Jack Schaap may be facing up to 10 years in prison

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

What problems would it pose biblically?

I think the plea in this case only covers known offenses. It does not cover something that is not yet known. So in the future, I think he could be prosecuted for allegations that have not yet come to light.

I’m not sure why we are so worked up about whether a plea deal is evidence of true repentance or not. As I understand Scripture that is not ours to judge or even consider.

The only Scripture basis for repentance which demands our forgiveness is words.

“And if he trespass against thee…and…turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”

The context is one of repetitious offenses with absolutely no time for evidence of repentance beyond words. Yet it is crystal clear that those words are to be accepted as truly repentant.

Now, if we want to get in a lather as to whether a plea deal falls into whatever restoration plan some “which are spiritual” have undertaken with Schaap in order to “restore such an one in the spirit of meekness”, then we can continue burning bandwidth to discuss it.

Hi Lee,

I don’t see that anyone’s getting worked up.

Jesus and Paul discuss fruit bearing witness to repentance. Paul instructs/commends the Corinthian folk on this matter.

It is being discussed because the implication was made that Schaap is doing the right thing. That is something we can make a judgment about. Or so it seems to me.

[DavidO]

Hi Lee,

I don’t see that anyone’s getting worked up.

Jesus and Paul discuss fruit bearing witness to repentance. Paul instructs/commends the Corinthian folk on this matter.

It is being discussed because the implication was made that Schaap is doing the right thing. That is something we can make a judgment about. Or so it seems to me.

Unfortunately, over the years of ministry I have had the (non) privilege of overseeing a number of Christian brothers who have gotten caught up in similar situations with legal ramifications. Invariably, those whose trust has been shattered by these brothers at fault as well as the naysayers have a common link—they are looking for reasons to not have to forgive—and that almost always rotates around whether their repentance is deemed genuine.

“Worked up” is a pet phrase, probably used unwisely here. But the tenor of the thread certainly points us down a path of getting worked up, so maybe it does have just a little contextual validity. :)

Carry on.

Lee said:

… the naysayers have a common link—they are looking for reasons to not have to forgive—and that almost always rotates around whether their repentance is deemed genuine.

Here’s my take:

• On knowing: I doubt many of us (or I could say, I’m confident few of us) are close enough to Jack Schaap to know whether true repentance has taken place.
• On the plea bargain: I’m skeptical that there is any correlation between the plea bargain and repentance. He and his lawyers looked at the case the government had against him and made the best of a bad situation. 10 years (if that is how it turns out) is better than 15. Cutting bait is better than protracted legal proceedings that would consume Schaap family financial resources. Bargaining with one legal entity (the Feds) is better than dealing with 4 (Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and the Federal government
• On forgiveness: I’m not in the wronged party / need justice / must forgive loop. So I don’t need to forgive Jack

I’m not sure if repentance is a one time, punctiliar type of event. Genuine repentance may take months if not years.

Note: I recently pled to a petty misdemeanor and paid a fine instead of going to trial. By the time one has hired an attorney, a cost / benefit analysis process commences.

[DavidO]

It is being discussed because the implication was made that Schaap is doing the right thing. That is something we can make a judgment about. Or so it seems to me.

So are you suggesting pleading guilty to the charge is not the right thing to do? Surely not.

It may be that he should have been charged with more crimes, but that isn’t really our call. For better or worse, the public has to trust the authorities (in this case the FBI) with that responsibility. One can argue that they failed in their responsibilities, but I find it hard to argue that Schaap’s guilty plea and desire to avoid dragging everyone through the courts is a bad thing. I don’t think it is what usually happens. Wouldn’t it have been better for all involved if another offender (EW) had simply pled guilty?

So are you suggesting pleading guilty to the charge is not the right thing to do? Surely not.

[Don Johnson]

[DavidO]

Well, I suppose they might be right steps, but they seem to me incomplete

And round and round we go.

EDIT: btw, Don, my initial reaction on the girl and her family not being dragged through the courts is the same as yours—that it’s a good thing. However, she herself may not feel so, depending how she feels full justice is or is not being served by the terms of the plea deal.

That’s because I can’t understand why you are making a point of making a point about this.

I’m skeptical that there is any correlation between the plea bargain and repentance.

My point was similar to Jim’s above. If you get his, let’s leave it at that.

I don’t know what others may be asserting.

I would agree there is no correlation between plea bargain and repentance.

But pleading guilty if you are guilty is a good thing, regardless of whether it is indicative of repentance or not.

In today’s WSJ (may be behind pay wall)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100008723963904435893045776376100972068…

–-

Guilty pleas last year resolved 97% of all federal cases that the Justice Department prosecuted to a conclusion. That is up from 84% in 1990. During that period, the number of federal defendants nearly doubled amid a crackdown on crimes ranging from drug trafficking to fraud, while the number going to trial fell by nearly two-thirds.

…

Behind the dominance of the plea bargain is the rapid growth in the number of federal criminal laws and the stiffening of sentences by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission

…

Federal guidelines not only toughened punishments but also formalized a system to reward defendants who plead guilty by reducing sentences if they accept responsibility or cooperate with prosecutors, among other things. As part of plea deals, federal prosecutors often drop additional charges that could add years, or decades, to a sentence. Going to trial brings none of those benefits for the accused.

[Larry]

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?

Because if he is guilty, and he knows he’s guilty, and he agrees with the government that he’s guilty and decides not to fight the charge because he knows he’s guilty, then I think that could be considered a sign of righteous repentance.

[Larry]

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?

Larry, I think you’re reading into what I’m saying. I don’t think that the guilty party must pursue receiving the maximum penalty just because they’re guilty, and I’ve never argued that. Schaap is lucky, from what I’m reading, to get ten years for this - he could get far more, and the plea agreement states that. It’s not my place to advocate a life sentence or 40 years incarceration or whatever for him. To acknowledge that Schaap should be facing more charges or that he could receive a much harsher sentence isn’t being driven by emotion or being judgmental - it’s acknowledging the truth of the matter. Schaap could have gotten a much worse sentence.

Delaying admission of guilt and then seeking a reduction in the penalty after you’ve been caught red-handed is hardly a virtue. I Samuel 15:24-25

[Rob Fall]

[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.

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.

Actually, it has little to do with saving money for the state. Schaap is guilty of a Federal crime, so he belongs to the Federal prison system. There’s nothing stopping a state from prosecuting him now or during his imprisonment for violations of state law; he could do state time for state charges after his Federal sentence is up. The states involved may opt not to prosecute (and that sounds like it’s happened), but you can’t sentence a state felon to federal prison, IIRC.

I was going to let that go, but it’s been bothering me enough that I wanted to clarify.

There’s nothing stopping a state from prosecuting him now or during his imprisonment for violations of state law; he could do state time for state charges after his Federal sentence is up.

Actually, part of the plea agreement is that the other government entities (states and counties) will not prosecute for “conduct … which is related to this investigation and currently known to the government” (p. 4 of the plea agreement). That is likely at least one reason he took the plea agreement. This is the end of it, unless other instances unrelated to this and unknown to the government come out.

It probably is related to cost, at least to some degree. The states/counties are willing to let the feds handle it and move on to other things since they likely would not achieve anything more than what the feds could do.