Feeding My Ignorance

This post is the result of my thinking being triggered by a very specific piece of "news" (its not really news since the actual event happened many years ago - but has only recently become public knowledge).  I was very unsure of how to react to this particular story - so this blog is me thinking it through.

...

The explanation :

I want to avoid mentioning the specifics because I feel that they 'could' cloud judgement due to natural biases. I am therefore making the description below very general - containing all the pertinent facts, but avoiding the issues that make this particular situation rather more incendiary than some...

The scenario :

Someone (A) does something wrong. There is a victim (B).

Sometime later B forgives A.

A has acknowledged that what was done really was wrong and recognises just how bad it was.

A does not receive any "punishment" - other than having to live with it, of course. There isn't any tangible way of recompense - so no way that A can "make it up to" B.

The question :

Should A be "allowed" to get away with it (so to speak)?

The narrative :

A significant proportion of the population will, perhaps rightly, cry "A confessed to this, therefore should face the punishment". Another group, probably much smaller, will say "A has changed - they are not the same person" - they have 'reformed' in some way, repented perhaps. Does B's forgiveness represent a "judgement" that obviates the need for further judgement?

Despite A's acknowledgement of guilt and acceptance of the "wrongness" involved how do we determine whether A's contrition is authentic? I can certainly think of instances where people have said "I have done this bad thing" - and then professed that they would in all likelihood do the same or worse again.

B's forgiveness is, I think, real - however it is most certainly not in the "forgive and forget" bracket. B holds A to account and recognises A as a wrongdoer - as someone who did great harm. B also thinks, however, that A is "not the same person", that they have genuine remorse for doing what they did.

Although the question above is a pretty straightforward one - or at least at first sight it is, I guess apart from "yes" and "no" answers there are lots of "perhaps" ones as well - there are a lot of side issues that I think are worthy of discussion (or at least some are).

If B has truly forgiven A why should anyone else "insist" on punishing A. Surely (at least with respect to this situation) B is the person best placed to both determine "appropriate" punishment and also to rule on how genuine A's remorse is. Although the "eye for an eye" attitude is prevalent, our local idea of "justice" and "punishment" is that - where possible - we aim for reform. So - in this case - has A reformed without the (more obvious) punishment. It is possible (likely?) that A's self punishment once the wrongness was recognised could have been more effective than 'standard' types of punishment.

Problem - if B has forgiven A, that is all very well if B is the only one wronged - we do not know if there is a C, or a D or perhaps even more victims - has A recognised the wrong there too?

For me the bottom line is that I don't know enough to properly judge this situation. So - I can neither wholeheartedly praise A for "seeing the light", nor condemn A for an act of wrongdoing. Equally, whilst I sort of admire B for the act of forgiveness - I cannot be sure that act has not caused more difficulties for other victims.

What I won't do though is jump on the bandwagon of those vociferously throwing their weight behind a campaign of (blindly) trumpeting their preference at either end of a black/white choice. It is neither all good, nor all bad.

For what it is worth in this particular case I have a certain unease about the fact that - despite a confession - there is seemingly little punishment for A and although B's forgiveness is to be applauded I think that it falls short of being unconditional.

Although the scenario set out above did not mention it, A did, in fact, do something which is deemed illegal - so, not just wrong, but criminal. This - I think - changes the dynamics - especially because B now has some sort of duty to the wider society to properly deal with this - forgiveness is fine; contrition is fine; but the act remains an illegal one.

Consider the case of someone who has stolen some money - some weeks later they go to the person that they robbed and say "I'm sorry I took your money - I would pay you back, but I can't because I spent it all" - the victim (the only person 'harmed' in this) could say - "that's OK, don't do it again, I forgive you" - and then the robber has not only escaped punishment, but profitted, from his wrongdoing. It would be easy for him to repeat the process with someone else.

Alternatively, the same robber, several years later has "reformed" and goes back and confesses to his victim. Does that change the dynamic? Is this "reformation" more believable. At what point in time is that the case?

As Christians we are taught to forgive. I know of plenty people who have seen that forgiveness and become "better people" as a result. As long as the wrongdoing stays "legal" then there is not so much conflict. Whenever the boundary of legality is crossed the issue is complicated by the fact that it is essential to balance forgiveness and compassion with the need to uphold the rule of law.

The case that triggered this writing has also been responsible for a wide range of responses from the "general public" - these range from praise for the forgiveness to condemnation because the "victim" is allowing the "perpetrator" to seemingly bask in the fact that they had done wrong and had never been punished.

Each individual situation is unique and, whilst it is possible to carry some strong guidelines from one (similar) situation to another it should be seen as unwise to do so without considering the context. It is impossible to be sure what is going on inside another person's mind, so any measure of someone else's level of contrition will be necessarily subjective and highly susceptible to manipulation.

What, perhaps, worries me more than the specifics in this example is the wider issue that - in general - we are not very good at being consistent in our judgements - I will return to this in a later post - and we apply different criteria to different cases which will - inevitably - result in a level of unfairness in our actions.

So - to answer the question - "should A be allowed to get away with it" - I can only say that in the specific case that caused me to think through this argument my answer would be "yes" - for two main reason. Firstly I believe that A has demonstrated sufficient contrition to convince the victim (B) that they are aware of the wrongness of what happened. Secondly I think that A has also suffered a punishment that may have been both worse and more effective than anything the judicial system could mete out. In general though, the default must be that - to quote W.S. Gilbert - the punishment fits the crime. Perhaps, in this case it does.