Ramaraksha said:
The reason one is forgiven, i assume by the victim, is because one has made up the loss –
BH said:
Someone throws a fit and murders someone. No matter how sincere the repentance is that person should still be punished.
I don’t look on forgiveness that way. To me, forgiveness is completely divorced from restitution or rehabilitation. And punishment is never necessary.
Forgiveness is FOR ME. Forgiveness equals, in my mind, letting go of anger.
So if someone does something wrong, then yes you want restitution as best as possible. You break something, you buy it. And you want protection; you murder someone, we do whatever it takes to keep society safe from you ever doing it again. If you’re killing your abuser, you probably won’t be doing this again, although there should be a period of safe checking on that, like a prison term to be sure. If you are a degenerate, we might be able to rehabilitate you, again, from a prison where society is safe while we do it. If you are a psychopath we may need to keep you locked up for life.
One can forgive someone else for being imperfect, even while one needs to distance oneself. One can forgive an abusive parent – letting go of the anger – while still rightly refusing to let that parent back into one’s life. You forgive, but you don’t let it happen again. Forgiveness here means you’re not still waiting for them to do something to make you whole. YOU have made you whole. You reject them having any further power over you. That is what forgiveness means to me.
If you ALSO find that you can feel safe with that person again, then you have forgiven and re-established a relationship. But the two are distinct one neither relies on the other. Forgiveness stands alone, in my definition. Forgiveness is for ME. I can forgive even if they don’t repent. I can forgive them for being flawed, and let go of the anger. Even if I am also saying, “and they are still flawed, and they can go be flawed over there away from me.” Like you can forgive someone for not replacing the toy because they don’t have the manners to do so.
bilby said:
A penalty, sure; to deter others, or to discourage (or even render impossible) a repeat of the crime. But 'punishment' to me implies that the suffering of the murderer is somehow beneficial to someone - although it is not at all clear how anyone is benefited by his suffering.
Yes, this. Punishment has no positive value. It has, IMHO a negative value. It is the excuse that people use to do bad things: “society AGREES that when you feel hurt, you can do hurt. I feel hurt. I am right to do hurt.” That causes crime, IMHO. Instead, rehabilitation and restraint. You do bad, you’ll be kept from being able to do more bad. It’s restraint to put them in jail until they are no longer a danger. It’s punishment to whip them while they are in jail or to put them in jail when they are not a danger.
