• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Forgiving murderers

F

fast

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
5,293
Location
South Carolina
Basic Beliefs
Christian
Throughout the years, I've heard on television news channels where family members of murder victims speak out about forgiving their family members murderer. I don't know what to think about that--I don't know how to think about that.

My original thoughts from awhile back are a little different than my new and more recent thoughts, but I'm cautious about solidifying my feelings on the issue. I know where I would stand if it happened to a family member of mine. I'd be riddled with unhealthy rage. I say I know, but what I think is different between myself and others who would claim the same is that my hate wouldn't subside.

I understand that the hate filled minds of most people that have had family members killed by cold-blooded killers can't withstand the negative psychological effects of long-term rage, so it stands to reason that a coping mechanism of sorts must kick in.

People who say positive things and talk about forgiveness or even love never has quite sit well with me, yet I'm reluctant to speak (or think) too negatively -- mostly out of respect --not for their views but empathy for the emotional ordeal they have had to endure.

The people always seem to be portrayed in a positive light, as if they are strong and deserving of respect. Well, for one, I have no cause nor desire to show anything but respect, but I don't know if I should silently think of them as weak. Don't get me wrong--I seriously doubt there is much positive benefit to not allowing oneself to transition between the grievance-like process. On the one hand, there is a process with coping with the death, but the process of coping with your feelings towards the killer is separate and distinct--I would suppose anyway.

So, while I understand how these people that turn to forgiveness are finding some inner peace (and I would in no way want to deny them that), I find myself having some negative, secretly held views--not bad or ugly views, just negative. Like I already mentioned, things never really have set too well with me, especially while listening to the interviews, but I just can't bring myself to admire their stance--it's probably more admirable than mine. I can't imagine my thoughts being anything short of sick and twisted, so forgiveness would likely be a stance shining brighter than anything I had to offer, but that extreme isn't the right comparison.

It just seems to me that a response of non-forgiveness and wanting punishment to the full extent of the law would be better than coming out publicly about forgiving the killers--and most certainly better than whatever might be going through my mind at the time.
 
If forgiving means letting go of your own hate and rage at some point, that is probably better than the alternative. Continuing to go over and over the events is a form of self punishment that achieves nothing much, except ruining your own life. The murderer may not even be aware of the suffering he or she caused to relatives and friends of the victim. That you remain consumed with rage may even empower the killer, if his or her intention was to bring suffering to the family of the victim. Of course, letting go is far, far easier said than done.
 
I can't disagree with any of that. Cannot the normal among us let go of the rage in light of a more healthy outlook without resorting to forgiveness? I'm not saying there's no place for it--it just seems there's an idealization in the air that it's somehow a better way to be, and I don't know about that; seems a little whop sided. I would have a better appreciation for the family member who says, "no, I don't forgive him, and I want him to pay for what he's done." That's not to say I think such a person should hold on to rage in his heart...but no need to flip to the extreme of forgiveness either. Should we look upon the person who stands before us that proclaims forgiveness for the killer who took the life of his or her loved one with a sense that he or she is courageous and being strong, or do we spot a glimmer of selfishness in their mental thoughtward ways--that are weak and not seemingly reflective of a family member who loved enough to not forgive?

That last bit was a tough shot, and I don't mean it to be, and I sympathize with the mental agonies others must go through, but why in the heck isn't there a more representative sample of people in documentary interviews with a viewpoint that carries a bit more backbone?
 
I haven't seen the show. But your thread reminded me of this story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14900930
I suppose it's about moving past the anger so you can focus on your own healing.
Could, in part, be about the environment we grow up in.
"I think the most powerful demonstration of the depth of Amish forgiveness was when members of the Amish community went to the killer's burial service at the cemetery," Kraybill says. "Several families, Amish families who had buried their own daughters just the day before were in attendance and they hugged the widow, and hugged other members of the killer's family."
Click to expand...
 
There's a difference between forgiving when you're too tired to hate; and actively overcoming the hate in order to forgive someone when everything's still fresh. The latter takes strength, the former is understandable.
 
It just seems to me that a response of non-forgiveness and wanting punishment to the full extent of the law would be better than coming out publicly about forgiving the killers--and most certainly better than whatever might be going through my mind at the time
Click to expand...
But those are two different things. What the authorities do to him for criminal behavior is not connected to whether or not you hate him or forgive him.

To me, I always kinda hear the 'we forgive his killer' statements as 'I'm letting go of the hurt you've done me, asshole, because you're not worth me carrying you around for the rest of my life.' They still grieve the lost family member, but that would be part of it whether he died from murder or accident.

The forgiveness would be for their benefit, releasing their burden. It's not the same as asking that the killer be pardoned for his crime. The punishment is a separate issue. I think you can forgive the pain but still want to let the system do as it must for the crime the killer committed.
 
People who are “strong” and have “backbone” feel their emotions, in whatever is the most healthy way and time and place for them.

Trying to force it one way or another according to some moralistic rules is a good recipe for repression. "You should forgive", "you shouldn't forgive"... no one hold's a position to say these things to another without advocating the person repress themselves for the sake of upholding some external, imposed rule.
 
This can be a problem with some religions in my view. Notably Christianity. The recent events in South Carolina come to mind, where we saw the family members of those murdered forgive the racist bastard that did such horrific things. While I agree that holding onto hate can be destructive, so can trying to rush to forgive in my view. Grieving or overcoming someone who wrongs you is a process, and one that involves anger. Like any trauma, I think it benefits you if you work through it. A rush to forgiveness can cause one to feel guilt for continuing rage, anger, cynicism, etc. where such feelings should be understandable to feel and acknowledge. Additionally, that anger can be channeled to be of great use. It can help overcome injustice, prompt people to stand for their dignity and so on. If someone is feeling pressured (either of their own accord or by others) to be a "good Christian" and forgive those that wronged them too quickly, I can see that being equally destructive.

I think the act of forgiveness is an interesting concept. One that has many definitions. I'm starting to wonder though, if there's anything wrong with simply not forgiving. While I think it's important not to become obsessed with something that was wrongly done to you, neither may it be entirely necessary to forgive every slight against you.

I've never suffered such a tragedy as losing a child. While I can see my anger going from full out rage to merely smoldering after some time, what would be the value of forgiving someone that killed my child? Some say you can forgive, but that doesn't imply you forget. To me, it does mean you put it behind you though. If a friend slights me and I get burned, I can forgive him under the right conditions. Obviously he would have to show remorse, and change his behavior not to do so again. You may be best friends down the line. Yes, you'll technically remember that he did something bad to you at one time, but you no longer feel much in regards to the situation, and now you've put it behind you. There's a limit to real forgiveness though I think. If your friend sleeps with your wife, for many there's no forgiveness for such a thing. There's a divorce and one less friend in your future.
 
It doesn't have to be one or the other. A person could idealize forgiveness while being unable to grant it. Ie working towards forgiveness, keeping forgiveness in mind. Not everyone can just throw a switch.
 
I think it is bad to hold on to hate and all the negative emotional baggage that comes with it, but the only person who has the right to actually forgive is the person wronged.
 
Who do you have to forgive someone to let go? You can let go of the anger and heal without ever forgiving the murderer. In reality forgiveness without repentance is useless.
 
HaRaAYaH said:
In reality forgiveness without repentance is useless.
Click to expand...
Well, even with repentance, the person they killed is still dead, so that's 'useless,' too, depending on what you think 'useful' would be.

But if the forgiveness is for the victim's benefit, not the perpetrator, then it doesn't matter if the perp repents or not.
 
Also, let's not confuse forgiveness by a person with forgiveness by society.
From what I understand, a lot of victims (meaning, in this case, the friends and family) can forgive only when the perp has been declared guilty.
The reassurance that the perp was really wrong in society's eye and that the victim was really the victim seems important to be able to let go and advance on the grieving.

So, actually, it would seem forgiveness is not abandonning justice, but justice is a step on the way to forgiveness, reinforcing that forgiveness is not done for the guilty's sake.
 
HaRaAYaH said:
Who do you have to forgive someone to let go? You can let go of the anger and heal without ever forgiving the murderer. In reality forgiveness without repentance is useless.
Click to expand...
That is such a simple statement that ignores the complexity of the real world. The family of the victim has no control over the actions of the murderer. If they choose to forgive, it is mostly for themselves. If it helps them to deal with tragedy, then it cannot possibly be useless. And, if their forgiveness is public, it may induce repentance on the part of the murderer. But even if it has no effect (or the opposite effect), if it helps the forgivers deal with situation, it is not useless.
 
laughing dog said:
HaRaAYaH said:
Who do you have to forgive someone to let go? You can let go of the anger and heal without ever forgiving the murderer. In reality forgiveness without repentance is useless.
Click to expand...
That is such a simple statement that ignores the complexity of the real world. The family of the victim has no control over the actions of the murderer. If they choose to forgive, it is mostly for themselves.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this ignore what forgiveness is? I hate to quote television, but Whedon or the writers had a good line, 'We don't forgive people because they deserve it, we forgive them because they need it.' Forgiveness is a two party deal.

I personally don't understand how someone can "forgive" a perpetrator quickly, such as the Charleston massacre. It is almost more of a religious reflex to deal with the internal conflict of their religious worldview and the absurdity of the massacre they have to deal with.

If it helps them to deal with tragedy, then it cannot possibly be useless. And, if their forgiveness is public, it may induce repentance on the part of the murderer. But even if it has no effect (or the opposite effect), if it helps the forgivers deal with situation, it is not useless.
Click to expand...
I fear quick forgiveness, as noted above, because it feels less like forgiveness and more like internal apologism. But given time, I suppose it can happen. Regardless, as long as their coping mechanisms aren't long-term denial, whatever it takes for them to seek honest peace!

Honestly, I can't think of how I could forgive such a horrific act. I could let it go, I can accept it as reality, I could be content if they were rehabilitated, but to forgive? Seems like a bridge to far. Babylon 5 had an absurdly great episode about this sort of conflict, from a killer's and third person's perspective.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
I fear quick forgiveness, as noted above, because it feels less like forgiveness and more like internal apologism.
Click to expand...
So, you're not going to forgive the forgivers because they were too quick to forgive.

For some reason that strikes me as funny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Jimmy Higgins said:
laughing dog said:
That is such a simple statement that ignores the complexity of the real world. The family of the victim has no control over the actions of the murderer. If they choose to forgive, it is mostly for themselves.
Click to expand...
Doesn't this ignore what forgiveness is? I hate to quote television, but Whedon or the writers had a good line, 'We don't forgive people because they deserve it, we forgive them because they need it.' Forgiveness is a two party deal.
Click to expand...
No. Forgiveness may be a two party deal, but it need not be.
 
I somehow think the term, forgiveness, is being misused here. I can forgive someone for killing a member of my family meaning that I will not hate them and stew over the incident. This does not mean that I believe society (the legal system) should not hold them responsible for their actions in order to protect society from repeat violations of societal norms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom