A Better Way To Deal With Crime

Is there a better way to deal with crime?

Since May 2020 there have been thirty-six cases where someone was allegedly killed that led to protests.  These cases have generally been painted as European-American policemen killing innocent African-Africans.

This has led to protest movements like “Black Lives Matter”.  While there is without a doubt systemic racism in some police departments, do the facts really support the narrative?

Of those thirty-six “killings”, one of them never happened.  The supposed man shot by the police was found to be alive and unharmed later.

Of the thirty-five actual killings, the police were not involved in twelve of them.  Three of those twelve killings were protesters and counter-protestors killing each other.

One of the remaining nine was three European-American civilians trapping and killing an African-American man.  The shooter was soon found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to prison.

The other eight were innocent bystanders not even involved in the protests.  Protesters simply massacred them, including six Asian-American women.

This is not to suggest that all protests have been violent.  The fact is that 93% of the protests were peaceful and without criminal activity.

However, out of 10,600 recorded protest that means that 742 of the protest were violent with criminal activity.  These are the ones that get most of the press.

In one of the twenty-three killings involving the police, a European-American police officer shot an innocent African-American man who was leaving a house while the officer was searching for a suspicious car.  The African-American man was armed only with a smart phone and in no way threatened the officer.  The officer is currently awaiting trial for murder.

In all the rest of the twenty-two killings involving police, the person killed was engaged in criminal activity.  In nineteen of those cases of the person was attempting to kill either the police or someone else. In one of those cases, the person who shot at the police survived being shot by the police.

In seventeen of these nineteen cases, police body cam footage, surveillance footage, and smartphone video by civilians all showed that the criminal indeed attempted to kill the police or someone one else before the police opened fire.  Since this is plainly shown on video, it is unreasonable to claim otherwise.

In one of these seventeen cases, the person killed was not the criminal, but was someone who was harboring the criminal when the criminal fired upon the police.  They knew that the criminal had a gun and was ready to shoot it out with the police before the police ever arrived.

In one of the remaining two killings of these nineteen, the police reported that the criminal pointed a gun at them while fleeing.  However, there is no video footage to collaborate their story.

In the last of these nineteen cases, a man opened fired on the police when he mistook pepper balls that the police had fired at a violent crowd of protestors for bullets.  The police then returned fire using bullets and killed the man who had shot at them.  If the protestors had remained peaceful, then the incident would have never happened.

In one of the remaining three killings, a police officer grabbed their gun instead of their taser by mistake.  The former police officer is currently in prison for first-degree manslaughter.

Of the remaining two killings, video footage shows that a European-American police officer killed a criminal who had taken his taser from him– who was not an African-American.  The European-American policeman is currently in prison for second-degree murder since there is no evidence that the man had posed any threat after the policeman had subdued him.

This leave George Floyd who became violent when the police attempted to put him in the squad car.  The police eventually subdued him and placed him hand-cuffed on the ground with one of the officers placing his knee on the back of his neck.

However, this made it difficult for George Floyd to breath and he quit resisting arrest.  Nonetheless, the officer continued to keep the pressure on his neck – even after George Floyd became unconscious.

George Floyd died while the other three police officers kept the crowd from taking action to rescue him.  This brutal killing was however captured on the cell phones of the crowd.

These four officers were all charged with criminal and civil charges.  The three European-American officers are in prison while the Asian-American officer is facing civil action.

The fact is that out of these thirty-five cases where someone was killed, there is only one case where an innocent African-American was killed by a European-American police officer.  There were four times as many protestors killed by other protesters and eight times as many innocent bystanders killed by protesters.

In all four cases where someone was not threatening the life of the police or other people, the police who did the killing went to prison.  There are simply no cases of European-American police officers killing innocent African-Americans and getting away with it.

Also, many of those killed in this violence were not African-Americans.  There were also European-Americans as well as Hispanic-Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Americans, and even foreigners included in those thirty-five killings.

In like manner, not all of the police involved in the killings were European-Americans.  There were police of the same American ethnicities as those killed – including African-Americans.

The entire narrative presented by Black Lives Matters is obviously a lie.  They have tried to paint every incident as European-American police killing innocent African-Americans – including one case where two European-American protestors were killed by other European-Americans.

While ninety-three percent of the protests have been peaceful and lawful as noted, the other seven percent have been turned violent by more criminals.  They have done this as a cover to conduct more criminal activity.

They have looted and destroyed the neighborhoods where they turned these protests into violent protests.  Often it was a case of African-American criminals looting and destroying the businesses and homes of other African-Americans.

They used the protesters as a buffer between them and the police while they carried out their crimes.  These crimes have included at least twenty-seven murders.

This is four more than the number of killings involving the police – of which most were indisputably to protect either the police or civilians from harm by the criminals who were killed.  So, these protests have actually caused more innocent people to be killed than the police who are the target of the protests.

Plainly we need a better way to deal with crime.

Not all of the protests were over killings.  For example, the Red House protests in Oregon were over the foreclosure of a red house that had been in the same family for 65 years.

The story painted by the media was a case of European-Americans developers unjustly taking the property of a mixed African-American / Native American family for their own greedy purposes.  However, the facts tell a very different story.

The original owners sold the house to one of their children in 1995 when they moved to a new home outside of the city.  Seven years later, their grandson killed an 83-year-old Jewish street preacher to the homeless and injured his wife while driving with a suspended license.

So, the new owners took out a mortgage on the red house to pay lawyers to help their son get a shorter prison sentence for vehicular manslaughter.  They made the payments for the next two years without incident when they refinanced with another mortgage company for better terms.

Then in December of 2016, their mortgage was bought by another company.  After that, they started receiving bills from both companies.

Instead of sending payments to the original company until the matter could be sorted out, they refused to pay either company – claiming that they were sovereign citizens and neither company had legal jurisdiction to make them pay their mortgage.  As a result, they missed the next seventeen payments.

So in 2018, the company that bought their mortgage foreclosed on the red house while they still owed $97,000.  That company then sold the red house to a local developer for $260,000.

The family then had their criminal son, who was now out of prison, fight against the foreclosure - instead of hiring a lawyer who could have prevented it.  Their criminal son based his legal fight of foreclosure on claims that the laws of America did not apply to his family.

So they refused to leave.  Soon, their criminal son was using social media to gain support by making the same claims of not being subject to the laws of America that white supremacist had used when they took over a wildlife refuge in 2016.

In September 2020, their legal options ran out when the Ninth Court of Appeals ruled that the foreclosure had been done in accordance with the law.  It also noted that the family had been given every opportunity to avoid foreclosure.

However, they still refused to leave claiming a Covid-19 exemption.  However, the judge ruled that since they had been convicted in 2018, that the Covid-19 exemption did not apply to them.

During this time, their criminal son had set up a Go Fund Me account to help them with their case.  However, he refused to use any of the money to hire a competent lawyer to avoid foreclosure.

So, the family was finally escorted out of the red house by law enforcement four years after they had made their last payment on their mortgage.  The police then began putting up construction fencing around the house with signs that it had been foreclosed.

People began assaulting the police when they did this.  Soon there were protests against “oppression of black and indigenous people of color” that resulted in the protesters setting up an autonomous zone around the red house.

This soon led to more confrontations between the protestors and law enforcement when the mayor of Portland refused to recognize their claims that the laws of the United States did not apply to the area around the Red House.  Soon, there were accusations from both sides of violence being used by the other side.

Finally, the local developer offered to sell the red house back to the family for the price he had paid in 2018 - $260,000 - to bring an end to the protests and avoid more violence.  The family had raised more than that in their Go Fund Me, so they agreed to this, if the city of Portland would not arrest the protestors on the provision that they took down the barriers that they set up.

The city agreed and most of the protestors left after taking down the barriers.  However, a number of homeless people refused to leave the red house and the vacant lot next to it.

The homeless people were eventually removed from the red house, but the family still could not return until they legally had the property transferred back to their name.  They need a lawyer to do that but have refused to hire one - despite the additional $55,000 that they had collected in their Go Fund Me account.

So, the Red House story is really a story of one criminal activity after another.  The entire incident would have never happened if their criminal son had not killed an innocent man while illegally driving with a suspended license.

Plainly we need a better way to deal with crime.

Around 1970, America began dealing with criminals differently than it had in the past.  The focus shifted from punishment in prison for crimes to community-based efforts to correct criminal behavior such as parole and providing psychological counseling in prison.

This soon led to a wave of new prisons being built to accommodate these goals.  However, the cost per incarceration of each prisoner also went up to provide the services needed to carry out this program.

By 1990, it was apparent that this approach was not working too well as recidivism (committing the same kind crime after release) rates went up dramatically.  So, Americans passed laws requiring longer sentences including “three strikes” laws that gave life sentences for offenders who committed those crimes for a third time.

This lowered crime rates initially since there were less criminals on the streets to commit crimes.  However, it created other problems.

The prisons were soon filled to capacity as people serving life sentences continued to occupy more and more of the cells in the prisons.  As a result, more first and second offenders had to be released earlier and earlier until more prisons could be built.

The recidivism rate among first offenders went up dramatically.  They knew by experience that they could get caught one more time and be released soon.

This also emboldened a whole new generation of criminals who knew that they would not be in prison for long for their first offense.  In some places, going to prison once became a rite of passage for young men who saw their gang as their family while their fathers were serving time in prison.

The crimes that were being committed by second time offenders also became more serious.  The recidivism rate for violent crimes, robbery, and sexual offenses went up the highest amount.

During this same time, the number of people imprisoned while awaiting trial also increased dramatically.  These newer laws meant to be tougher on crime raised the cost of bail to the point that many people had no choice but to remain incarcerated until trial – even if they were proven to be completely innocent at trial.

During this same time, prison labor was largely outlawed in most states.  This increased the cost of incarceration since the prisoners were no longer helping to pay the expenses.

The prisoners were also no longer learning useful employment skills due to the lack of prison labor.  Currently, only 1% of prisoners are employed resulting in an unemployment rate of 99% among prisoners.

So, the prisons have effectively became trade schools for young first offenders where the only skill that they learn in prison is how to become a better criminal.  Their teachers are the hardened third time offenders serving life sentences.

This has created a vicious cycle that is guaranteed to produce ever increasing prison populations.  Indeed, since 1970 the US population is about 175% of what it was in 1970 but the number of people imprisoned is seven times as high.

The means that the prison population has gone up about four times as fast as the population of those paying for the prisons.  At the same time, the cost of incarcerating each prisoner has also increased.

The result is that the cost of the entire prison system has increased dramatically.  The amount that each taxpayer pays for this system is more than what they pay for the k-12 education system or their state higher education institutions in some states.

Plainly we need a better way to deal with crime.

In response to these costs, some states have changed some of their laws to decriminalize some crimes like drug dealing or sexual crimes like child molestation.  As a result, these states have statistics that show that they have lowered their crime rates.

What if other states followed their logic and simply decriminalized everything including murder, armed robbery, and rape?  By decriminalizing everything, they could then claim that they have lowered their crime rates to zero.

In reality, decriminalizing crime does not make anyone or their property safer.  Decriminalizing crime only produces statistics that make the situation look better than it really is.

Another proposed solution is that we need to somehow improve the environment that people live in and then they would no longer become criminals.  Their entire plan for lowering crime rests on the idea that people become criminals because environmental factors like poverty turn them into criminals.

Yet, there are countless cases where two brothers growing up together in the same environment of extreme poverty and high crime rates turned out completely different.  One of them would become a doctor that operated a free clinic part-time in their neighborhood while the other one became a gang banger that killed a nine year old girl in a drive by.

I personally know the crushing weight of poverty and I also know that people have a choice.  When I was in high school I worked 90 hours a week as a dishwasher to help out my family while other people in my school made ten times as much money selling drugs.

Forty years later, I sometimes have paid more in tithes than some of them made that year.  I am certainly doing better than the ones who died while carrying out their criminal activities.

The truth is that poverty does not cause crime, but crime causes poverty.  Show me a family that continues in criminal behavior generation after generation, and I will show you a family that is in poverty generation after generation.

It can safely be said that our current system is broken.  It is expensive and completely ineffective.

Plainly we need a better way to deal with crime.

We do not need an expensive government study to find a better way to deal with crime.  We need to look no further than our own history.

The Pilgrims had an unprecedented low crime rate with very little money spent on prisons.  This is because prisons were only for holding the accused until they went on trial or while waiting for sentencing to be carried out.

While awaiting trial, the accused were given a copy of the Book of Truth (The Bible) to read.  They were encouraged to use their stay in prison to reflect on their life and repent of their crimes.

The accused did not spend long awaiting trial.  Depending on the time of day and the day of the week when they were arrested, they could go on trial as early as that same day and rarely did they wait more than three days.

All trials were held in public and in the daytime.  Anyone could watch the proceedings as long as they did not disrupt them.

The Pilgrims were very serious about keeping order in the court.  Those who were disruptive could be removed from the court and beaten if they refused to leave.

The innocence or guilt of the accused was determined by a group of twelve elderly men who were trained in these matters and had a record of living in accordance with the law themselves.  These elderly men could ask the accused and the witnesses any questions that they needed to gain a clearer understanding of the matter.

A judge oversaw the proceedings to ensure everything was done orderly and the accused was given due process.  The judge had the final say in sentencing if the elders found the accused guilty.

When the accused went on trial, they were presumed innocent until proven guilty.  The charges against them were read and the witnesses against them were called.

The witnesses were given an oath and reminded that false testimony would be dealt with harshly.  In fact, if their testimony was found to be false, then whatever the punishment was for the crime that they falsely testified about would be applied to them instead of the accused.

If the accused was found to be guilty by the panel of elders, then they would sentence the accused based on the crime and how often the accused had been found guilty of crimes before.

Crimes like murder, kidnapping, rape, and child molestation carried an automatic death penalty.  There was no variance due to gender, social status, ethnicity, or anything else of either the criminal or the victim.  This also guaranteed that there would be no repeat offenders of these types of crimes.

Property crimes carried a penalty of restitution based on the value of what was stolen or damaged.  If the accused could not pay the injured party, then they became indentured servants to the injured party to make restitution.

They became indentured servants for a maximum of seven years.  Their debt was considered paid off at the end of their servitude and they were given the things needed to make a fresh start.

In cases where physical harm was done to the victim, the same physical harm was done to the guilty party.  It was literally an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

In other cases, like slander, disturbing the peace, public drunkenness, harassment of others, and the like, the penalty was flogging.  How many stripes were given was determined by the elders based on the circumstances and how many times the guilty party had been punished before for similar crimes.

First time offenders typically received a few stripes with the number of stripes increasing to a limit of thirty-nine for repeat offenders.  However, there were few repeat offenders once they experienced immediate painful consequences for their actions.

If a case was too difficult for the twelve elders to agree on a verdict, then it was sent to the governor to pass judgement.  The guilty party could also appeal to have their case reviewed by the governor, who could overturn the verdict or lower the punishment of the judge.  In cases where the penalty was death the appeal to the governor was effectively automatic.

Once the final judgment was rendered, it was carried out immediately and in public provided there was sufficient time before sundown.  If there was not, the guilty party was placed back in the prison until sunrise the next business day when the sentence would be carried out.

One reason for public punishment was that public humiliation was part of the punishment.  The other reason was to deter others from committing those crimes.

Executions were done by hanging the convicted on a tree at the outskirts of town, usually along the main road.  The body of the condemned was left hanging until sundown.

Once any punishment other than execution was carried out, it was over.  Their debt was paid, and they were given a fresh start to do better.  They did not continue to pay for their crime for the rest of their lives by being denied the same rights or place in society that they had before they committed the crime.

Most people changed their ways as a result of this.  They had learned that crime did not pay, and that they would be accepted if they did what was right.

The Pilgrim model worked so well that it was replicated by other colonies like the Massachusetts Bay Colony controlled by the Puritans.  However, that colony added other standard English punishments like the stocks as well.

By the time of the American Revolution, all of the colonies had adopted some variation of the Pilgrim model as part of the legacy of the Pilgrims.  As a result crime rates were much lower than any country in Europe.

However, the Pilgrim model began to be replaced even though it was the best way to deal with crime.

Alexis de Tocqueville was sent to America by France in 1831 to determine why the crime rates in America were so low.  However, by this time parts of America were building prisons like Europe.

In those areas, crime was considerably higher than those that still followed the Pilgrim model.  Yet, building prisons was the trend in areas where large groups of Europeans had immigrated as the states grew.

So, President Andrew Jackson began working to move the entire country away from the Pilgrim model to a new prison model that had the goal of reforming criminals through labor instead of deterring crime through punishment.  He began the first large scale prison system in America that used prisoners as a source of cheap labor.

This left Alexis de Tocqueville perplexed.  He did not understand where the Pilgrim model had come from and why it was being abandoned after it had produced the lowest crime rates in the world.

He did not understand that from the time of Plymouth colony there had been division in America like that between Pilgrims and Strangers.  It was only after he attended a rural church that he began to understand the American Spirit.

The Pilgrims were not Reformers like the Puritans.  They were not even just Separatists – they were Browning Separatists.

The Pilgrims followed the teachings of Robert Browne – who taught them to use the Law of Truth (Torah aka The Law) in everything that they did.  As a result, the Pilgrim model was based on the commandments of the Law of Truth for dealing with crime.

This better way of dealing with crime included the following:

Judges were placed over courts of various sizes and trained in the Law of Truth so they could judge righteously (Exodus 18:20-21).  The judges had to be wise and well respected in their community (Deuteronomy 1:13-16).

The judges were to judge everyone fairly according to the judgments of the Law of Truth and not to let anyone intimidate them (Deuteronomy 1:16-17).  The judges were to judge impartially and not take bribes from anyone (Deuteronomy 16:19).

The judges and elders were to show no favoritism in judgment based on social status or wealth (Leviticus 19:15).  The law was to be applied equally to all people regardless of their ethnicity (Leviticus 24:22).  The disadvantaged were not to be punished for crimes that they did not commit (Deuteronomy 24:17).

All trials were to be held in public (Deuteronomy 16:18).  Crimes required two or three witnesses for the accused to be found guilty (Deuteronomy 19:15).

These witnesses were examined to verify that their witness was truthful (Deuteronomy 19:16-18). If their witness was false, then the penalty of the crime that they accused the innocent party was done to them instead– even an eye for an eye or execution (Deuteronomy 19:19-21).

However, harder cases where there was any uncertainty were given to the supreme ruler of the nation (Exodus 18:22).  He acted as the supreme judge who had the final say in all appeals or cases where it was not easy to determine the right judgment (Deuteronomy 1:17).

These harder cases were to be tried in public at the place appointed as the supreme court of the nation (Deuteronomy 17:8-9).  The judgment reached there was final and was to be carried out without any variance (Deuteronomy 17:10-11).  Anyone who sought to prevent the judgment from being carried out was executed (Deuteronomy 17:12-13).

Anyone who purposely planned and murdered another person was executed without exception or refuge (Exodus 21:12-14).  This included masters who killed their indentured servants or slaves (Exodus 21:20).

Anyone who killed another person on purpose was executed, but if they killed an animal, then they had to give the owner another animal of equal value (Leviticus 24:17-18).  The only payment acceptable for purposely killing someone was the life of the murderer (Leviticus 24:21).

However, if someone killed someone else by accident, then they could flee to a city of refuge to be protected from the family of the person they killed until the crime could be investigated (Numbers 35:11-15).

If the investigation showed that they had not killed the person on accident, but rather on purpose, then they were handed over to the family of the victim to be executed (Numbers 35:16-21).  The elders that had jurisdiction over the murderer would hand them over to the family for execution (Deuteronomy 19:11-13).

If the investigation showed that they had killed the person on accident, then they had to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the High Priest to be safe from the family of the victim (Numbers 35:22-28).

Also no monetary settlement could be reached instead of execution or banishment to the city of refuge (Numbers 35:31-32).  The parents or children of the convicted could not be executed for the crime of their family member (Deuteronomy 24:16).

However, no one could be executed for murder unless there were at least two witnesses (Numbers 35:30).  These witnesses had to begin the execution process (Deuteronomy 17:6-7).

Anyone who kidnapped another person was executed (Exodus 21:16).  Anyone who raped a woman was executed (Deuteronomy 22:25-27).

Anyone who was executed was then hung from a tree for all to see until sundown (Deuteronomy 21:22-23).

Anyone who assaulted another person had to pay for their recovery time and all medical expenses (Exodus 21:18-19).  If they caused the other person serious injury, then they would be injured in the same way – it was an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (Leviticus 24:19-20).

If someone hit a pregnant woman and she miscarried, then they could be beaten within an inch of their life by her husband and then forced to pay her husband as much money as the judges determined (Exodus 21:22).  If the woman was injured or killed a result of the assault, then the same injury would be afflicted on the one who assaulted her – including execution if she died (Exodus 21:23-25).

If a master seriously injured their indentured servant or slave, then their servitude or slavery was over without owing anything to the master (Exodus 21:26-27).

If a thief stole a work animal that could not be recovered, then they had to pay back five of those work animals to compensate for lost work done by the animal plus the trouble caused by their actions, but if they stole other livestock that could not be recovered, then they had to pay back only four of those livestock since no work was lost (Exodus 22:1). If the stolen animal was recovered, then they only had to pay back twice as much to compensate for the trouble they caused (Exodus 22:4).

If the thief was breaking in at night and killed, then the killer of the thief was innocent since they could not tell whether or not the thief intended to do them harm but if they could see that the thief was not trying to harm them, then they would be executed if they killed the thief (Exodus 22:2-3).

The thief also had to pay back double if they stole money or anything else from people (Exodus 22:7).  The same was true for someone who stole from someone who had entrusted them with anything (or those who wrongfully accused them of stealing) (Exodus 22:8-9).

If someone took anything from someone through violence or deceit, then they had to restore it plus one fifth of the value of the item (Leviticus 6:2-5).  If the victim had died, then they had to make restitution to the nearest relative of the victim or pay the restitution as a fine (Numbers 5:5-7).

Indentured servitude was for only six years and ended in the seventh year (Exodus 21:2).  If a thief could not pay the restitution, then they were sold into indentured servitude to make restitution (Exodus 22:3).

People who caused trouble for other people by rioting and the like could be sentenced to flogging by the judges and the sentence was carried out immediately (Deuteronomy 25:1-2).  However, they could not be flogged with more than forty stripes (Deuteronomy 25:3).

This is still the best way to deal with crime:

The Man of Truth (Yeshua HaMashiach aka Jesus Christ) did not come to end the commandments of the Law of Truth but to show us how to apply them righteously (Matthew 5:16-20).  He said that the preaching of the gospel in no way brought these commandments to an end (Luke 16:16-17).

The Man of Truth advocated of flogging those who committed crimes worthy of flogging (Luke 12:47-48).  This causes the flogged to turn away from a life of crime (Hebrews 12:11).

The Man of Truth said that those who committed any crime that required the death penalty under the Law of Truth should die (Matthew 15:3-6).  He said that no one could change the penalty for these crimes (Mark 7:9-13).

The Man of Truth said that the death penalty could only be applied as a result of the righteous judgment demanded by the Law of Truth (John 7:18-24).  He would not condemn anyone to death without two or three witnesses (John 8:3-11).

Even the criminal who repented on the cross acknowledged that the death penalty was just for his crimes (Luke 23:39-41).  In like manner, Paul the Jew (Shaul aka Saul aka the Apostle Paul) said that if he had broken any law with the death penalty then he deserved to be executed (Acts 25:8-11).

Paul the Jew also said that governments were meant to be a terror to criminals and are doing the will of the Father of Truth (YHVH aka God aka THE LORD) when they execute those who commit death penalty crimes (Romans 13:3-4).  He said that laws were made for dealing with criminals and were not a problem for anyone else when the laws are carried out in the intended manner (1 Timothy 1:8-9).

However, America has moved away from this better way to deal with crime as it has moved away from the Book of Truth.

After President Andrew Jackson built up the first wave of prisons, the ideas of rehabilitative labor to replace the Pilgrim model continued to gain in popularity.  By the time the Civil War began in 1861, rehabilitative labor and prisons had replaced the Pilgrim model almost everywhere in America, except in rural areas in some of the southern states and the sparsely populated territories in the west.

After the Civil War ended in 1865 AD, the movement to replace the rehabilitative labor system began to gain momentum.  Like the previous change in dealing with crime, the movement for this change began in the cities along the east coast where most of the immigrants from Europe arrived at.

As the new European immigrants began to move westward to the large cities of the north that went from New York City to Minneapolis this movement went with them.  After their descendants began to move to cities along the west coast from Seattle to San Diego, these ideas became popular there as well.

So through a subtle influence, the prison system began to move even further from the Pilgrim model as rehabilitative labor prisons were replaced with prisons that focused on rehabilitation instead.  This caused a second wave of prison building to create more expensive prisons to accommodate the goals of rehabilitation.

However, by 1910 most states had adopted the rehabilitation model and crime rates had reached all-time highs in many places in America – especially violent offenders.  A disproportionate part of these violent offenders were these new European immigrants who had pushed for prisons to be changed from rehabilitative labor to rehabilitation.

The cities that had adopted this rehabilitation model were overran with crime.  The cities that were most overran were those from New York to Minneapolis and those along the west coast where these immigrants had effectively taken over.

In response, legislatures and law enforcement realized that the rehabilitation model was not working.  So by 1918, many states began replacing it with a retribution model instead that was closer to the Pilgrim model.

By 1930, almost all of the states as well as the federal government had replaced the rehabilitation model with the retribution model.  There was no new wave of expensive new prisons needed for the retribution system since prison populations soon went way down.

In fact, the retribution model was cheaper in almost all ways.  Prisoners either worked to help offset the cost of their incarceration or they were not fed.

Few modifications were needed to adopt the retribution model.  Mostly they consisted of things like building gallows and whipping posts with prisoners supplying the labor.

As a result crime, especially violent crime, began a sharp decline.  Of course, violent crime also went down because executed murderers and the like had no opportunity to become repeat offenders.

Within a decade, crime rates were the lowest they had been since the introduction of the rehabilitative labor model.  However, they were not as low as they had been under the Pilgrim model, and it was also more expensive.

However after America began fighting World War II in 1941, Americans were exposed to the failed ideas of Europe once again as well as the atrocities of the Nazis.  The Nazis had created a system of imprisoning and tormenting innocent people that went far beyond anything that existed in the retribution model.

After World War II ended in 1945, a new wave of Europeans came to America to escape the devastation caused by the ideas of Europe.  These immigrants had no connection to the Pilgrims and shared none of their values.

These immigrants largely moved to the same cities that the previous immigrants had moved to.  Soon they were pushing for an end of the retribution model from New York to Minneapolis as well as the cities along the west coast of the US.

These immigrants soon began working to change the prison system of America to be more like that of Europe – including Germany before Hitler rose to power.  This was the same system that had allowed Adolf Hitler to create the Holocaust instead of being executed for high treason.

By 1970, the US began building a third wave of prisons to accommodate their ideas.  This has taken American further from the Pilgrim model than any other time in history.

As a result crime rates, especially violent crime, have soared higher than those of 1910 in many cities, the prison system is overwhelmed with prisoners, recidivism rates are at an all-time high, incarceration costs have grown at an unsustainable rate, and many crimes have been decriminalized.

This moving far away from the Pilgrim model is really a symptom of a greater problem in America.  Americans no longer understand the meaning of liberty that is celebrated on Independence Day and has become disconnected from the values of the Pilgrims as shown by the disintegration of Thanksgiving.

In fact, America has become a nation of fools that has experienced a loss of power.  America has not answered the call of 9-11 because of the Great Deception taught in many of American congregations that no longer have the evidence of faith.

If we want to make America great again and avoid the death of America, then we need to return to the Pilgrim model.  Like the Founding Fathers, we need to recognize that we have reached a time for civil disobedience.

The day is coming when this better way of dealing with crime will return.

If the Pilgrim model had been applied, then most of these protests would not have ever occurred and none would have turned violent.  There simply would have been nothing to protest.

The dream of MLK would be a reality if America applied the Pilgrim model.  All six shades of brown would be treated the same under it.

The European-American police officer who shot an innocent and unarmed African-American man would have been executed.  The police officers of various ethnicities who killed the nineteen criminals of various ethnicities who were attempting to kill either them or a civilian would have all been acquitted.

There would not have been those twenty-seven murders along with massive property destruction by criminals who used the protests as a cover for their criminal activity.  They would have realized that crime does not pay if the Pilgrim model had been applied.

In fact, most of these criminals would have turned away from crime before reaching the point of attempting to murder someone, if they had been flogged for their earlier crimes.  They would have given up on looting long ago if they had to pay restitution for stealing or vandalism the first time that they were caught.

The European-American police officer who killed the African-American criminal when they struggled in the dark over a taser would have been acquitted since he could not clearly see that the criminal was no longer a threat to him.  The European-American police officer who killed George Floyd in broad daylight would have been executed since he could clearly see that George Floyd was no longer a threat to him.

Will America come to its senses and return to the Pilgrim model since it is a better way to deal with crime?  Perhaps not, but the day is coming when crime throughout the Earth will be dealt with in a way similar to the Pilgrim model.

The Man of Truth is going to make the Law of Truth the basis for the law of every nation on Earth - beginning with Israel (Isaiah 2:1-5).  This better way of dealing with crime will bring peace and prosperity to every ethnic group (Micah 4:1-4).

The resurrection of the Man of Truth makes it certain that he will apply this better way to deal with crime (Acts 17:31).  He will continue to do so until crime has been driven out of all the Earth (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

However, the best way for a person to never become a criminal is to deal with the root cause of all crime.  It starts with recognizing that they were born with a criminal heart that is exceedingly wicked and deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).

This criminal heart must be replaced with a new heart that can obey the Law of Truth (Ezekiel 11:19-21).  Criminal minds cannot obey the Law of Truth (Romans 8:6-7).

For this reason the Man of Truth said that people must be born again (John 3:3-7).  Then they become a new person with a new heart and no longer have a criminal mind (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The Man of Truth made this possible by dying in our place to pay for our crimes (Romans 5:6-8).  He was hung on a tree to be cursed in our place (Galatians 3:13).

Now we are offered a deal if we will no longer live like criminals (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).  The death of the only innocent man to ever live has made it possible for all crimes to be expunged from our record (2 Corinthians 5:21).

So, come into the House of Truth and have your criminal heart replaced with a new heart that can obey the Law of Truth.

You come into the House of Truth when you proclaim that the Man of Truth is king of your life because you believe in your heart that his Father raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9).  You will have dealt with crime in the best way possible when you no longer do things that are contrary to the Law of Truth (Galatians 5:18-23).

Come into the House of Truth!