Jack Schaap may be facing up to 10 years in prison

[DavidO]

Well, I suppose they might be right steps, but they seem to me incomplete especially since he is avoiding prosecution on other charges by taking this. Looks to me like his lawyer told him that, based on the case the feds had, that 10+ was the best he could get and he should take it.

But as far as “the right steps” shouldn’t he also:

-confess his wrongdoing to the girl and her parents and seek their forgiveness and make whatever amends are makeable?

-do the same re: any other victims there may be?

-confess his predation and other abuses of his office to his former congregation, seek their forgiveness, and make amends, etc?

And about admitting guilt: There were pictures. Emails. Witnesses. No one should be either surprised or pleased he decides he has something to confess.

EDIT: I guess my point is that it’s fine to be hopeful that God is working repentance in Schaap. It may well be. But I do not think we have seen anything yet that would so indicate. Too early to tell.

I agree with DaveO’s post, especially if there are other charges that he avoided by taking the deal (I haven’t read the plea agreement). It should also be noted that there is usually a very strong incentive for the obvious criminal to plead down from a worse penalty because it saves the government time and money on indictment/trial and it also may keep some of the ‘worse’ stuff out of the news, protecting the criminal’s family and friends from bad media or other consequences. You’ll see this a lot with drug or murder charges that are pled down to ‘possession’ or ‘manslaughter’ charges. I’ve taken some criminal justice courses and worked in a criminal justice setting for two years, so I can speak with a little authority on this subject.

I hate to even bring this up, but I seem to recall that there was a report of another victim from one of the preliminary news reports. Does anyone know if that’s true? It would fit in with the kind of behavior that Schaap apparently exhibited, but I hope that it’s not true.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again - a lot of what I’m seeing or hearing about this issue seems to be more indicative of a a desire to protect the church or Schaap’s reputation (what’s left of it) than there is any real brokenness (2 Cor. 7:9-13) over his sin and his crimes. That’s sad, and I fear what God will have to do in order to get his or the church’s attention if this doesn’t work. If God is going to bless Hammond, he’s going to have to break the cultic ‘Man o’ God’ mentality and easy believism that characterizes the place (for starters). I hope He does - I really do - but I just don’t see any reason to be hopeful. Maybe I’ll be wrong - I hope I am.

1) Plea deals come from the prosecutor to the defendant, not the defendant to the prosecution. No matter what our dislike or disdain of him or what he has done, he retains the same privileges as an American citizen as do I, and I may want them at some time in the future. I see Paul availing himself of his privileges as a Roman on several occasions, and I do not see David arguing with Nathan when his sentence is reduced (“…thou shalt not die [II Sam. 12:13] “).

2) Mandatory sentencing reflects more of the “pound of flesh” thinking about retribution than it does actual justice. I am not a big fan of mandatory sentencing in this or any other type of judicial action. The reason judges are appointed or elected is to do exactly what the term implies—judge the person and the situation appropriately.

[DavidO]

Well, I suppose they might be right steps, but they seem to me incomplete especially since he is avoiding prosecution on other charges by taking this. Looks to me like his lawyer told him that, based on the case the feds had, that 10+ was the best he could get and he should take it.

True, but often in these cases this happens after several charges have already been filed, right? Then the crook pleads down to lesser charges in exchange for a guilty plea.

[DavidO] But as far as “the right steps” shouldn’t he also:

-confess his wrongdoing to the girl and her parents and seek their forgiveness and make whatever amends are makeable?

How do you know he hasn’t done this? I don’t know one way or another, so offer no comment.

[DavidO] -do the same re: any other victims there may be?

We don’t know anything about this. When asking for fruit of repentance at this point, how can we even know to ask for this? We don’t know if there are any other victims. What is gained by speculating on this point? Given the publicity, the stance of the church, and the current climate of our culture, if there were other victims, it could be argued that they would have come forward by now. But I am not making that argument. I am simply saying we don’t and can’t know. It is nonsensical to ask for this if we don’t know for sure there were ever any other victims.

[DavidO] -confess his predation and other abuses of his office to his former congregation, seek their forgiveness, and make amends, etc?

And the broken record said: what do we know about what he has done on this score? What business is it of ours, anyway?

[DavidO] And about admitting guilt: There were pictures. Emails. Witnesses. No one should be either surprised or pleased he decides he has something to confess.

EDIT: I guess my point is that it’s fine to be hopeful that God is working repentance in Schaap. It may well be. But I do not think we have seen anything yet that would so indictate. Too early to tell.

Well, I agree with this last, but what is gained by making these kinds of speculations?

Well, I suppose they might be right steps, but they seem to me incomplete especially since he is avoiding prosecution on other charges by taking this.

Out of curiosity and without any statement about this particular situation, why is it that some people believe biblical repentance means volunteering for the worst possible consequences? Is there any biblical support that idea? Is it possible to be biblically repentant and take plea deal?

True, but often in these cases this happens after several charges have already been filed, right? Then the crook pleads down to lesser charges in exchange for a guilty plea.

The agreement he signed reads: “In exchange for my guilty plea … the US of A agrees not to file any other charges against me which could be brought based upon my conduct in the Northern District of Indiana …” The agreement goes on to indemnify him against state charges in IN, MI, and IL.

How do you know he hasn’t done this?

I don’t know to a certainty, but I think we’d have heard about it. At any rate, my point was this is something he ought do before he be considered repentant.

We don’t know anything about this. When asking for fruit of repentance at this point, how can we even know to ask for this? We don’t know if there are any other victims. What is gained by speculating on this point? Given the publicity, the stance of the church, and the current climate of our culture, if there were other victims, it could be argued that they would have come forward by now. But I am not making that argument. I am simply saying we don’t and can’t know. It is nonsensical to ask for this if we don’t know for sure there were ever any other victims.

At least one other victim has come forward, albeit one he was unsuccessful in seducing—he “only” abused her (and her husband’s) trust repeatedly, ant the particular instance I am thinking of has two witnesses.

…what do we know about what he has done on this score? What business is it of ours, anyway?

The above from the fellow who calls a whole “University” to answer for itself.

There are places reporting on this. There would be copies of letters or bootlegged audio posted on line the next day if this had happened.

I think the ecclesiastical goings on are as much or more our business as the legal news. We’re all in the fundygelical pile together, like it or not.

… what is gained by making these kinds of speculations?

They were the response to an expression of some measure of satisfaction that he had admitted guilt. Part of the ongoing conversation, as it were. My point was an admission of guilt could merely be a pragmatic step to minimize unavoidable consequences.

[Larry] Out of curiosity and without any statement about this particular situation, why is it that some people believe biblical repentance means volunteering for the worst possible consequences? Is there any biblical support that idea? Is it possible to be biblically repentant and take plea deal?

Hey Larry - That’s a REALLY good question. Personally, I do think that it would be possible to truly repent and still take plea deals for whatever reasons. Sam Berkowitz (the Son of Sam) is supposedly a believer now, and he’s waived all of his future parole hearings even though he’s eligible for them, which I find commendable and a sign of the genuine fruit.

Let me put it this way - if your son broke your TV, and you knew he was guilty but then he suddenly repented and said he’d do whatever he needed to in order to make it right or replace the TV, wouldn’t that make a bad situation more tolerable and make you more lenient on the punishment?

… why is it that some people believe biblical repentance means volunteering for the worst possible consequences? … Is it possible to be biblically repentant and take plea deal?

1) Not the necessary corollary to my concern.

2) It may be possible. But I think it may pose some problems.

EDIT: Jay, your scenario sounds less like a plea bargain and more like a guilty plea with offer for amends and a request for leniency. This is different (as far as the info we have goes, anyway) from what Schaap has done (thus far).

And considering how dangerous it is in prison, who says he’s going to make it out in one piece or in a pine box.

[DavidO]

EDIT: Jay, your scenario sounds less like a plea bargain and more like a guilty plea with offer for amends and a request for leniency. This is different (as far as the info we have goes, anyway) from what Schaap has done (thus far).

Well, yeah, I guess so. It certainly reads like a plea bargain to me with the admission of guilt and the indemnification against further charges. Basically, it sounds to me like there were quite a few states with interest in prosecuting Schaap and this was his ‘easy way out’ (and I don’t say that with any malice intended).

-edit-

I’m going to attach the one paragraph that jumped out to me after reading the plea agreement:

[DavidO]

True, but often in these cases this happens after several charges have already been filed, right? Then the crook pleads down to lesser charges in exchange for a guilty plea.

The agreement he signed reads: “In exchange for my guilty plea … the US of A agrees not to file any other charges against me which could be brought based upon my conduct in the Northern District of Indiana …” The agreement goes on to indemnify him against state charges in IN, MI, and IL.

Ok, I read the agreement, but not that closely. You are correct here.

[DavidO]

It is nonsensical to ask for this if we don’t know for sure there were ever any other victims.

At least one other victim has come forward, albeit one he was unsuccessful in seducing—he “only” abused her (and her husband’s) trust repeatedly, ant the particular instance I am thinking of has two witnesses.

Hadn’t seen anything on this, so I will concede that point also. Contrary to rumour, I don’t spend all my time surfing the internet!

[DavidO]

…what do we know about what he has done on this score? What business is it of ours, anyway?

The above from the fellow who calls a whole “University” to answer for itself.

That’s really not a fair shot, the circumstances are quite different.

[DavidO] They were the response to an expression of some measure of satisfaction that he had admitted guilt. Part of the ongoing conversation, as it were. My point was an admission of guilt could merely be a pragmatic step to minimize unavoidable consequences.

Fair enough, I think what I was reacting to was the perception that you were seeking perfection.

Regardless, he is going to be put away for a good while. He may spend the rest of his days in prison. That’s pretty sobering by itself, I should think, and would hope that it might serve as a deterrent to some other fool. (Of course, fools don’t usually respond to deterrents.)

as this is a Federal case, he can be sent to any appropriate facility. IOW, he can be sent far and away form Hammond.

[DavidO]

EDIT: I guess my point is that it’s fine to be hopeful that God is working repentance in Schaap. It may well be. But I do not think we have seen anything yet that would so indictate. Too early to tell.

this means he’s going to serve his time on the Federal dime not a state’s. Not a little savings of a state’s tax dollars.

[Alex Guggenheim] It does seem that there is a bit of naivety regarding how the various States Attorney’s offices work. They have a heavy workload and often they are more than happy to have the federal government do the heavy lifting if there are concurrent interests. They are not going to tell Jack Schaap this nor are they going to tell the public this but it is highly likely that they handed everything over to the federal government to deal with a case to save money. It cost a lot of money to bring a case to court and the states may not have evidence for violation of its statutes like the federal government does. They may not have had any intention of pressing charges but they are not going to inform Jack that or the public. Such a threat is often used as leverage though in reality it may not exist at all.

Sam Berkowitz (the Son of Sam) is supposedly a believer now, and he’s waived all of his future parole hearings even though he’s eligible for them, which I find commendable and a sign of the genuine fruit.

Why, biblically speaking (again, focus on biblical teaching and not on emotions), is givng up future parole hearing a sign of genuine fruit?

Let me put it this way - if your son broke your TV, and you knew he was guilty but then he suddenly repented and said he’d do whatever he needed to in order to make it right or replace the TV, wouldn’t that make a bad situation more tolerable and make you more lenient on the punishment?

Am I required to make my son pay for it in order for his repentance to be genuine? If I say to my son, “Clean up the mess you made and we will move on,” is he required to pursue payment or can he accept my offer of cleaning up and moving on?

I have no idea whether Schaap is genuinely repentant or not. That’s not for my to decide and it has no bearing on my life or ministry. But I wonder if some are not holding him to a standard that flows out of emotion rather than biblical teaching.

And that’s why I ask, what is the biblical evidence that a guilty party must pursue the maximum penalty and must refuse any offers of leniency or mercy in order to demonstrate that his or her repentance is genuine?