There has seldom been any crossover between criminology and theology, yet what I hope this book has demonstrated is that such crossover can be fruitful in terms of theoretical discussion and practical application. As noted in the introduction, both public criminology and public theology aim to engage various publics and to have relevance to practice. It is hoped the chapters in this book have such real-world application. Through the various contributions some common themes have emerged. In this concluding chapter these themes are brought together in proposing a form of criminal justice framed within the context of hope, mercy and restoration, that radically challenges the retributive orthodoxy. As I noted in Chapter 7, this may be accused of utopianism, or ‘naïve idealism’ (Forrester, 1997: 30) as major changes to criminal justice practice are not likely in the immediate future. Similarly, in terms of theological engagement with policing, in Chapter 10 Alistair McFadyen has noted how a Christian focus on love for enemies might be met with suspicion, that it does not relate to ‘the gritty reality of damaged and damaging human reality’. Yet, it is suggested in this chapter that shifts in emphasis are possible: that demonstrate love, that change the focus from the infliction of pain to the offer of hope, and where mercy and the full restoration of the offender into community are prioritised over exclusion.

Historically, Christian theologians have often supported retribution with a literal interpretation of lex talionis or an eye-for-an-eye, that sin should not go unpunished. For instance, I noted in Chapter 7 how Aquinas saw ‘evil doers’ as lacking human dignity. And Richard Bourne in Chapter 8 observed how from Aquinas to Luther and Calvin, and then through to modernity, retributive justification for punishment was strengthened. In Chapter 5 Tim Gorringe highlighted the influence of Anselm's satisfaction theory of atonement on criminal justice, in legitimating the notion that people have to suffer for their offences. Yet according to Gorringe, this interpretation was never hegemonic. There is an alternative history of Christian thought that has taken a different view of the cross, including the Lollards, Anabaptists, Diggers and Quakers through to 20th-century liberation theology. Gorringe quoted Blake in observing that the conventional theology of atonement of his day was ‘a horrible doctrine’.