Conor McBride shot his fiancee in the face. He immediately confessed and turned himself in. Through a process called “restorative justice,” discussed at length in this New York Times article, he received a much lighter sentence than usual as he, his family, and the victim’s family all three came together to offer apologies and forgiveness. Instead of the typical life sentence, McBride was sentenced to 20 years with 10 years of probation following his release. The story relates the following anecdote from the victim’s hospital room, as her father sat by her bedside and she, in a comatose state, was being kept alive by modern technology:
Ann’s face was covered in bandages, and she was intubated and unconscious, but Andy felt her say, “Forgive him.” His response was immediate. “No,” he said out loud. “No way. It’s impossible.” But Andy kept hearing his daughter’s voice: “Forgive him. Forgive him.”
Struggling to come to grips with what the father believes was his soon to be deceased daughter’s plea, he was moved to do something unusual – extend forgiveness and grace to the one who shot her. However, that was not enough for this victim’s family. They believed that the murderer, the one who killed their daughter, should have his sentence affected by their forgiveness and his own contrition.
While the Bible clearly calls followers of Christ to forgive those who harm them, should this same offer of forgiveness play a part in the judicial system? Is it more effective than the typically applied penal code? I’m not sure I am smart enough to know the answer, but I’ll be honest: the family’s response of forgiveness and grace is astonishing and Christ-like. What is more, their forgiveness has not only changed the life of the young man who took their daughter’s life, it has helped change a community. Consider this from the end of the article:
As much as the Grosmaires say that forgiveness helped them, so, too, has the story of their forgiveness. They’ve spoken about it to church groups and prayer breakfasts around Tallahassee and plan to do more talks. The story is a signpost in the wilderness, something solid and decent they can return to while wandering in this parallel universe without their youngest daughter. Kate Grosmaire keeps asking herself if she has really forgiven Conor. “I think about it all the time,” she said. “Is that forgiveness still there? Have I released that debt?” Even as the answer comes back yes, she says, it can’t erase her awareness of what she no longer has. “Forgiving Conor doesn’t change the fact that Ann is not with us. My daughter was shot, and she died. I walk by her empty bedroom at least twice a day.”
I am curious to hear your thoughts. Is restorative justice a viable option in the American justice system? Should a Christian ethic of grace and forgiveness change the way in which we apply justice? What do you think?
I see the struggle happening in this debate. For Christians, forgiveness is mandatory, and God will judge Christians based on whether they forgave or did not. Christians have been forgiven infinitely more by God than any human can forgive a murderer so Christians should forgive.
On the government aspect of the matter, they are not Christians, necessarily, so it would seem like they are not required to forgive. They have been given the responsibility to judge and keep peace, and they are supposed to keep the people of their country safe. What if forgiveness from the government allows a murderer to go free and murder someone else? Are government officials supposed to keep the Christian mandate of forgiveness too??
I actually think so; they are supposed to forgive because they will eventually be judged. God will hold everyone up to Jesus as the standard to see how they measure up. Jesus said to forgive so they must forgive, and here is the anomaly…
Forgiveness takes faith, and faith, in this case, believes that everything will be made right in the end. For a government official who is supposed to exact punishment according to offense, faith does not make sense. Murders are supposed to be put into prison; they are not to go free upon sentencing because that is unjust, and our legal system is designed to uphold justice. Faith does, however, draw attention. For example, that is why we are talking about this article and this circumstance. We see the faith of this family to forgive this murder, and we are dumbfounded as to why they did this. People outside of Christ are supposed to see faith and be confused and desire the faith, but if we make non-believers have faith like Christians are to have, we blur the lines. If the government makes people have faith, we are mixing state and church; the state makes people believe that everything will alright when this convict goes free without punishment, and that is incorrect.
God makes people trust Jesus; humans cannot cause other humans to trust Jesus. The state cannot make its people believe anything; only God causes people to believe. But again, in the end, God will judge all people according to the standard set up by Jesus.
I think what I am trying to say is: people need faith to forgive; Christians have faith that God will work everything (including murder) out for good; all things will be just in the end; non-Christians need that kind of faith (or some kind of faith) to forgive, but it seems that faith is completely opposed by unbelievers, and this lack of faith that things will be just in the end means that unbelievers are unjust if they let the offense go unpunished. The “catch 22” is here.
I think what should happen is that people should repent and believe in Jesus; this includes the government. Once this is the case, all can hope to know that God is working everything for good! Judgments from the government based on faith will be understood as justifiable because of Jesus so they will be correct before men!! The government agents casting the verdicts will be right before God because they are using Jesus as their standard!!!
(I know that this is not going to happen, but I am trying to make sense of this situation.)
How else should anyone think about this situation? What is a different way of thinking about it? What would the opposition suggest?
Secondly, how can this line of argument be improved?
Wow. This is pretty amazing. It reminded me that when we sin there are still consequences. Wages of sin is death and even after redemption we can suffer (physical or emotional) from past transgressions. Yet God’s grace is amazing and free and blots out those sins. Amazing that this family were able to forgive. I do think there should be consequences, he committed murder and under the law of the land that is forbidden. But, wow, what a testimony. I pray he would know grace.