fbpx
Articles

One way to fix America’s broken drug laws

/
May 21, 2020

For Terri, a mother of five from Wisconsin, life as she knew it began to unravel after her son, Curtis*, broke his collarbone. The high schooler received prescription opioids after a skiing accident in the early 2000s. This was long before President Trump declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency and long before the public understood how dangerous and addictive opioids are. But it wasn’t long at all before Curtis was hooked.

One day at school, 17-year-old Curtis was found with pills in his pocket. The police came and arrested him. Before long, he was sentenced to six months in a correctional facility. 

Terri was devastated. As a mom, she says, “You're dying because you know your kid is sitting [in prison], and who knows what is going on in there. It's never the same, life is never the same. It's almost like somebody died, but they didn't. They're buried alive. That's all I can tell you. It's like they're buried alive.”  

A hidden epidemic

At first, Terri was shocked at the speed with which her son went from a typical high schooler to a prisoner. But over time, Terri would find Curtis’ story increasingly commonplace. She realized that Curtis and others like him were being swept up in a wave of overcriminalization that put people suffering with addiction behind bars. 

After a string of arrests for possession of controlled substances, Curtis is 33 and completing his most recent prison time, which stems for a sentence dating back to 2008, though Terri notes he has had no new charges or cases since then. In the last decade and a half, prison has proven to be an unhelpful response to his issues with opioid addiction.

Simple possession of a controlled substance doesn’t have to result in lengthy incarceration or a lifelong criminal record. In fact, cases like Curtis’ don’t even have the same result in every state. 

The complex problem of simple possession

The Drug Report: A Review of America’s Disparate Possession Penalties, prepared by criminal justice policy experts at Prison Fellowship®, reveals the broad discrepancies in penalties for possession of commonly abused drugs across different jurisdictions and explores the resulting public policy challenges. 

It’s a critical time to discuss these challenges, because as Terri knows all too well, each sentence affects not only people dealing with addictions, but their families, too.

While charges for drug possession remain in the criminal system, we believe (and research shows) that sentences should fit the crime, and there should be a reliance on accountability programs that are demonstrated to decrease drug use. This approach aims to break the cycle of recidivism (people returning to prison) by addressing circumstances like addiction and administering appropriate consequences.

We say this knowing that incarceration doesn’t achieve the goal of rehabilitation and reducing substance use. That’s why we support the use of alternatives to incarceration, such as drug courts. Most Americans agree.

The need for alternatives

In September 2019, Prison Fellowship commissioned a Barna Group poll to find out what Christians think about incarceration and justice. We found that almost one in three Americans and practicing Christians agree strongly that judges should have the latitude to assign alternative forms of punishment when sentencing. 

Some jurisdictions have implemented alternative punishment models for possession crimes, such as opioid courts. These programs, along with traditional methods, should be studied in order to see what works best and how to improve outcomes for the participating individual and impacted community. 

Each human life is created in the image of God, with eternal value and the capacity for redemption. And the onus is on all those who make criminal justice policy decisions to evaluate methods of proportional accountability for possession crimes. They should be evaluating which methods offer the best outcomes for public safety, recovery from addiction, stronger families, and opportunities for personal and community restoration. 

Raise awareness

While Terri’s son Curtis is still in prison, she has turned her pain into passion. She serves as an Angel Tree® area coordinator to help other families impacted by incarceration. And as a Prison Fellowship Justice Ambassador, she works hard to raise awareness in her community and get lawmakers to change the way our nation handles drug abuse. She is determined to see something good come from the pain she and her family have experienced.

“The sentence seems never-ending,” she says, “but God is good. He will use this for His glory someday.”

Terri worked hard to raise her own awareness of drug laws and justice reform so she could inform others. If you want to increase your own understanding of drug possession laws, download The Drug Report. And read our Barna survey to learn more about Christians’ views on criminal justice. 

*A pseudonym for the protection of his privacy.

Heather Rice-Minus

Heather Rice-Minus is the vice president of government affairs and church mobilization for Prison Fellowship, the nation’s largest Christian nonprofit serving prisoners, former prisoners, and their families. Read More by this Author

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24