Jake Squid’s comments about an acquaintance who accidentally shot a relative reminded me of this stunning New York Times article, about a pair of parents who forgave their daughter’s murderer, going so far to get him a reduced sentence (20 years plus ten years probation, when otherwise he probably would have gotten 40 years to life). The murderer, Conor McBride, was the fiancée of the victim, Ann Grosmaire. (That’s the two of them pictured above, the same year as the murder).
I recommend reading the article, which is long and very well written. Trigger warning for – well, for the obvious reasons, including a description of the murder from the murderer’s perspective which has lingered in my mind since I read it.
The Grosmaire’s eventually sought out a Restorative Justice approach, sitting down in a room with Connor, Connor’s parents, the prosecutor, Restorative Justice expert Sujatha Baliga, and a photo of the late Ann Grosmaire, to talk about what happened. Restorative Justice focuses on amends rather than punishment. (I last wrote about Restorative Justice in 2006, in the context of rape.)
From the article:
When Conor was booked, he was told to give the names of five people who would be permitted to visit him in jail, and he put Ann’s mother Kate on the list. Conor says he doesn’t know why he did so — “I was in a state of shock” — but knowing she could visit put a burden on Kate. At first she didn’t want to see him at all, but that feeling turned to willingness and then to a need. “Before this happened, I loved Conor,” she says. “I knew that if I defined Conor by that one moment — as a murderer — I was defining my daughter as a murder victim. And I could not allow that to happen.”
She asked her husband if he had a message for Conor. “Tell him I love him, and I forgive him,” he answered. Kate told me: “I wanted to be able to give him the same message. Conor owed us a debt he could never repay. And releasing him from that debt would release us from expecting that anything in this world could satisfy us.”
Visitors to Leon County Jail sit in a row of chairs before a reinforced-glass partition, facing the inmates on the other side — like the familiar setup seen in movies. Kate took the seat opposite Conor, and he immediately told her how sorry he was. They both sobbed, and Kate told him what she had come to say. All during that emotional quarter of an hour, another woman in the visiting area had been loudly berating an inmate, her significant other, through the glass. After Conor and Kate “had had our moment,” as Kate puts it, they both found the woman’s screaming impossible to ignore. Maybe it was catharsis after the tears or the need to release an unbearable tension, but the endless stream of invective somehow struck the two of them as funny. Kate and Conor both started to laugh. Then Kate went back to the hospital to remove her daughter from life support.
Like a lot of people, my first response was to wonder if I could ever be that forgiving. I don’t know if I could. That level of forgiveness is admirable, but it’s also more than I’d ask of any person, including myself.
I thought blogger Rebecca Hamilton’s response was interesting:
I can’t talk about the things my constituents tell me. But I will say that there are people who form relationships with their children’s murderers and visit them in prison and actually claim they’ve come to love them. It’s not so unusual as you might think. It also isn’t so appealing in real life.
There is no one more lost and hollowed out than someone whose child has been murdered. They want something, some contact with their lost child, and they are searching for it in the person who murdered them. [...]
The grief-driven relationships that form between families of murder victims and their loved one’s murderer, whether they be burning hate or saintly forgiveness, are always at least partly a response to pain that cannot be borne. I do not take this pain lightly. I certainly do not approach miracles of forgiveness disrespectfully.
But they are not a reason to give light sentences to cold-blooded murderers. The emotions of those family members who are moved to vengeance are also not reasons to give life sentences to people who killed someone by accident, even if the accident included serious negligence or even violence. Murder is an intentional act committed by someone who intends to kill.
I don’t agree with everything Rebecca says; I think likelihood of reoffending is a reasonable things for judges to consider during sentencing, for instance. (And for parole officers to consider, as well). But I do share her concerns about victim-centered justice being capricious.
What do you think?
Categories: General
I find this whole concept repulsive.
I certainly authorize no family member to every forgive anyone who harmed my person on my behalf, if something should happen to me. I would be appalled if they valued my life so little.
This is neither restorative nor justice. It is not restorative because human life can not be restored. It is not justice because justice means that you pay for what you’ve done.
And while I can’t speak for this particular case, it’s highly unusual completely non-violent person to just up and kill someone out of the blue. On the other hand, it is very highly usual for folks whove done something very bad to cry some crocodile tears when it pays for them. It’s not all that uncommon even for people to experience authentic regret- temporarily.
The family can do whatever makes them feel better in their private lives, but nothing like this should ever become a model for criminal justice.
I think the reason we have courts and judges is to try to hand out punishment fairly and not based on emotions (more than we can avoid anyway). So I don’t think a sentence should be reduced or increased depending on the attitude of the victim’s family. Some people are more forgiving than others.
I do think it’s admirable when people can forgive. I don’t think everyone can do it.
I have a theory that there are levels of forgiveness with the first being letting go of a desire for revenge. I think we can all aim for that.
I think that getting to forgiveness often requires you to be angry and express it.
I also think real forgiveness takes time and we should forgive ourselves when we can’t just do it because we are supposed to.
Full disclosure: I am a survivor of domestic violence, including a murder attempt by my ex-husband (he broke in around 4:00AM, wearing a ninja outfit with camouflage paint on his face and carrying several knives. If he’d had a gun instead of knives, I wouldn’t be typing this.)
So, with that in mind, you may think I’m biased when I say that the description of the relationship and of the argument that predicated Ann’s murder has the hallmarks of a relationship scarred by domestic violence. But it does.
I’ll be frank—I have a very low opinion of the forgiveness movement in general, because of the undue pressure it puts on victims to forgive perpetrators, often at the expense of the victim’s physical safety and mental health, and with no real amends or consequences for the perpetrator. I know that isn’t the intent of formal restorative justice programs, but it is certainly how it is translated in the cultural vernacular—one can no sooner admit that one has been victimized by a predator before the immediate response by the listener is, “but….you’ve forgiven (this person), right?”
It’s as if forgiveness is treated as a talisman, designed to protect others from further predation. An “if we Play Nice with this violent person, maybe the violent person won’t hurt us (again).” Meanwhile, there is no need to worry about the victim—he or she isn’t going to harm us. Bah.
For the record, I don’t want anyone “forgiving” my murderer in the event I am killed, and you don’t even wanna know what I would do if anyone harmed my daughter. The reason it is important to have a court system and trial by jury is to avoid the inevitable vendettas that would result from individuals (or their survivors) seeking restitution or justice on their own.
I think it’s a safe bet that Conor will not randomly murder any stranger on the street when he is released from prison. I think it’s also a safe bet that he will harm the next woman he is in a relationship with.
(I think it’s also a safe bet that he will harm the next woman he is in a relationship with.)
Yeah I agree with this. His behavior is classic domestic violence. And they article bends over backwards to avoid the topic. The relationship was immature, he prone to bursts of irrational rage, he exhibited wraithful behaviour, he got the gun out because he was going to kill himself, he just meant to scare her.
As for her parents, I have no problem with them forgiving him, she was their daughter so it’s their choice. I just wish someone in this process was clear eyed enough to give some thought to his next girlfriend.
Very powerful, thanks Barry. I heard an interview with Jared Diamond the other day about his new book and he does analyze restorative justice in the context of similar systems in traditional societies. I cannot comment too much because I haven’t read the book, yet; but I am planning on it.
Barry:
I’m not sure I can express this correctly: Eventually, not-forgiving becomes corrosive in itself and the weight of it will make you crazy. As hard as it may be, it is always worth asking people to consider forgiveness…but you MUST accept that the answer may be “no”. I can and have asked this of myself, and my answer was “hell, no” for a long time…and I still have to give myself a break for my lapses occasionally. forgiveness is hard, but so is not-forgiving. My experience is that it has been worth it to forgive what I could forgive. It has even been worth it just to try to forgive what I have not been able to forgive (yet…hope springs eternal)
Kisarita, I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you did not read the article, because they do reflect on a lot of what you bring up. You should read it, it’s good.
Kisarita and La Lubu, I have to say I would not be appalled if my family forgave someone who murdered me. Like I said, vendetta and not-forgiving are oppressive burdens and I’m not sure I would want to make my loved ones carry that weight. I feel like the question should not be about my needs (I would be dead), but about how I want my loved ones to live. I have mistaken the two enough for one lifetime (and will some more, no doubt…)
That said, while I think there is a lot to be said for restorative justice practices, once should not mistake them for a panacea. The forgiveness I speak of is a private thing but in the article that Barry linked to, the author correctly points out that murder is not a private affair, but is also a crime against the larger community. She reminds us also that:
I had the same reaction that she did that regardless of the forgiveness of the family, I do not want this guy out of jail. One of the most interesting aspects of the original article is the way the number of years went up as people thought about what had happened. For my own part, I have always sort of thought a system of indefinite sentencing would be better for a lot of reasons (and that’s all I will say on that subject to avoid the usual thread-jacking).
Just to be fair, they didn’t ignore it:
that said, yes, I agree.
Forgiveness properly understood does not require lessening civil punishments designed to protect the public good–and the next woman.
I do not know that 20 year in prison, rather than 40, is not an appropriate punishment for this kind of crime. Esp since he immediately turned himself into the police, which domestic terrorists don’t usually do.
La Lubu horrible. I’m so sorry! You must be a very strong woman to have overcome so much.
(Forgiveness properly understood does not require lessening civil punishments designed to protect the public good–and the next woman.)
Except they were not after forgiveness but “FORGIVENESS” with magic voices and hugs and circles and jail visits and confessions. They loved him like a son don’t ya know. I didn’t find it moving at all. In truth I found it a little creepy. True repentance and forgiveness take time.
(I do not know that 20 year in prison, rather than 40, is not an appropriate punishment for this kind of crime. Esp since he immediately turned himself into the police, which domestic terrorists don’t usually do.)
I would be a lot more comfortable having released at 64 rather then 44.
Great. If I ever catch the person who shot me I would [delete the rest of my comment which is uncivil]. With enough energy to propel the bullet 1 mm further I wouldn’t be here to annoy the usual suspects. That, by the way, is precisely why I do not believe in capital punishment. As a society, we should be better than my rage.
Therefore it follows that I have great respect for those who can forgive and move on.
i do not share the idea that forgiving the unforgiveable is something at all positive or something to strive towards nor do i accept that people who do not do so are bound to be tormented forever.
Thank you Maggie. With that said:
Forgiveness is the problem. Think I’m exaggerating? From the article:
Ann lived in a culture in which forgiveness is prioritized over her safety and security. Ann lived in a culture that told her to downplay the harmful behavior and dangerous warning signs in the interest of “forgiveness”. In the interest of “he said he was sorry.” “He didn’t really mean it.” Again and again. That still, small voice she had inside that told her the truth, that told her she needed to get out, had no backup. None. She was all alone in her doubts.
Abuse victims are most likely to be killed when? When they leave. Ann was murdered when she tried to leave.
This article is just one of many that exacerbate the problem by treating egregious violations of human rights as just another aspect of anger. As if there is a seamless continuum from a lengthy argument to shooting someone in the face while she is on her knees saying “no”. As if becoming a murderer is something that could happen to anyone, given a similar set of circumstances (“passion”, “provocation”, “being upset”, etc.). This is not true. This is a myth that needs to end, and it needs to end now. Human lives are literally at stake.
Meanwhile, Connor lives in a culture that didn’t see anything wrong with his other behavior—-only the murder. No one thought he needed to see a therapist. No one told him he was out of line. No one told him that the type/trajectory of arguments in their relationship was abnormal and toxic. And why would they? To do so would be to call into question the authority of Conor’s father. This is so taboo that the fact his father was abusive is not bluntly stated in the article; it is alluded to. Yes, Conor’s father taught him how to abuse.
We live in a culture that is very enabling and accommodating of domestic violence. And part of that enabling is how “forgiveness” is used as a weapon against people who attempt to set boundaries for how they will be treated. Against people who leave a relationship or want to be left alone. This needs to end, too.
We don’t all have the same relationship to forgiveness. I believe Hernan when he says he feels non-forgiveness as a burden. To be blunt, I don’t. Rather, I find non-forgiveness extremely affirmative and extraordinarily healing. For me it’s about boundaries, and the right to have mine recognized and held to. I recognize that others feel differently, and they have the right to seek their own path to healing, for themselves. But we need to get rid of this idea that the only moral path to healing is forgiveness. I don’t feel guilty for not forgiving. I feel angry when I’m told that I’m “just as bad” (morally speaking) as my abuser for not forgiving him for abusing me. Frankly, that illustrates just how much abuse is a part of the general culture.
(shoot. blockquotes didn’t show up. Paragraphs two and three are blockquotes.)
[Fixed! --Barry]
Well said La Lubu. I think this is what I was trying to say just not so articulatey and eloquently.
I believe the forgiveness cult has it’s roots, in this culture at least, in Christianity, although it often takes on a secular veneer. There are many secular values that have their roots in religion. This does not make it wrong. It may be good for some people. But what it does mean is that it is part of an identifiable particular thought system that isn’t a one size fits all for everyone.
I was speaking about the personal, individual level, not the legal.
Legally speaking, I used to volunteer at a mediation center in which the courts would refer cases to us that they felt were mild. If we got a whiff of domestic violence or other type of danger or power imablance, we would refer the case right back.
La Lubu,
I think I have a different conception of what “forgiveness” means than you do. In my opinion, we are disagreeing not so much over substance as definition. (Or, if we are disagreeing over substance, then the real disagreement has not yet surfaced.)
Forgiveness does not mean making excuses for someone’s bad behavior. (In fact, logically, it means doing the opposite. If what the person is doing is “not so bad” or “normal,” then forgiveness is less required. Unless what someone does is wrong, there’s no need to forgive them.) It does not mean staying in a dangerous or abusive situation. It does not mean checking your brain at the door or requiring lesser civil punishments.
In other words, when you say, “Ann lived in a culture in which forgiveness is prioritized over her safety and security. Ann lived in a culture that told her to downplay the harmful behavior and dangerous warning signs in the interest of ‘forgiveness,’” my response is that none of this is a requirement of forgiveness. In fact, much of it is inimical to forgiveness.
Instead, I think that forgiveness is about the letting go of hatred. It is to decide not to return tit for tat (that is, to seek and desire justice not revenge). I means wanting the good of the other person (This point is where I think there is some potential misunderstanding: when I say “wanting the good of the other person,” understand that “wanting the good for the other person” could include wanting them to stay in jail for the rest of their life and wanting never to see them again.)
Also, when people say “becoming a murderer is something that could happen to anyone, given a similar set of circumstances,” they’re not talking about concurrent circumstances “(‘passion,’ ‘provocation,’ ‘being upset,’ etc.)”; they’re talking about the whole gamut of nature and nurture.
Schroeder, I think we do disagree about substance. In my eyes, “forgiveness” means that one can treat someone who has committed a serious transgression as if that transgression never took place—a “clean slate”, so to speak. What I have experienced and observed in my environs, is that people who are unwilling to engage with others who have harmed them….are declared to have not “forgiven” properly (by the peanut gallery, observing from the cheap seats), and are even accused of “continuing the cycle of violence”. No, no and furthermore…no.
Non-forgiveness is not the equivalent of doing harm to another person. It isn’t. Again: boundaries. People who have been victimized have the absolute right to set their own boundaries as to how they want to deal with the persons who have harmed them. That includes the right to emotional boundaries. I deeply resent the effort of outside observers to police my emotions regarding serious trauma. I deeply resent the effort by outside observers to get me to downplay the seriousness of my trauma under some false rubric of “we’re all human, we all make mistakes, yadda yadda” (please understand, I’m not accusing anyone here—I’m just bluntly stating how I feel about it in general). It feels silencing. It feels dismissive. It is an imposition on my humanity. It reminds me of all the witnesses to my trauma who said and did nothing. It is gaslighting. It is manipulative. It asks people to publically lie, and to lie to themselves.
I don’t forgive my abuser. I didn’t wish him well. It is enough for me that I had no contact after the night he tried (and failed) to kill me. That is what non-forgiveness looks like.
This is really very persuasive, to me, and makes me view the article a lot more negatively.
I found this piece really difficult to read and, like Barry, I question whether I could ever be as forgiving as the couple in this article. I’m wary of transforming the criminal justice system into a restorative justice model for violent crimes because I would be concerned about the implicit social and institutional pressure such a model could place on victims to forgive those who have hurt them.
And, maybe I missed it, but I don’t remember the article noting that the couple met with any mental health professionals either privately or when they had the meetings with Conor. In meetings comprised of the couple, Conor, clergy, attorneys, and a restorative justice expert, I question how adequately and competently the couple’s mental health status/concerns were addressed and centered. I mean, they had just experienced a severe trauma…
Thanks for your commentary here, La Lubu and for sharing your personal experience. I agree with much of what you say, especially this:
“Meanwhile, Connor lives in a culture that didn’t see anything wrong with his other behavior—-only the murder.”
Our culture does not train people very well to set boundaries or to respect other people’s boundaries. In fact, to set and respect boundaries is widely considered, in my experience, to be dorky, cowardly, aggressive, unrealistic, and over-sensitive. It does seem like Conor and Ann’s relationship was really volatile and abusive and, rather than putting the onus on victims to forgive abusers and killers after the fact for these Great Noble Purposes, I’d like to see more of a focus on violence prevention, boundaries, and civility before the fact- where people are condemning aggressive actions, large and small, rather than entitling people to continue to engage in them.
On a smaller, less extreme scale, I think the themes in this piece are similar to the recurring themes about civility in general that are often discussed at this blog.
La Lubu, you said, “I think we do disagree about substance,” but right after that you said a bunch of stuff that I explicitly and emphatically agreed with in my comment.
For instance, you say “I deeply resent the effort by outside observers to get me to downplay the seriousness of my trauma under some false rubric of ‘we’re all human, we all make mistakes, yadda yadda’” I know you weren’t accusing me of this necessarily, but I’m just not sure how it relates to anything I actually said. I explicitly said, “Forgiveness does not mean making excuses for someone’s bad behavior.” Let me say it again: What your abuser did to you was absolutely inexcusable. Period. Furthermore, you are absolutely prudent never to want to see him again. The point of my comment, though, was that the last two sentences are not related to forgiveness, as I was using it.
Also, I’m curious how you (and Barry, actually) would respond to my last paragraph:
“When people say ‘becoming a murderer is something that could happen to anyone, given a similar set of circumstances,’ they’re not talking about concurrent circumstances ‘(‘passion,’ ‘provocation,’ ‘being upset,’ etc.)’ they’re talking about the whole gamut of nature and nurture.” I’ll go ahead and say that when I say “people,” I mean “me and everyone I’ve talked to who has expressed something similar.” (Feel free to ask for clarification if you’re not sure what I meant.)
La Lubu,
Also – in case it hasn’t come through as clearly as I want it to – I am so sorry about what you went through. That is an awful situation that no one should have to go through, and I’m so glad that you got out of that situation.
(“Forgiveness does not mean making excuses for someone’s bad behavior.”)
The problem with this is it’s your personal definition it’s not the operational definition of forgiveness in society today.
Schroeder, I know you agree with some of what I’ve said. But you seem to disagree that it is a moral response for a survivor to hate the person who has wronged him or her. I believe that it is. Whatever else “forgiveness” may be, it doesn’t include the right to hate the person who has wronged you, nor does it include the right to hope they receive as much suffering in this world as they have dished out to others.
No, I disagree that everyone could become a murderer given a certain set of circumstances. Murder isn’t a feeling. It is an act. The two can’t be equated.
Mont, I was hoping to avoid being pedantic and quoting the dictionary, but you’ve forced my hand.
“Forgiveness,” like many words, is a homonym: the exact same word can have multiple definitions which may or may not overlap.
Here is what the dictionary says about “forgive:”
For·give [fer-giv], for·gave, for·giv·en, for·giv·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2. to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3. to grant pardon to (a person).
4. to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one’s enemies.
Notice that none of these definitions require someone to make excuses for bad behavior. Furthermore (and more to the general point) I was using definition four, whereas it appeared at first that Ki and La Lubu were using one of definitions one through three.
If the dictionary can’t be a neutral arbiter of what words mean, I’m just at a loss! All I can say then, is that everyone’s definition of everything is just a “personal definition,” and I have no idea how conversation is possible!
La Lubu,
I guess we do disagree on the substance. But now that we know what we’re disagreeing on, we can comfortably agree to disagree. I believe that hatred is bad for the recipient as well as for the person who holds on to it.
All that being said, I really do not judge you for being unable to forgive your abuser. If I had gone through what you went through, I doubt I would want to (or be able to if I did want to) forgive him either.
Schroeder, I assume that it is not your intent to be dismissive, but I perceive your language as such, re: “unable to forgive.” Let me be crystal-clear: my non-forgiving is not due to any lack or flaw on my part. It is a positive, affirmative choice. A choice that harms no one, including myself. Let me repeat: my, or anyone else’s, non-forgiveness is not an act of harm.
I can’t speak for La Lubu but something about that last paragraph really rubbed me the wrong way.
the idea that one human being can somehow absolve or pardon a murder of another human being strikes me as off as well. It reminds me of the story of the dying nazi who summoned a Jew to ask him to forgive him for the genocide of his people.
By the way: why is there such a huge cultural investment in pressuring people who have been victimized to cease feeling resentment against the persons who have seriously wronged them? Especially when the nature of the specific “wrong” can never be converted to justice?
Sorry, La Lubu: poor choice of words. I did not mean “unable” in the sense of weakness of character or anything. I meant “unable” in the sense of “choose not to.” I need to do a better job making sure I phrase things right. But we do disagree on some things, I think.
It’s not exerting pressure on people to forgive. That’s not really how I think about it… I certainly don’t want to shame people into forgiving. But I do think that forgiveness is a positive force in the world and that hatred is a negative force.
Ki,
That’s a good point, re: “forgiving on behalf of other people.” I’ve always been suspicious of that too. I guess I assumed that the parents were forgiving their daughter’s murderer for the pain that he caused them but would also acknowledge that they, as human beings, can’t forgive anything on behalf of their daughter. I realize that that assumption might be absurd, but un-examined assumptions usually are.
la lubu: regarding cultural pressure I suspect it is the influence of Christianity.
Another is perhaps that victims, or people who identify with the victims, feel that they are no longer passive and helpless, there is something they can do, a power that they hold- the power to choose to forgive or not.
I’m all for forgiveness actually on the smaller events that happen in all of our relationships. But there are certain things that our larger than that.
Schroeder:
“It’s not exerting pressure on people to forgive. That’s not really how I think about it… I certainly don’t want to shame people into forgiving. But I do think that forgiveness is a positive force in the world and that hatred is a negative force.”
That can certainly be your sincerely-held belief, but that last sentence is not only a platitude but it is actually pressure-y.
If forgiveness is a positive force in the world and hatred is a negative force, then those who don’t forgive are withholding positive energy and putting forth negative energy into the world, and we don’t want people to do that now do we, hmmmmmm?
So, I would ask you to be more specific. Forgiveness is a positive force for who? Everyone? Just some people? For victims? For perpetrators? All of them?
I would suggest that you everyone you know who thinks just like you might not actually know what actions are best, positive, and/or negative for other people.
I don’t think that saying “forgiveness is a positive force in the world” is necessarily “pressure-y.” Perhaps it’s not specific enough, though. I can’t read Schroeder’s mind, obviously, as forgiveness is a pretty broad concept.
There’s forgiving someone as part of some kind of ongoing relationship with them, a literal act between the two of you. There’s also a completely internal forgiveness that you direct at someone you will never see again under any circumstances. That kind of forgiveness is only for yourself and your potential benefit.
Forgiving as an act doesn’t magically get rid of resentment or anger. Forgiveness as an attitude, though, as a way of life, as a goal (IMO) is a way of finding peace, personal peace, with other people’s actions that I can no longer do anything about. For me, anger is a toxin, and if I refuse to attempt to release it, I perpetuately circulate that poison in my body. That is to my detriment, so I forgive.
Thank you, fannie. Beyond that, I think we need to recognize what “force” is. “Force” is a tangible action in the material world.
I don’t often get into this conversation—about abuse, forgiveness, justice. Mostly I limit the conversation to fellow survivors; mutual struggle rather than performative pain. Here’s the thing about actual restorative justice: it prioritizes the needs of survivors, not perpetrators. The first task of restorative justice is the safety and security of survivors. It doesn’t require forgiveness or anything else from the wronged. It recognizes that the debt balance is from perpetratror to victimized person, not the other way around. It requires actual amends from the perpetrator, not a mere “I’m sorry”. Amends require physical action in the material world. It is community-based. It requires accountability from the perpetrator to the community. Ongoing accountability. And for that accountability to mean anything, it has to be enforceable.
And that, in a nutshell, is why I distrust existing processes of restorative justice. Right now, none of those conditions are met.
Strange conversation. Forgiveness is a universal spiritual healing process. Why tie it in with politics?
(Let me repeat: my, or anyone else’s, non-forgiveness is not an act of harm.)
Your non-forgiveness may very well be harmless. I’m not so sure you should speak for others however. Empirically, forgiveness has been shown in the aggregate to be strongly and positively associated with happiness and health. In Northern Ireland, when family members of murdered relatives learned how to forgive they felt less hurt, became angry less frequently, were more optimistic, were less stressed, had fewer physical manifestations of stress, became more compassionate, and increased in self-confidence.
In contrast, empirical data largely supports the idea that people (in the aggregate) who are less likely to forgive are generally more neurotic, angry, hostile, suffer from a wider range of illnesses, and generally have poorer health. Of course, there are particular individuals which stubbornly refuse to conform with scientific consensus. Good for them—I generally support nonconformity with “science” (more accurately: scientism).
I do agree with Schroeder on his definition of forgiveness and it’s cultural context. La Lubu’s definition is completely alien to me, but if her definition was my own, I’d be adverse to forgiveness too. “Forgiveness” which equals “clean slate” sounds like blinkered stupidity to me. (To be clear, I’m saying it’d be stupid to act on forgiveness which amounted to “clean slate,” at least in most cases.)
Finally, I’ll note that restorative justice measures have, so far, been correlated with positive outcomes, for instance, a lower recidivism rate. The movement is still too young to come to any definitive conclusions about restorative justice’s overall effectiveness or in which contexts it is best applied, so study is still warranted, but I’d say its future looks bright, especially considering the very poor outcomes which are associated with our current justice and prison industry.
Okay, now really finally, (I just read La Lubu’s last post) you just distinguished between “actual restorative justice” and the “existing processes of restorative justice.” The funny thing as I read your post is that your explanation for “actual restorative justice” sounded almost exactly like the introductory explanation given to me from the fellow in charge of my local prison reform organization which I’m thinking of volunteering with. What you call “actual restorative justice” he just called “restorative justice,” so maybe the “actual” and the “existing processes” are closer than you think or are in the process of becoming more closely aligned.
Fannie,
Thank you for challenging me. I agree that talking vaguely about “forces” is platitudinous. The reason I’m hemming and hawing and using platitudes is that I’m trying to state what I believe in such a way that, if people are offended, they’re offended at the idea itself and not the way I’m saying it. I’m not always good at being eloquent.
In short, I agree with these quotes from the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. ”
“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”
“I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.”
This sermon, also by MLK, touches on some of these issues, although please note that I do not agree with everything Dr. King says here. Importantly, I think that it’s possible to forgive someone but resolve never to see them again. And, indeed, you should do that if your safety is at all an issue.
“So, I would ask you to be more specific. Forgiveness is a positive force for who? Everyone? Just some people? For victims? For perpetrators? All of them?”
To be more specific, I think that forgiveness is a positive thing for everyone (society, too), but especially for the person doing the forgiving.
So, there you go: that’s what I believe. I’m really sorry if it is offensive.
I hope you understand, Fannie, why I’m reluctant to connect my beliefs to specific individuals in specific circumstances – especially when those circumstances are more difficult than I have ever experienced or could ever imagine. But if they make that connection, what can I say except that “I’m really sorry, and I acknowledge your reaction to what I say as valid?”
How do you respond if something you believe is offensive to someone, Fannie? (Not a “gotcha” question; I really am always looking for ways to be a better person.)
Very interesting to see how different commenters handle responses on this issue. This says quite a lot about the personalities behind these debates on FSB. Very interesting.
I assume that it is not the intent of most of you to be so dismissive but I perceive a lot of the language and moreover the tone as such. To those responders here who clearly mean to be dismissive, you can [removed for civility].
I did forgive my abuser. He did not get a clean slate. He did something monstrous to me. He did not get off without consequences. I don’t wish him well, but I also choose TO TRY not to expend any further bandwidth wishing him any new, creative harm. I have chosen to let go of the anger and resentment as much as I am able. I want to be crystal clear. My forgiving is not due to any lack or flaw on my part. It is a positive, affirmative choice. A choice that harmed no one (he also didn’t get my silence) AND it is my lived experience that my life is better as a result of that decision. I set boundaries and expend considerable energy policing them (and learning how to). It is not easy and it is not passive.
…AND if in your opinion or society’s operational opinion or anyone’s opinion (frankly) I am not doing it “right”, too F-ing bad. I must do it in a way that is meaningful to me because I am the one who has to live with it. If your way is different, so be it; and, sincerely, good for you because you are the one who has to live inside your life.
Karen, I was thinking the exact same thing to be honest. Not sure if that’s a point in my favor, but there it is.
I also can’t get Les Miserables and the difference between Jean Valjean and Javert out of my head either.
Oh Breglalad, you are not going to win any points HERE agreeing with ANYTHING I say
I really appreciate all the comments. I especially appreciate Ralph and La Lubu’s comments that came back-to-back.
I think La Lubu gives us a great framework for what restorative justice should look like as a system. However, this system isn’t capable of addressing violent crimes because nothing can really “amend” for those crimes. Violence alters our reality. You don’t get to go back to normal, the old normal is gone. It might be that this is not readily apparent to anyone who hasn’t experienced a violent crime, but for those of us who have, it can become a very defining experience in one’s life. I question if there can be a ‘restorative’ element to justice in violent crimes for this reason?
I think the Grosmaine’s realize that nothing can amend for their lost, certainly no apology Connor can offer, or even his life spent in prison (or a trip to the electric chair) – and the weight of that injustice is crushing. I see their forgiveness as their attempt to lay down that weight so that it doesn’t crush them. That isn’t “restorative justice,” it is an acknowledgment that restoration (at least in this life) is not a part of the new reality, and so their alternative is to attempt to heal and come to a place of acceptance by forgiving.
The role forgiveness plays in healing is different for everyone – I know that I’ve personally struggled with getting to a place where it is even a consideration and I cannot imagine being able to look my aggressor in the eyes and forgive, and let alone wholeheartedly mean it. I suspect my reaction would be much closer to DCH’s.
Bregelad, if you’re saying what I think you’re saying, I don’t think this is fair. Jean Valjean didn’t kill Javert’s daughter or abuse him.
I’m probably gonna stop after this one but this much needs to be said: non-forgiveness is my path to closure. It’s the only form of resolution I ever had regarding my abuse. In a culture (both macro and micro) that encouraged me to deny that I was being abused, that downplayed my abuse, that intimated in various ways that I deserved my abuse or must have done something to deserve my abuse or that I was responsible for preventing my abuse or even causing my abuse and my failure to do so was indicative of my lack of abuse (“real” abuse) or even wanting abuse….being able to honor and take possession of my own emotions and refuse to deny myself my own feelings……that was powerful to me. It remains powerful to me. The world may not value my humanity, but I found power in being able to value myself, rather than negate how I truly felt.
I say I don’t forgive because I haven’t. Being able to consciously choose not to lie to myself is a powerful act. I spent years lying to myself in order to endure my abuse. Choosing to no longer do that was and remains a profoundly healing act. And it is every bit as moral and justice-centered as any other path to freedom.
I’d also just wanted to, very humbly, say that the primary reason why I’m here, sharing, advocating etc. has absolutely everything to do with forgiveness in the hope that something can be learned from it. That hope is a part of my forgiveness process. I hope the point of sharing this is not lost.
I’d like to suggest that although uncited “empirical data” might show that forgiveness might, for some people, be associated with being happier, healthier, and Other Positive Outcomes, in the context of domestic violence, not forgiving (and perhaps even holding onto anger) can be a survival strategy. Female victims of domestic violence are often simultaneously tasked with both leaving their abusive partners and giving a “good guy” a break. It has also been my experience that women are often less entitled to be, let alone express, anger than men are.
So, when I think about restorative justice and forgiveness, I think about how platitudes about forgiveness and anger tap into those narratives, Secondly, I question the appropriateness of applying studies about forgiveness in certain culturally-specific contexts dealing to other cultural contexts.
Schroeder,
Thanks for replying.
I wonder if we’re talking past one another as you’ve provided several MLK quotes on love/hate, which I see as a distinct, but related, issue from forgiveness. And I don’t have time to really hash out an in-depth conversation on that point right now, but I will say I’m familiar with these quotes and spiritually I lean towards a Buddhism which expresses similar teachings on love, hatred, and forgiveness.
So, it’s fine and well to have these general beliefs, and I don’t think those beliefs are offensive.
My point is that when we’re talking about the application of restorative justice and forgiveness in a society that is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and otherwise flawed we have to be really mindful of how this model, and how these general ideals of “love driving out hate” and “forgiveness is a force for good” are actually implemented in practice, specifically, in real people’s lives.
Even the most noble-sounding belief can be implemented in harmful, oppressive, and problematic ways. So, I think you are right in being hesitant to connect your beliefs to specific people’s circumstances. If anything, having these conversations where people express general spiritual/philosophical beliefs can begin to expose the limitations of thinking of those beliefs as universal or universally-applicable.
“How do you respond if something you believe is offensive to someone, Fannie?”
This question is confusing to me. Are you asking me, personally, how I respond to people when I think that a belief I hold is offensive to them?
If so, I’d say that I try to first ask if that belief is indeed offensive to that person (rather than just thinking that the belief might be offensive) and I try to understand why that belief is offensive to the person. I don’t think I practice this perfectly, but I think it’s something for me to strive for.
Ralph:
YES, but in my experience (not to be confused with Universal Truth), my friends and loved ones also benefitted from my choice albeit indirectly. Ending my toxic effects on those around me was one of a number of motivating and sustaining factors to try in the first place.
Forget “getting rid”, I have happily settled for “reducing” and even that has been entirely too much ongoing effort to feel “magical”
@LaLubu – “I feel angry when I’m told that I’m “just as bad” (morally speaking) as my abuser for not forgiving him for abusing me.”
Anyone who tells you that is full of it. And in all likelihood, they have never experienced real abuse.
That said, I agree with Schroeder’s definition of forgiveness. It’s related to what I was trying to get at with the idea of levels of forgiveness.
However, I think the kind of get along together again type of forgiveness you describe is something that some people mean when they talk about forgiveness. I think they are wrong, but it is a real attitude out there.
“Instead, I think that forgiveness is about the letting go of hatred. It is to decide not to return tit for tat (that is, to seek and desire justice not revenge). I means wanting the good of the other person (This point is where I think there is some potential misunderstanding: when I say “wanting the good of the other person,” understand that “wanting the good for the other person” could include wanting them to stay in jail for the rest of their life and wanting never to see them again.)”
There are all kinds of metaphorical ways to be a victim a “murder”.
Bregalad,
“In contrast, empirical data largely supports the idea that people (in the aggregate) who are less likely to forgive are generally more neurotic, angry, hostile, suffer from a wider range of illnesses, and generally have poorer health.”
Karen:
“Very interesting to see how different commenters handle responses on this issue. This says quite a lot about the personalities behind these debates on FSB. Very interesting.”
Bregalad:
“Karen, I was thinking the exact same thing to be honest. Not sure if that’s a point in my favor, but there it is.”
I’m reading some passive-aggression in that exchange that I really really really hope has not been intended. Maybe Bregalad and Karen can clarify.
In any event, I’m finding it inappropriate to vaguely make peanut-gallery-esque insinuations about people’s “personalities” when people are opening up and sharing some very real, raw life, and very difficult experiences.
It just seems kind of cheap.
It’s simply an observation Fannie.
Fannie,
I agree that it is probably impossible to have a good conversation in the context of this blog about what MLK meant (for one thing, it would take too long!)… although I think he does elaborate on it pretty explicitly in the sermon I linked to (which is where the love/darkness quote comes from, by the way).
Based on that sermon, he really does seem to connect “love of enemies” with forgiveness. Like I said earlier, I don’t agree with everything in his sermon (or, at least, with everything his sermon seems to imply; See my caveat above), but I DO agree with his making that particular connection.
Good conversation! Thanks for your response.
That is what I was asking, and I think your response it great. That’s exactly what I try to do (and have been trying to do in this case). Although, like you, “I don’t think I practice this perfectly.”
Just wanted to say that this is a really powerful discussion and I appreciate all the comments.
@Ki sirata – The idea that you should forgive is part of many religions and not just Christianity. I don’t think Christianity is necessarily where the pressure comes from. In our culture, it can come from psychologists who believe it is good for you to forgive.
LaLubu, I am not sure where the pressure comes from. In some cases, I think it is because people like the abuser and want to be able to go on liking him and have everyone get along. In some cases, a psychologist may believe it is the best thing for you or they may want to do something that makes them feel they have cured you. Perhaps sometimes people want you to forgive simply because they think that then you will be less angry or unhappy and easier for them to deal with. (Not saying you are, but survivors often are.)
I think some people who push forgiveness are plainly ignorant and have no idea of how bad what you went through was. They are thinking of things people did to them that were bad, but not abusive (taking their money, cheating on them, etc.)
Forgiveness does help a lot of people move on with their lives. I think this is one of those areas where it’s just not one size fits all. Neither ways of doing it is right or wrong. So long as you aren’t seeking revenge or hurting yourself, forgiveness and non-forgiveness can work.
I do very strongly believe that our societies general understanding of forgiveness is confused and confusing.
A minor thought – forgiveness is so much easier in some cases than others. If you are in a situation like David Cary Hart’s where you were shot and you can’t face the attacker and speak up and have them get some kind of punishment, it’s much, much harder to let go of the anger. Speaking the truth, seeing consequences, hearing an apology aren’t enough, but they help.