Skip to main content

Visiting the prisoners

   Some people have wondered if they should have been visiting people that they knew were prisoners. One place in the Scriptures that gives us the affirmative on the question is Matthew 25:31-46 when Jesus describes the Final Judgment. The whole passage is recommended reading, but I will point out to everyone here the snippets that are relevant. Jesus said about the righteous (in Matthew 25:38-40), that they will say, "When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? ’The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." Then He described about the unrighteous (in Matthew 25:44-46), that they will say,  "Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
   The answer is "yes," obviously people should be visiting the prisoners. If there is a controversial case, then all the more is it the case of the matter that you should visit the prisoner. Apply the Golden Rule. If you were in the middle of a difficult problem, then you would require more help or attention. To the extent of the difficulty is the extent that someone needs others to help. I think it's safe to say from those verses that it is a dividing line issue. 
   Cases might become controversial if the defendant actually has a defense to provide the court, meaning his or her imprisonment then looks even more unfair, causing more opposition even. If they have no defense, they actually committed the crime, and the case is not controversial, the above verses still seem to indicate that people should visit the prisoner.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

We Have Freedom of Speech, right?

   How come everyone seems so afraid to speak against the real politik in our country? We used to have lively political discussion and dissent, and now people with minority opinions seem scoffed at and outcast. This is a bad trend, don't go in that way. The first amendment was set up with one of the intentions being that people would be able to criticize those in charge. It is unbelievable that people could say that a scenario happened like Pearl Jams' "Dissident" describes, and these things happen on American soil?    The 1992 Presidential election is something to look to consider the way things used to be. Third party independent candidate Ross Perot was considered as having equal weight as the two other candidates. There was a strong freedom of the thought in the political spectrum. Perot's money went a long way for him. All things considered, though, billionaires still exist. Where are the Ross Perots of our time, then, who are not afraid to jump in and shake...
Post a Comment
Read more