Comments on: “How long do we keep punishing him for?”

By: Shawn

Shawn — Fri, 09 Mar 2018 00:13:17 +0000

Another excellent blog Mike, possibly the most challenging and thought provoking thus far.

The issue here is not with Matthew, but more about the condition of our hearts. Because of our western bureaucratic system, we have formed an understanding that crime / iniquity / sin has a scale and that certain sins are worse than others and therefore require a more severe ‘punishment, whereas the point you’re making here is not about the severity of the punishment, but the severity of the human understanding of what the rehabilitation and reformation processes should look like, again in the western world we favour punishment over rehabilitation, after all ‘the wages of sin is death’, but let’s not forget ‘the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord’. Regardless of how heinous or violent the crime may have been.

If Matthew truly is sorry and is truly seeking forgiveness, he should be forgiven and allowed to pursue his football career.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 08 Mar 2018 09:59:33 +0000

In reply to Michael Frost.

Hi Mike, thanks for responding. I did read it twice so that I was sure of my response. Compensation implies punishment through a cash payment particularly in the context you have written within It’s not an appropriate response to a crimknal offence and frankly doesn’t ‘cost’ enough. Confronting ones behaviour through interaction and interface with ones victims costs way more than compensation and has a much higher efficacy. Offenders are much less likely to reoffend when they have participated in a restorative justice plan.

It would also be a worthwhile exercise to evaluate victims residual pain, trauma and/or sense of satisfaction after receiving a compensation payout versus a more personal ‘make good’ curated by the victims and other key stakeholders.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 21:48:11 +0000

Thanks for this article Mike. I have been wrestling with what justice really looks like and have had to consider similar questions that you raise as I assist local churches consider welcoming known child sex offenders to worship with them. Child safety must always come first but ideally this should not exclude offenders, as long as the “Person of Concern” is willing to submit to a formal safety and accountability process to manage their risk including appropriate restrictions on their involvement in community life.

By: James

James — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:54:55 +0000

Yes. Really complex stuff. The risk is that by giving the opportunity for a fresh start it will either be squandered or worse, result in further harm. But you have to take the risk to see a positive transformation.

By: Michael Frost

Michael Frost — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:09:18 +0000

In reply to Andrew. You probably read it quickly and missed this important line, "I think Matthew Lodge’s behavior has been reprehensible. But in light of his two years of rehab and his continued sobriety, he should be given a chance to start again. He should be allowed to play professional football and he should commit himself to a plan to pay compensation to his victims."

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:01:41 +0000

Wow. Wrong on so many levels. Didn’t even mention the critical importance of a restorative justice plan. “Mercy without the justice is sentimentalism” said Chuck Colson. Howard Zehr’s Little Book of Restorative Justice and Dan Van Ness’ book Crime and It’s Victims are a must read for anyone daring to opine about what they think we ‘should’ do with offenders. The answer is that punitive measures bear no fruit. You listed a number of ‘pay backs’ made to the state, or the crown (which is dissociative), and implied that inconveniences over a period of time may well constitute some sort of repair.

Perhaps a more helpful direction is to encourage folk to rethink justice in terms of restoration and the importance of the offender being responsible to ‘make good’ to his victims and damaged property rather than rack up a meaningless ledger of community service tick boxes.

By: Julie Muir

Julie Muir — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:34:50 +0000

Hi Michael,
I believe 2 years of rehab by Matthew Lodge shows that he is serious about trying to reform. However within that 2 years there has been no attempt at compensation. Hopefully that will come. I agree that it is not our job to forgive him but that of God and the adult victims yet I think we are all responsible for children in our community so the forgiveness needs to come from us as well in regards to the young boy, especially as he has been so badly affected and probably in no state to think about forgiving Matthew. And finally as a Christian and according to the teaching of Jesus I must say he should have a second chance and that we need to show compassion. However why does that have to be in Rugby League? In such a prominent sport and with all the trimmings and publicity that invokes, why not rehabilitate him into a different career where physicality and being in the public eye are not the main ingredient?s I disagree that he should be allowed back into league at the moment. Yes forgive, pray, help rehabilitate but don’t put him into an arena that may damage him more.