Forgiveness

[Az]

Crossposted in the religion and theism forum.

I am sitting here watching a series from Japan called Dectective Academy Q. Probably not everyone's taste but there is a theme running through it that I find interesting.

The series revolves around the invetigations of some student detectives and the cases they find themself thrust into (isn't it always the way). These crimes are typically murder. The investigation ensues and the case gets solved. Nothing special here. But then when the criminal is finally confronted instead of simply comdemning them they are challenged to see the error of their ways and there is hope that they can find their way back to society in time.

It seems a minor thing. But it is actually a huge difference in cultures. In the US when a criminal is confronted there is shame and derision. Even abuse is acceptable to heap upon them. They are discarded from society and no expectation is had that they will ever be fit for society again.

Our society is soaked through with the notions of forgiving people. And yet in practice there seems to be an absense of forgiveness. It seems as if when someone is caught doing wrong in our society there is nothing as delightful as locking them up and throwing away the key. We seem to offer no hope for the individual to find their way back into our society.

Where does this disconnect with the professed teachings of forgiveness lose sight of the practice of forgiveness? Why do you suppose we have become such a vengence oriented society? Even our entertainment is filled with examples of vengence being distributed to those we so rightously deem to be deserving of it.

Court TV. Celeberity trials. The Dominant shows on prime time are Law and Order shows.

So any insite? Why can't we forgive? Particularly considering that so many are expecting to be forgiven.

[Deep13]

1. Wow, I don't know.

"Why can't we forgive? Particularly considering that so many are expecting to be forgiven."

I do not know the answer. I prosecute major felonies in the Ohio Court of Appeals. After the trial department wins a conviction, the defendant often appeals his sentence. I then do whatever the law permits to defend the conviction and sentence before the state Court of Appeals. Our D.A. has the discretion whether or not to prosecute or to reduce an offense to a slap on the wrist. Of course, if there is a real victim, the public expects him to be harsh. Theoretically, the court at sentencing is supposed to be lenient to someone who is remorseful, but I doubt it often comes out that way. Those of us who work in the criminal justice system are a bit constrained by that system. The law lays out what we must do to prove our case and what the court must do at sentencing. As systems go, it is pretty fair, though I wonder what it really accomplishes. We cannot resurrect a murder victim or restore a sense of security to a victim of violence. It is hard to argue that there is justice in any objective sense. We cannot return a childhood to a molestation victim. Keeping a career criminal in prison protects the rest of society for awhile and there is a deterrent effect to a degree.

Victims may forgive criminals sometimes and often do so in writing before the trial. These are usually situations with a recalcitrant victim and a family member defendant. Still, even if the defendant is forgiven, it is a pretty hollow gesture since the dude still goes to prison.

Should forgiveness depend on the offender admitting his error and repenting? Suppose someone calls my wife a whore and I belt him. The law says that is a crime. I may admit I did it, but I would not be sorry or admit doing anything immoral. Suppose, someone is convicted on a technical violation of some gun law (not keeping it in plain view or whatever). Is that really immoral if he did not hurt anyone? I heard a misdemeanor judge ream out a guy for pissing in an alley. Sure it's a crime, but is it really that hard to understand? Do we really need remorse for forgiveness? Well, according to the law, remorse is not even sufficient for forgiveness.

I do not know the answer. I do believe this: forgiveness in a subjective way is pretty meaningless if the offender still has a full legal penalty. In that case it is more for the victim than the criminal.

[Az]

2. This isn't really a question about the legal system

Although it does have a bearing in the long run as to how we believe justice should be handled.

I am looking more at how society sees and treats criminals. The perception I am getting is that we focus on vengence rather than looking to help a person that has lost their way.

The judiciary is of course contrained by the rules set down before them. But look at our culture. Our entertainment is filled with villains being destroyed, punished, slaughtered, etc. It is entirely dehumanising. We seem to leave them no room to enter the circle of society once again. The lesson taught over and over is that criminals deserve desrtuction and vengence.

[Deep13]

3. Society acts through its legal system.

Also, all of society's relationships with criminals (except for the crime) is through the legal system.

Entertainment is largely catharsis and the bad guys are often painted in absolute terms. Still, I can see how the constant media presence would effect people's thinking. We have these local "news" people who go around finding "criminals". I remember a few years back, there was a scandal where it was revealed that the city had hired people with misdemeanor records to be school crossing guards. The "reporter" was accosting some old woman on camera about her record (a DUI or something) like she was some menace to the world. Another time they went around to registered sex offenders who had completed their sentences to harass them. Of course it is always street-type crime and never environmental disasters created by advertisers. It's a real we-vs.-they mentality.

[Deep13]

4. Let me ask you...

... in what way are you suggesting we forgive people if not by absolving them of legal penalties? I reread your original post and question and was under the impression that you were asking why criminals are always treated harshly and with "vengence".

[Az]

8. Its difficult to explain

Think of it as anger vs pity. Why do we not view criminals as individuals that have lost their way? In need of help to find their way back to the path we share with each other.

In our society we readily rip away their status as a human being. Not legally speaking. But rather socially. We create this notion that they are less than human. Instead of looking for a way to guide them back we seek ways to seperate them and hurt them.

I don't know if I am conveying this properly. I really suspect it is something tied deeply within our social identity. As such it is difficult to put into words. It just seems that there is more emphasis put on the satisfaction of condemning someone who is guilty than there is on trying to find a way to redeem someone. As if the guilty are disposable people. Its just ironic considering how many of the beliefs in our society promote the notion of forgiveness.

[imenja]

7. the questions are not separate

The justice system reflects our own values as a society. Societies that believe in rehabilitation create justice systems that reflect and promote that end. Those, like our own, the seek vengeance, implement harsh and brutal punishment, like the death penalty.

[ultraist]

15. I think you hit the main point

Our society, including our judicial system, is based on punitive views rather than a rehabilitative perspective. Thus we have a PENAL system not a rehab system.

Certainly, those who pose a danger to society must be removed from society and make retribution, but many so called criminals who are non violent, are locked up in these same penal institutions.

I'm not familiar with the history of the judicial system or penal codes, but I would imagine the attitudes that are built into the architecture of these systems stem from the Biblical puritanical worldview.

[The Straight Story]

5. Not fully sure, but my thoughts in a general way (forgive bush?)

Over the years I have spent a good deal of time on studying buddhism to christianity and musing over such things (and others).

When I was 16 I was mailing a guy in prison I found from a christian magazine. I am not sure of what his crime was, never asked, but I did see a side of him outside whatever his crime was. He was a fellow human, much like myself - but the key I discovered was that I did not have a sphere of prejudice (or, if you will, a direct emotional connection to his act/s and hence was not emotionally vested or influenced by such).

An act that maybe lasted but a few moments altered his life forever (and possibly those of his victim/s). Those influenced by such an act most likely feel the need to be compensated, revenge (the emotional investment), and as society we feel the need to put such people into a place where they cannot continue to do harm unto others (again, assuming he was in prison for such a thing). It is often hoped perhaps that the fear of being locked away will deter crime, while being locked up both punishes a person for their deeds (by reciprocating them - they did something which affect others and now such is done to them) and keeps them from being able to do such acts again to others (assuming one believes they are so disposed to repeat).

Forgiveness does not mean, it appears, that things are forgotten. In a society that wants retribution we find ourselves wanting to balance the scales in some way or other.

Jesus sought to win over those who would do him harm, he forgave and his message(s) raced through the world over time (ie, in many ways one could say he won over those that oppressed him by not punishing them but by changing them from within). He had the power to get immediate results, and chose instead to win the longer battle (and larger). On the flip side of that, many things 'bad' happend over time to many people (from martyr's to your avg joe in the world).

The question then becomes - well, perhaps - does forgiveness pay off in the long run, or does swift action have better results overall? Are you (as an example) willing to forgive * and move on, accepting him as he is and hoping he will see the error of his ways, or do you somewhere inside really desire to see him punished? That little grain in all of us is perhaps very telling. Do we delight in things like a hope that * will somehow get his due, or are we willing to set aside those feelings and try to help him in a manner that is not attacking him all the time?

[imenja]

10. personal vs. societal

On a personal level, forgiveness is crucial because to live with resentment and hostility toward another person damages yourself. I frankly don't think forgiveness is an issue for the justice system. There the question is whether we seek to promote rehabilitation or simply exact vengeance. That choice and the means of punishment we as a society implement reflect who we are as a people. The troubled nature of our society is exposed through a justice system that allows brutality in prisons (now reflected abroad in places like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib) and promotes the death penalty.

[The Straight Story]

11. I can say

From when I was a deputy, that we did not allow brutality in the jail. We kept a close eye on such things - otherwise there would be law suits out the wazoo and we would be party to them if it went down on our shift. And internal affairs was always on our butts (it was not like one sees so often on TV)

Prison is a different matter perhaps. Tis a damn shame really, that we take people off the street to protect others, but in an environment that is so controlled by 'officials' we often don't protect (But I would like to hear more on that from folks who have worked in prisons).

[Az]

14. I am curious

I don't doubt your treatment of the prisoners. But I am curious of your opinion of them. Do you recall what you thought of them (assuming you did think of them).

[The Straight Story]

19. Yes I did think of them, spent a lot of time with them

Some of them I even knew from my childhood (friends I grew up with, busted for drunk driving and such). 99% of the time I thought of them as innocent people awaiting on a trial and I treated them with as much respect as I expected. Usually I felt sorry for them.

There were a few however that I did not like too well. Two guys kidnapped a woman who went out to start her car for work, took her to indiana and killed her. Her 2 year old was in the house waiting on her to return. I did not harm them, but I did not like them and felt no pity at all for them. Still don't.

I was 'too nice' for the job :) so I left.

[Az]

20. By too nice

Do you mean too open minded and able to see how some may have come to their plight? I think this is a bit of what I am trying to get at.

People generally don't want to wind up criminals. Events and bad descisions lead them to such places. I think realising this turns one's reaction from one of vengence to correction.

[The Straight Story]

21. indeed

I did see it as, in a way, a shame that so many poor folk came to their situation based on factors which overwhelmed them - but then too I knew many poor people (myself at one time) who did not let their situation push them into doing such illegal things.

Why did some choose crime and others did not? Sure there might be a lot of reasons, but fixing that takes time - and in the meantime the best thing perhaps for all was for them to be out of circulation.

When I was dirt poor and suffering one thing I kept thinking about was how I could make others suffer so that they could see what I saw, and in so doing might take another look at life and those suffering and help us when we needed it. IE, I wanted others to sympathize and assist because I knew if I ever got beyond what I was going through I could be productive and valuable, as well as able to help others because I had been there.

I was a person, with kids, dreams, hopes, and so on. And the world was passing me by. My family was suffering, and most people seemed not to care because they had their own problems to worry about. You know I loved the book and movie 'The Stand' because in a way it equalized everyone, and I wanted to be equal because I was so much more than what I did not have - and I needed the help of others because in this day and age it was not so simple as going out and fending for yourself, you have many laws, you have to rent (my credit was bad), in short I had no pride.

I wanted the simplest of things in life, and could not play the game well enough to get them because of many things (I was injured at work, workers comp screwed me, I sued and won but by that time my marriage was a wreck and finances a mess, and I tried suicide once).

Now - I make 70k yr, buying a house, two cars, and have pulled myself up through a lot of crap. But still recovering and not able to save money yet, still dependent on employment to live - versus those who used to own land, fend for themselves, etc. Sure I have it easier, but in a society with many laws and restrictions I have to adapt and cannot live life as I want, but as I need. Some folks don't fit this mould. It is not that they are lazy, it is that they have a different view on what they 'need' in life. My mom (who Died dec 31) was like that in some ways, she was happy with the simple things - but in today's world simple is complex, and simple life can be seen as child neglect, mental illness, et al (and I would recommend Thomas Szasz for reading on such things in a loose way).

Society has defined what is 'normal' and 'right' - and we have found ways to make others conform to that. One such way has been prison.

[imenja]

6. the abandonment of ideas of repentance and rehabilitation

Our contemporary justice system no longer revolves around the idea of penitence. The word "penitentiary" conveys the concept of an internal transformation of the criminal's consciousness, his being. This is a phenomena Michel Foucault attributes to the modern age. Yet in the United States, the idea of a penitentiary society has reverted to punishment made as brutal and unbearable as legally possible, often more so. In _Discipline and Punish_, Foucault attributed corporal punishment, torture, and executions to a public demonstration of surplus power by a sovereign monarch. Punishment was physical, because crimes were conceived as an assault on the body of the monarch himself. He saw the French Revolution as a transformative event that signaled the change from justice based purely on vengeance to one centered around the remaking of the criminal's soul.

In America today, we have forsaken the idea of penitence and rehabilitation. Prisons are made as brutal as possible in order to exact vengeance on the accused. And what more clearly demonstrates an abandonment of ideas of penitence than the death penalty itself. What does it say about our own society that we have reverted to pre-modern forms of punishment? And does this correspond to the increasing power of an imperial presidency?

[BoogDoc7]

9. Hmmm...

I think that there are a couple things to address here.

First is the occasion of personal forgiveness and societal/state forgiveness. One doesn't necessarily preclude the other, and I wonder if we blur a line there that should be clearer. If someone killed a family member of mine, would I eventually forgive him - probably. My forgiveness should not be dependant on his remorse, anyway.

Should I ask society to forgive him and not exact punishment? Doubtful. The crime is still against society as a whole, and just punishment is deserved (should we be equating punishment/retribution with vengeance? I think the terms are not the same thing.)

I think that American society does throw away too much the misdeameanor criminal (instead of seeking real rehabilitation), and criminalizes things too far at times. My understanding is that education changes much of this - so much that I am almost of the opinion that as part of any sentence (depending), a criminal should be required to get a GED or high school diploma while in prison or on probation. (I figure that no one should get off of probation without an education).

[The Straight Story]

12. Physically, Sexually Abused Infant Recovering Well (on this topic...)

http://www.local6.com/news/4227596/detail.html

HOUSTON -- The future looks bright for an infant who was severely abused.

An infant admitted to the hospital earlier this month suffering severe physical and sexual abuse is expected to be released from the hospital in the next few days and make a full recovery, a Harris County Child Protective Services official said.

Donna Marie Norman, Ivan Castaneda

"We've never seen those types of injuries in a baby that was alive," said CPS spokeswoman Estella Olguin on Wednesday, adding that social workers at the hospital now call her "a little miracle baby."

When the girl was admitted to the hospital Feb. 2, authorities said every vital organ had been damaged and her tongue had been nearly severed. But now she's smiling and laughing.

[Az]

16. Indeed

Such examples do force us to question the humanity of some. But the fact remains they are human and something brought them to that place. Whether its wiring or environment something happened. Such extreme cruelty does not happen in a vacuum.

Here is the thing. Even in the face of this horror what can we do to make it right? Struggle to aid the child. This is the only thing that makes a real difference.

The one that beat the child? What does harming them do to correct the situation? If you don't wish to value life (all life) and only wish to protect society then kill the bastard. But if you think life is worth something then it seems to me that looking to see what went wrong and how to prevent it would seem to be the path to take.

[ultraist]

17. Treatment for sexual predators is not effective

But, yes, there are things on the front end that could be done to curtail creating sexual predators. The problem is, it's difficult to measure the effects of interventive programs in the short run, thus, they have difficulty maintaining funding and government support.

I thought this article made some good points:
excerpts
http://courreges.freeservers.com/prisons.htm

The trend towards greater emphasis on rehabilitation in prisons began to gain greater appeal, especially during the 1960s. The concept of “community corrections” was being experimented with, where inmates would work in a community by day and return to an institution by night. Work-release centers, community correctional centers, and halfway houses gained great popularity. Social scientists were pleased with these developments, as the psyche of the prisoner was emphasized, and rehabilitation was being attempted.

In 1975, however, the situation changed significantly due to a study of two-hundred and forty rehabilitative programs within American prisons. The study showed that vocational training, guidance counseling, and psychotherapy all had little effect on the recidivism rate. (NOTE: I wonder WHO did that study!) As a result, most penologists now agree that rehabilitation is not a valid motive for imprisoning someone. Though many different approaches to rehabilitation were attempted, the 1975 study showed that none of them were functioning in the capacity for which they were created. The idea that rehabilitation wasn’t viable in penitentiaries put an end to the era of the “case-work prison” for the most part, and brought United States prisons into what can be considered our modern conception of incarceration.

Since the 1980s, the penal system has attempted to integrate the best ideas from all eras of prison development. Due in large part to events like the prison uprising at Attica in 1971, many are still concerned with decent standards of living at prisons, but most of the public also wants more security and protection from violent crime. It could be argued that this is why more than half of the nation’s prison population resides in maximum security prisons while only about one in ten are in their minimum security counterparts. Most penologists deem this disparity unnecessary and believe it ought to be corrected, though it does demonstrate the public’s fear of violent crime. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, save perhaps Russia. The incarceration rate is largely due to our high crime rate and mandatory sentencing, and now more than ever before our prisons have come to have major responsibilities to keep order and protect society.

The problems of America’s penal system today are commonly known. Violence is omnipresent, exacerbated by gang activity and the fact that the prison population is quite large. These conditions that exist today will no doubt influence the development of prisons well into the future, and evidence of what is to come can already be seen today. The latest mutation in the penal system to contain violence and maintain some semblance of order is the development of what has been dubbed the “super-maximum-security prison” or “super-max” for short. ABC News describes the super-max prisons as “the penitentiaries of the future, built to crack down on those too violent or too afraid to be left in the general prison population.” These prisons use the method employed by the early Pennsylvania System, perpetual solitary confinement. However, while the method may be the same, the reasons are completely different. The Pennsylvania System was based on the idea that the prisoners must be isolated to reflect upon their crimes, while the super-max prisons are predicated on the need to keep order and to protect guards and other prisoners. Though the reasons are different, though, the results of the method are the same. While keeping a man in general population costs an average of thirty dollars a day, super-max prisons cost fifty. Also, the conditions in super-max prisons have a tendency to drive people insane. Eastern State Prison in Pennsylvania suffered the same problem with high costs and ill effects on inmate mental health. While solitary confinement may be acceptable for short periods of time, when used on an extended basis it inevitably renders poor results.

[The Straight Story]

18. Valuing life over a specific life

perhaps is somewhere near the core of this. I do understand though what you are saying, valuing life as a core value and holding a belief that people are 'good' but are led astray by X forces into their life to 'Y' - should we focus on the lives led astray and fixing them, focus on removing the things that led to 'Y' while punishing the people that o such, and so on and et al are questions worth asking.

Then too, 'evil' and bad, and so forth, are hard concepts to pin down without a central philosophy or belief system - none of which are really scientific as they center around the ideals of those in the mojority and those who hold power. What may seem barbaric to one culture might be normal to another, what we may punish others may see as ok.

I think this to speaks to the question(s) you asked in some way - what do we see as right and wrong, why, and how does that parlay into forgiving others who break that view we hold - and if there is no real central view backed by a higher power then is it might makes right (and hence, the person who is strongest is 'right' in an evolutionary sense to use their powers as they see fit) and so on and so forth.

A lot to think on....

[porphyrian]

13. But, this is a Christian nation...

...we can't forgive people. They might work for more pay or vote or something.

[ultraist]

22. We are also not a society that puts much into interventive programs

The article I posted above, discussed how one study helped to wipe out the school of thought that interventive programs are effective.

There are a myriad of ways to reduce conditions that foster criminal activity. Educational programs, therapeutic programs for high risk individuals, & alleviating stressful societal conditions (ie poverty). All of these measures are considered interventive/preventive. Unfortunately, there is too little focus on prevention.

Social Scientists, particularly those in the field of Social work, have long advocated for more interventive/preventative programs. But these are looked upon as costly, bleeding heart social programs and do not get funded as they should.

[porphyrian]

23. Well, if they got funded, they might work...

...and then we couldn't justify pouring billions into the self-perpetuating prison industrial complex.