Not really. Forgiveness does not actually require reconciliation between the offender and the one offended. It requires that I don’t hate the person for what they did to me. Wishing justice to be served, for the sake of society, and even for the sake of the offender to convince them to turn from their wickedness, does not equate to hating them or wishing them harm. Serving time in prison is not “harm.” It’s called “consequences for bad decisions.” Even when God forgives somebody for sinning it doesn’t mean they then escape the consequences for their sin. Is our standard of “forgiveness” supposed to somehow EXCEED God’s own standard of forgiveness?
I always think of secular justice as serving three purposes, which may be required to varying levels depending on the crime: 1. Protection of society 2. Punishment of the offender 3. Rehabilitation of the offender. Protecting society typically applies to violent crimes or particularly nasty crimes - obviously while someone is locked in jail they aren't out on the streets committing crimes. Punishment of the offender can take the form of financial penalities, loss of liberty (prison) or some other punishment. In the UK sometimes a community service punishment is handed down where someone is ordered to complete, say, 180 hours of unpaid work in the community. That might involve clearing graffiti, picking up litter etc. In theory it works, but in practise from what I gather if people don't show up little is done to track them down and rearrest them. Rehabilitation of the offender applies more to those facing prison terms, essentially to make sure they have a fair chance at living a normal life once they return to society. If someone has been in jail for a decade the chances are they'll find it hard to get employment when they are released and, since they will still have to find a place to live and have bills to pay, it's worth helping them support themselves legally rather than leaving them with little option other than to commit more crimes to pay their bills. Where decades-old crimes are concerned it's hard to know how to balance these three aspects. It does make sense to punish the offender, at which point the next question needs to be how best to punish them. An 85-year-old who molested children when in his 40s probably represents a minimal threat to society as an octagenarian and putting them in a regular prison is functionally more or less equivalent to handing down a death sentence - even if they would ordinarily live long enough to complete their prison term the chances are other inmates would see to it that they didn't. And if the death penalty is sought that's fine, but the system needs to be honest about it and might as well just send the offender to the electric chair as leave him wondering how long he has before another inmate shanks him. Sometimes justice does become about little more than vengeance, in which case again we should probably be honest about the motive. From a purely practical perspective, aside from a sense of vengeance what difference does it make if that octagenarian is locked up for the rest of his life?
Sorry Aaron, but by your standard, we're all going to be judged and condemned to hell. Forgiving goes a little further that not hating.
Just like Jesus said "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" and then called down fire from heaven to smite them, right?
Not sure of the point you’re trying to make here. If God forgiving somebody of their sin doesn’t mean a person escapes the deserved consequence of their sin...why are WE supposed to forgive them and make sure they escape the deserved consequence of their sin?
Ok. Explain what all you believe “forgiveness” requires of us. Does it require that people who commit crimes get to go scott free and experience no consequences for their actions?
Tango actually had the response. I'll expound on it if it'll help. Scenario: someone attempted to murder you. You were in hospital for a month. You say you forgive him (no longer hate him. He's arrested and charged with attempted murder. The trial is set. You attend to do one of two things. You say, to see that justice is served and he's punished approximately. Or You can attend, stand, and speak out. "Judge forgive him, for he knows not what he has done." Simple question for you. You say you forgave by no longer hating BUT you demand justice from the courts. The case is thrown out on a technicality. The guy that attempted to murder you is FREE! What do you do?
Forgiveness means to give up our right to retribution. The state's civil justice system is about the protection of society at large, not the retribution for any particular victim of crime.
Even if I ask the judge not to punish the person who attempted to murder me...the state (Caesar) has jurisdiction and authority to ignore my request as it has the protection of society in general in mind, not just my personal feelings on the matter. If the case got thrown out on a technicality for some reason...I guess I would just have to let it go and trust God to handle the situation however He felt was best. Whether that meant punishment from Him in this life (or later in eternity)...or not. Either which way, I would hope my attempted murderer would straighten out their life...but that’s their choice to do so or not.
As an aside Aaron, I have a CCL (conceal carry license) I carry a Taurus380 in a soft holster in my back pocket. Five round magazine with one in the chamber. If there happens to be anyone with a weapon threatening me or anyone around me, there will be no hesitation. I qualified for seven different weapons in the military. So no, if you think I was sounding like a bleeding heart liberal, rethink that.
You could ask the judge to be lenient, and it would then be up to the judge whether to actually be lenient or not. The judge may grant your request. The judge may decide that protection of society is sufficiently important that a long prison sentence was still necessary. You could simply decline to attend the trial. You could visit your attacker in prison and help him come to terms with what he did. Perhaps you know very well the law would be more lenient towards you if you were to hunt them down and take revenge on them directly but decide not to. There are all sorts of ways that forgiveness might reveal itself and essentially they all involve you giving up your right to seek retribution against whoever wronged you.
Child molesters are generally serial criminals. https://deadspin.com/michigan-states-nassar-settlement-could-set-a-troubling-1826139831 Michigan State's Nassar Settlement Could Set A Troubling First Amendment Precedent , Michigan State announced that it had settled with 332 survivors of Larry Nassar’s sexual abuse Given the sheer number of women and girls that Nassar abused, and also given the fact that Michigan State employees had ignored several complaints over a period spanning two decades, there’s nothing surprising about that figure. But there was one condition in the settlement that was unexpected—the fact that the survivors agreed to stop advocating for two specific reform bills that are currently being debated and voted on in the Michigan state legislature. The two bills seek to remove governmental immunity in cases involving childhood sexual abuse. (Emphasis mine). Nassar's earliest release March 23, 2069.
Those who protect these criminals for their own benefit deserve the same penalty. The Governmental pile sickens me.