In time you will be asked, “Have you forgiven the murderer of your loved one?” Many of us ponder this before answering. I was caught completely off guard the day the newspaper reporter asked me, tape recorder in hand 30 years after his death.
The questioner is rarely someone who has been on the other side of homicide grief. They usually have an answer in mind before they ask.
Some Context
This question may seem simple, but, as with many things in life, it’s more complex when examined closely. So, some context.
First, is it up to “outsiders” to tell us what we should or should not do? For our decision to be genuine, it must emanate from within us and be given careful consideration.
Second, is there a one-size-fits-all answer? Consider these five “what if” scenarios…
>What if the homicide was caused by the accidental discharge of a weapon mishandled by an 11-year-old in his own home and the victim was his sister and he was anguished by it?
>What if the homicide was a flippant “thrill kill” of someone selected at random — a “practice” for future victims?
>What if the killer had an organic brain disease that triggered aggression and impulsivity (such as “CTE”, a condition seen in many pro football players) and the perpetrator had little understanding of what they had done? (BTW, the podcast Domino Effect of Murder deals with the topic of brain pathology in the murder of a man’s wife. Please tune in to hear guest Marcy Pusey talk about the murder of her mother-in-law, released October 12, 2022.)
>What if the death was deliberately timed to occur in full view of the victim’s six-year-old son as he was running into his father’s arms as he exited daycare? (Listen to Susan Snow speak about this situation in her family on Domino Effect of Murder, released October 18, 2023.)
>What if the killer kidnapped their victim, a toddler, and tortured them before slowly taking their life then vicariously tortured their parents with a video of their child’s last moments?
As you are asked about your position on forgiveness there are some red flags to listen for. Caution is warranted when the person enquiring uses the words “you must”, “you cannot”, “you should”, “you will never”, “always” and so forth. Absolutes should make you pause. Life is seldom that clear-cut. Don’t give in to the pressure.
What follows next are the usual reasons for and against forgiveness.
The Case For Forgiveness
Religious leaders, scholars, some victim advocates, and about half of all mental health clinicians encourage (and in some cases expect) the one who was wronged to forgive. It is easy to find essays advocating this position.
The following eight reasons are commonly cited in supporting a position for forgiveness.
>First, only through forgiveness can someone release their own suffering.
>Second, withholding forgiveness to force change in the offender is wrong.
>Third, extending forgiveness will release the survivor from anger and bitterness. As such, it will elevate mood, help the survivor disengage from the perpetrator, and guard against anger and depression.
>Fourth, forgiveness demonstrates compassion, reduces resentment, and helps the co-victim grow spiritually and emotionally. In the end, it is an act that benefits the victim more than the wrong-doer.
>Fifth, the benefits of extending forgiveness will help grow happiness, hopefulness, and optimism.
>Sixth, forgiveness brings documented physical benefits, such as lowered blood pressure, improved sleep. and reduced stress hormones like cortisol.
>Seventh, forgiveness benefits society at large.
>Last, when someone forgives, it’s an opportunity to role model the behavior for others.
The Case Against Forgiveness
Others take a different stance, one not frequently vocalized but it’s gaining traction. They would assert one or more of the following eight reasons.
>First, given the pressure to forgive, the survivor’s primary motive may be to please others and conform to social expectations. In other words, forgiveness may be insincere and forced. This is especially alluring due to the social stigma and isolation that inevitably follow homicide. Extending the default position of forgiveness allows the griever more social support at a time when it is needed. But it may be at the price of authenticity.
>Second, a culture of coerced forgiveness adds to a growing, heavy load for the victim. The to-do list is long.
>Third, most people urging forgiveness from the co-victim have never personally been impacted by homicide. They’re taking their cues from an abstract moral code. We can’t know what is right for us until facing the dilemma.
>Fourth, forgiveness often precedes the perpetrator earning forgiveness or even asking for it. It’s a free pass. In other words, when the perpetrator has not asked for forgiveness, nor demonstrated insight, empathy, or worked towards genuine change, it merely wipes their slate clean prematurely and fraudulently. This teaches them they needn’t do anything to be forgiven. This reduces the value of forgiveness in much the same way that handing over a new laptop to an eleven-year-old will reduce its value because it is not earned.
>Fifth, extending forgiveness puts the victim-survivor in the role of a divine being. Some may press “pause” when they read Romans 12:19. Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay… Forgiveness is seen as between the murderer and their maker.
>Sixth, forgiveness may be premature. If additional facts come out later, after the proclamation of forgiveness, the co-victim of murder may feel stuck with (and regret) their choice to forgive.
>Seventh, standing firm on withholding forgiveness is a healthy boundary setting.
>Last, espousing disingenuous forgiveness under pressure deepens the depression of the co-victim.
Are These Our Only Two Options?
The Option of Indifference
A third option is indifference; emotional neutrality. In a sense, it is borrowed from the tradition of indigenous societies that evoked exile, banishment, ostracization, loss of membership, or expulsion for grave offenses. (They are not alone in this form of dispute resolution.)
For example, The Iroquois Great Law of Peace, Section 20, the oldest living constitution we know of, stated that if a chief of one of the Five Nations committed murder, the other chiefs would come together where the killing occurred to banish the offending chief. This was a crime against the Creator and was not tolerated. The perpetrator was dismissed as Chief and reminded that this brought stigma to his entire clan. His title of Chieftainship was then extended to a sister family. They formally declared: “I now depose and expel you and you shall depart at once from the territory of the League of Five Nations and nevermore return.”
The consequences were immediate, serious and long-lasting. The exiled murderer was stripped of tribal rights, privileges, and resources. This led to generational banishment. They faced isolation and loneliness as well as loss of identity. Without the protection of the community that they wronged, they were vulnerable to wildlife, harsh environmental conditions, and warring groups. Over time they were forgotten and risked losing their traditions and cultural practices and grew out of step with extended family. And last, and more pertinent to this discussion, the wrongdoer faced spiritual consequences. It was believed that the banished person was refused protection from the guiding spirits of their tribe. Their fate was squarely in the hands of the creator for violating the rules of the creator, not those who had been wronged.
How does banishment translate to contemporary society? After prolonged fact-finding and when emotions have been processed, we begin to feel more centered. We address the question of forgiveness. In time it’s possible to say “I no longer want or expect anything from you. I have detached myself. You are in my rearview. You did what you did and now I am handing you off to your maker. You must live with your choices. You are not entitled to my time or energy. I have created a rigid boundary between us and moved on. I will not look back. You are not a part of my present or my future. Goodbye.” Some individuals follow this up with a ritual – like burning photos or news articles, asking others to never speak of the perpetrator’s name again, or releasing a dove.
Choices
The challenges following homicide are many. The decision to forgive or not is inevitable. It’s also highly personal. There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
We are entitled to choose whatever path holds true for us. We’re even entitled to change our minds later.
Forgiveness is frequently sanitized and simplified when, in reality, it’s draining, confusing, and risky – but important.
True belonging doesn’t require
us to change who we are.
It requires us to be who we are.
–Brene Brown
