🧵Yet more (pt. 3) thinking about “social justice” and the Christian:

Sometimes when conservative evangelicals hear talk of “social justice,” they fear what is being proposed is some new big govt program.

This may be the case; it may not.
Some injustices may require a new law in order to remedy them. Some injustices might be caused by the law or some govt program, and so solving for that injustice might require less govt.

But an important point to keep in mind is that *every* social system is a govt program.
There is a tendency to think that free market capitalism isn’t a govt program, that it’s the natural state of things, and that every other social:economic system involves govt interference in the free market. But the “free market”is *not* the natural state of things. Anarchy is.
The “free market” is a govt creation. In order for the free market to exist, the govt must first recognize property rights and contract rights. Without govt recognition of those legal rights, you would have a system of “might makes right,” not a free market system.
In the US, we take that “free market” as a given. But it’s not. We made choices as a society that made a “free market” possible. We could have made different choices. The question is whether the social/economic system that resulted from our societal choices is just.
I’m not saying that the free market is or isn’t just. I’m saying that, as Christians, we need to ask the question whether it is. The answer may be yes, it may be no, or it may be partially yes and partially no.
We could say the same about a criminal justice system. The system we have is the result of particular choices we as a society made over time. Different societies today have entirely different systems and other societies have similar systems by with some differences.
Again, the question is whether our particular criminal justice system is, at this moment in time, just as Scripture defines justice. As with our economic system, the answer may be yes, it may be no, or it may be partially yes and partially no.

The point is we need to ask.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Matthew Martens

Matthew Martens Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @martensmatt1

Feb 7
🧵Some more thoughts on the Christian and “social justice”:

I think *part* of the evangelical aversion to social justice talk is that we tend to focus on individual concepts of sin/evil. We don’t have a category for social sin/injustice.
Our churches need to do a better job of explaining this idea.

Here’s an example. Imagine that the law prohibits stealing but I nonetheless rob you. I have committed an individual injustice against you. But there is no social injustice because the law prohibited theft.
Now imagine instead that the law doesn’t prohibit stealing and I rob you. In that instance, I have committed an individual individual injustice against you. Stealing is wrong even if the law says it’s not. But in this scenario, there is also a social injustice because the…
Read 6 tweets
Feb 7
🧵 I refuse to accept the notion that “social justice” is necessarily a liberal concept or, for that matter, a conservative one. It all depends how you define the “justice.”

I’m a Christian, so I define “social justice” according to a biblical standard of justice.
I think it’s important that Christians not shy away from advocating for social justice, meaning the ordering of society in a just way.

We shouldn’t, as individuals, commit unjust acts. But it’s also important that we not order society (through laws, customs, etc) in unjust ways.
If you don’t like the term “social justice,” you can propose another better term. Systemic injustice, maybe?

Regardless of terms, the point is that there is a type of injustice other than individual unjust acts. There can be an unjust organization of the way society functions.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 21
🧵 Someone recently said to me they would have guessed that I was previously a public defender, rather than a prosecutor. I had some other commenters this week suggest that I just don’t want to see crime punished.

So I thought it might help to elaborate on my background.

/1
I spent nearly a decade as a federal prosecutor, fighting crime in my community at a small fraction of the pay I could have made in private practice.

People sit in prison, including on federal death row, this very minute because of my prior work as a prosecutor.

/2
You can lecture me about not caring about crime victims after you’ve prosecuted a capital murder case.

You can tell me I’m soft on crime after you’ve put child pornographers, bank robbers, drug dealers, tax cheats, embezzlers, fraudsters, & ponzi-schemers in prison.

/3
Read 10 tweets
Jan 20
One of my tweets yesterday suggested that, to be biblical, we should frame justice in terms of love for neighbor rather than war on neighbor.

A few of the responses were of the "Why do you hate babies?" variety, or, in this instance, "Why don't you want to punish people?"
/1
These responses reflect the mindset that I was trying to get at, namely a view of justice that sees love as inconsistent with it.

First, I agree that punishing a perpetrator can be an act of love.

But, not all punishment of even a guilty party is loving.
/2
It's neither loving nor just to punish a guilty person without first affording them due process.

It's neither loving nor just to punish even a person disproportionately to the seriousness of the offense.
/3
Read 5 tweets
Jan 20
Bail funds for the poor: 🧵

As I explained in this prior thread, when judges impose bail amounts on the poor that they cannot pay, it creates incredible pressure on poor defendants to plead guilty regardless of their guilt.
/1
One of the solutions to this injustice was the establishment charitable bail organizations. In short, these organizations pay the bail for an indigent defendants so that he can remain free prior to trial (they are presumed innocent, after all) while he builds his defense.
/2
And because the defendant is not in jail before trial, the coercive pressure on the defendant to plead guilty is lessened, forcing the prosecutors to prove their cases at trial instead.

Not surprisingly, prosecutor and police don’t like these charitable bail organizations.
/3
Read 4 tweets
Nov 9, 2021
Everyone should be outraged by modern-day plea bargaining: 🧵

In a plea bargain, the defendant “agrees” to pleading guilty in return for a sentence that, typically, is dramatically lower than what he would get under the law if he was convicted after trial.

/1
If the much longer sentences handed out after trial are just, then you should be outraged that in 90+% of cases, the defendant gets off with a much lighter (and thus unjust) sentence.

/2
If the much longer sentences handed out after trial are unjust, then you should be outraged that the threat of an unjustly long sentence after trial is used as a threat that coerces people (some of them innocent) into waiving their constitutional right to a trial.

/3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(