions have been altered. Zoologists and others who have spent many years observing them, recognize that these powerful creatures will make every possible effort to avoid contact with man. As zoologist George G. Goodwin says: “Despite their enormous size and great strength, the big brownies are not aggressive and rarely kill large game. However, a brown bear with her cubs is best given a wide berth; when wounded, this animal can be as treacherous as the most ferocious wild creature.”

There have been incidents in which men have been seriously injured by these jumbo bears, so care should be exercised when in the vicinity of them. Since Mr. Bear’s hearing and smelling senses are keener than his eyesight, persons wishing to avoid contact with him in the brush usually try to make plenty of noise. Local inhabitants have for generations whistled loudly when out berry picking in the bear’s domain. Thus, Mr. Bear is not startled and has opportunity to move away from the human intruders without delay.

Though having the reputation of being the largest flesh-eating land animal in the world, this giant bruin of Kodiak Island is not really as “terrible” as the early traders feared.

To Drink or Not

● In many places drinking alcoholic beverages is legal; but a sensible person will avoid acting as if it were compulsory. Calling attention to what is truly important, the Scriptures say: “The kingdom of God does not mean eating and drinking, but means righteousness and peace and joy with holy spirit.”—Rom. 14:17.

School on Safari

BY “AWAKE!” CORRESPONDENT IN ZAÏRE REPUBLIC

HOW would you like to take a 5,000-mile trip through seven of the eight provinces of the Zaïre Republic? My wife and I completed such a trip. It took a year and five months, and was filled with fascinating experiences.

Ours was a school on safari. “Safari” is the word for “journey” in Swahili, one of Zaïre’s many languages. The school was not for children, but for adult Christian ministers. Its purpose was to equip these men to care more efficiently for the spiritual needs of those in their respective congregations.

The Kingdom Ministry School, as this course of instruction is called, is conducted by Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the world. Usually classes are held in one place in a country, or perhaps in a few permanent locations, and Christian overseers travel there to attend.

However, the Zaïre Republic (formerly the Democratic Republic of Congo) is a vast country where a long trip is prohibitively costly for some. But by means of our “school on safari,” which brought the school nearer to them, it was possible for these ministers to attend without an undue financial burden.

There were, on the average, about twenty ministers in each class. The schooling was of two weeks’ duration. Lessons were taught under four main headings: Overseers, Kingdom Teachings, Meetings, and Field Ministry. The Bible was the main textbook, although other Bible study aids were used. As is true of the Kingdom Ministry School everywhere, no tuition was charged; the training was all free.

Equipment and Obstacles

We traveled by Land Rover. We had our folding bed, cooking utensils, supply of staple foods, lamps, books for the school, blackboard, personal clothing, spare parts for the Land Rover, spade, ax, planks, steel cord, cans for extra gas, and maps. Packing all of this is quite an art, as everything has to be in tight to avoid breakage and wear on the bad roads. On some of the roads one must always be prepared for a possible breakdown, or any other eventuality. The neat red road lines on the maps look so uncomplicated, but traversing them is quite another story!

From one of the longer stages of our safari, Kasai Province to Kinshasa, a distance of 1,000 miles and four days of hard driving, two things stand out in our minds. First, the deep sand on many sections of the road. At times we were in our lowest gear, with four-wheel drive, to grind our way through the long deep patches. And second, the number of rivers, some of which were very wide. Some of the smaller rivers were spanned by bridges, but eleven of the wider ones we crossed by ferry.

Fascinating Ferries

The ferries are quite an experience. Usually they consist of only three or four long wooden canoes or simple metal boats lashed together, with a wooden platform on top. Most are now driven by outboard motors. However, a few are still paddled or poled across by local manpower. On one crossing the ferry had a team of ten men. The headman of the team would call out a chant to coordinate the strokes.

Other ferries, however, operate on a cable system. The cable is attached to concrete posts on either bank, and the ferry drifts across the river, pulled by the current and sliding on the cable by means of a moving wheel.

Boarding the ferry is often a tricky business, as one has to drive on over two planks precariously balanced and invariably set at an awkward angle. We always heaved a sigh of relief when each river was safely crossed and the Land Rover was again on firm ground.

The ferries are used by pedestrians too, and there seems to be no limit to their numbers. Quite often the Land Rover was completely surrounded by people. We were packed on like sardines. However, the lack of breathing space did not worry us as much as seeing the water start to creep over the edges of the canoes. But it did not seem to worry anybody else. Somehow the men managed to bail out the water as fast as it flowed in!

Traveling the River

On one stage of our safari, from Kinshasa to Boende in Equateur Province, we traveled by boat for eight days as the roads were especially bad. The riverboats are big motor-driven launches that either push or pull several motorless barges. Our sleeping quarters were on the first deck of the main boat, so we had the advantage of an elevated view of the riverside scenery as well as of the barges. There on one of them we could see our Land Rover, hemmed in by boxes, crates, goods and people. One group decided that the Land Rover made an excellent wall and so attached an improvised lean-to tent arrangement to provide shelter from the sun.

The most striking thing to us was the number of people and goods crammed aboard. The motto on all forms of public transport here seems to be, “Too many is just enough!” There were goats tied up, chickens trussed up, large bowls of water containing live fish that writhed and flopped about, a couple of live crocodiles with mouths and tails tied, a water turtle, wild pigs and cages of parrots and other birds. Also there were numerous baskets of smoked fish, the smell from which rose strongly in the hot sun.

The noise too merits mentioning. In the background was the constant throb of the powerful motors. This encouraged everybody to shout to make himself heard even in ordinary conversation. Children playing, laughing and often crying, plus the goats and chickens, added voices to the chorus. In brief, the boat was an action-packed stage with plenty to absorb the eye and ear.

At every stopping point there was a wave of intensified activity as people left the boat and others boarded. But even before the boat moored, scores of canoes often skimmed out and surrounded us. Usually they had more fish or animals to sell. It fascinated us to watch.

The sellers would precariously balance while standing up in their canoes, and haggle with passengers over a price for their fish or meat. Those on the boat would crowd against the rail, and in the heated bargaining it was hard to tell which passenger was dealing with which seller. Everyone seemed to try to drown out his neighbor. With expressive arm gestures of disgust at the low offers, or resigned agreement to a deal, sales were finally made. Then the boat’s hooter would blow a deafening call, which never failed to take us by surprise and make us jump. The canoes paddled out of the way, and our boat pulled away from another port of call, with all inhabitants waving and shouting their farewells.

En route we passed numerous picturesque villages with huts built on stilts. Life has hardly changed for these people in thousands of years. They fish from their canoes, hunt in the forests and cultivate land along the banks of the river. Any surplus food they trade for the few clothes and other things they need. It is a peaceful and uncomplicated life.

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, January 8, 1972