The morality of forgiving

[mr friendly guy]

The execution of Tookie got me thinking

We are constantly told about the "forgive and forget" mentality.

Also in society I have been told by people that holding grudges is "wrong".

In that particular argument I used an analogy of Nazi hunters still trying to catch Nazis after so many years. My friend attempted to counter that argument by comparing the magnitude of the crime, but the underlying logic is the same. The perpetrator needs to be caught, faced justice and paid for the crime. If not the "grudge" will be held.

What I want to discuss is

1) is it immoral not to forgive when the offending party has made no attempt to recompense? Does this depend on the magnitude of the wrong done?

2) Is it immoral not to forgive when the offending party has made some attempt at recompense? So say in Tookies case, if he admitted his guilt, apologised, and helped rat out his old gang, should he be forgiven?

3) is it morally wrong to "hold a grudge" even if there are factual and rational reasons to hold another party in contempt. In other words, the other party actually did commit a wrong against you (as opposed to an imagined wrong which strawmanning morons try to use).

For question 4 - 6 substitue "is it immoral not to" with "is it practical to". By practical I am asking for any advantage. The reason I ask is because of claims people make when forgiving say murderers - "I am doing it for me, not for him (murderer)". Apparently forgiving even without any rational basis has some advantage in relieving emotional baggage, but I just can't see it.

I would counter that if you forgive for the sake of forgiving because "its supposedly the right thing to do", it becomes nothing more than appeasement. If you keep this up you will in fact just have unscrupulous people run shod over you.

7) If someone is forgiven, would that have any effect on their punishment. So say someone is forgiven (for whatever reason, ie it may be in your religion to promote forgiveness), should they receive the same punishment for the same crime as someone who hasn't. Lets speak from a moral rather than a legal perspective.

Thoughts?

[Yogi]

Well the person who was wrong is the only one with the "authority" to forgive a wrongdoing. A Jew that has been wronged by the Nazis can decide to forgive them, but you and I (and the courts) can't. In the case of Tookie, his victims really aren't in the condition to do any sort of forgiving, so its off to the gallows with him.

As for your questions, it is not inherently immoral to hold a grudge against someone. If you want to seethe in barely controlld anger each time you see the person who stole your teddy bear when you were five, knock yourself out. It might put you in an early grave though. Staying angry at a person really doesn't help anybody and only makes your hair grey faster.

Of course holding a grudge and seeing justice done are two complely diffrent things. You may have forgiven the axe murdurer who cut off your right arm, but still whish to see him captured since he is a meanace to society.

[drachefly]

So say in Tookies case, if he admitted his guilt, apologised, and helped rat out his old gang...

How about if beyond that he became a major speaker against gang violence, going so far as to devise practical methods for gangs to end gang wars themselves, wrote award-winning childrens books and helped maintain order in the prison?

[drachefly]

(to be sure, the awards weren't exactly the caldecott medal, but the point is, it was approved-of by people who weren't gang members)

[wolveraptor]

How about if beyond that he became a major speaker against gang violence, going so far as to devise practical methods for gangs to end gang wars themselves, wrote award-winning childrens books and helped maintain order in the prison?

He never apologized to the families of the victims. How can he go beyond something he didn't do?

[Beowulf]

So say in Tookies case, if he admitted his guilt, apologised, and helped rat out his old gang...

How about if beyond that he became a major speaker against gang violence, going so far as to devise practical methods for gangs to end gang wars themselves, wrote award-winning childrens books and helped maintain order in the prison?

Childrens books which sold all of 330 copies. Stravo could sell more books than that.

[drachefly]

The target audience of those books was also kind of small...

Well, here's AN apology:
http://www.tookie.com/apology.html

It's not specifically aimed at the families, but I'd say he touched the important bases.

[Guardsman Bass]

1) is it immoral not to forgive when the offending party has made no attempt to recompense? Does this depend on the magnitude of the wrong done?

Doesn't forgiveness usually require an apology on the offending party's side, before forgiveness of a crime? I certainly believe that not forgiving in this case would not be immoral.

2) Is it immoral not to forgive when the offending party has made some attempt at recompense? So say in Tookies case, if he admitted his guilt, apologised, and helped rat out his old gang, should he be forgiven?

Morally speaking, then yes; you ought to forgive him. That doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable to justice for his crimes, though.

3) is it morally wrong to "hold a grudge" even if there are factual and rational reasons to hold another party in contempt. In other words, the other party actually did commit a wrong against you (as opposed to an imagined wrong which strawmanning morons try to use).

No. Arguably not holding a grudge against a party that has done a legitimate wrong would be allowing a lapse of justice, tantamount to letting the offending party getting off scot free.

For question 4 - 6 substitue "is it immoral not to" with "is it practical to". By practical I am asking for any advantage. The reason I ask is because of claims people make when forgiving say murderers - "I am doing it for me, not for him (murderer)". Apparently forgiving even without any rational basis has some advantage in relieving emotional baggage, but I just can't see it.

I would counter that if you forgive for the sake of forgiving because "its supposedly the right thing to do", it becomes nothing more than appeasement. If you keep this up you will in fact just have unscrupulous people run shod over you.

I don't think my answers change that much with the new language. But like I mentioned earlier, forgiveness doesn't mean that the person is let off free. You can forgive a thief for his crime if he is genuinely penitent about it, but he should also face society's punishment for his crime. Anything else, like forgiveness as "the right thing to do", just seems kind of stupid.

7) If someone is forgiven, would that have any effect on their punishment. So say someone is forgiven (for whatever reason, ie it may be in your religion to promote forgiveness), should they receive the same punishment for the same crime as someone who hasn't. Lets speak from a moral rather than a legal perspective.

Morally, I would say that the punishment should stay the same, otherwise you are committing an injustice. A thief who confesses and a thief who doesn't committed the same act, if they are proven guilty.

Practically, a sentence reduction should be in order, particularly if they confess before conviction, because then you can at least hope that their conscience and the combination of punishment will keep them from committing more criminal activity.

[fgalkin]

The target audience of those books was also kind of small...

Well, here's AN apology:
http://www.tookie.com/apology.html

It's not specifically aimed at the families, but I'd say he touched the important bases.

330 copies? I can beat that with my printer.

The apology? Don't see an apology to the families of the victims.

Practical methods to solve gang violence? You mean practical methods to STRENGTHEN both gangs so more people suffer, right?

Speaking out against gang violence? That's nice and all, but it would be better if he actually DID SOMETHING about it.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Kwizard]

To forgive is to look at someone who has done wrong, and recognize that they want to strive to do good for the world.

It all comes down to a matter of trust. In Stanley William's case he couldn't trust people to forgive him if he admitted to the murders and the public couldn't trust a man who wouldn't confess.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think the "forgive and forget" mentaility you mentioned real early speaks to a good idea and a bad idea. Forgiveness is, to my thinking, a state of accepting the offending parties admission of their own guilt as an honest attempt to repair the violation of societies rules. If you are never able to accept a person wants to change then you can't move forward (now there is the line between sincere contrition and desperate pleas out of self interest). However forgeting the offense itself would be wrong. History repeats itself because we forget the lessons of history. Sure its a cookie cutter phrase but there is still an inherent truth to it. What you forget to consider is always what will upset plans and ideas. You can forgive someone of an offense, and for psychological reasons it isn't a bad thing but you have to remember what was done and weigh that into your decision making in the future.

In Stanley William's case the offended parties certianly never felt he was truly contrite and as a society we should never forget that he brutally murdered at least those people for whom he was tried, convicted, confirmed upon appeal, and sentenced to die. If we as a society accept that it is our right to remove those who have egregiously violated our code of conduct then we must always remember that Williams violated it and we must take action based upon that knowledge.

[Kwizard]

Maybe this is slightly off-topic, but didn't anyone find it odd that Williams never had a last moment of confession? Seeing as he developed a conscience while his appeals were being battled out, I find it extremely odd that he fully denied the murders up until his end as a person.