Thursday, August 18, 2005
Forgiveness and Consequence
Blogcorner Preacher picked up on a NYTimes piece yesterday about a woman, severely beaten, that forgave her attacker. BP correctly points out the bias in the NYTimes - evident in its not just refusal to acknowledge, but actual denial, of any role that faith might have played in the woman's decision. But there is another part of the story that got to me
Don't get me wrong, I am glad for the reconciliation between victim and perpetrator - that is the way I believe Christ intended it, but that does not mean the societal consequences to the perpetrator should be reduced. We are not just individuals, but also members of something larger than ourselves. To forget that in our justice system is to foster narcissism -- something we can ill afford.
The prosecutor, Thomas Spota, had been ready to seek harsh punishment for a crime he rightly denounced as heedless and brutal. "This is not an act of mere stupidity," Mr. Spota said. "They're not 9- or 7-year-old children."The article does not define what "a far more satisfying" result is, but judging from the tone, it was less punishment than anticipated. There is something unsettling in this. The crime was not just against Ms. Ruvolo, it was also against society -- that is why it is a crime. The prosecutors job is to represent society, not the victim of a particular crime. The victim's forgiveness does not lessen then severity of the crime against society.
That is true. But Ms. Ruvolo's [the victim] resolute compassion, coming seemingly out of nowhere, disarmed Mr. Spota and led to a far more satisfying result.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad for the reconciliation between victim and perpetrator - that is the way I believe Christ intended it, but that does not mean the societal consequences to the perpetrator should be reduced. We are not just individuals, but also members of something larger than ourselves. To forget that in our justice system is to foster narcissism -- something we can ill afford.
