Forgetting about the victims of crime

[Rascalking]

Some dear friends of mine had their house broken into while they were sleeping. They have three children, and, not surprisingly, the kids are now very scared-as are the parents. Can’t blame them.

I was talking with a very religious friend of mine, and he went on a rant (there is no other word for it) about how the criminal was probably just looking for food money in this economy, that we need to forgive him, turn the other cheek, etc.

Ok, I get it-I’m all for forgiveness, I need it, you do, we all do. However, why do so many Catholics in particular want to worry just about the criminals and NOT about the victims? This goes for the death penalty (No argument about the morality of it-just about the victims family) where so many Catholics don’t seem to care about the victims family, just the murderer. Same with this dude who ranted about the rights of the criminal.

Is it not possible to be compassionate to wards both the victims and the perpetrator?

Any thoughts? Theories?

 

[Catholic90]

Some dear friends of mine had their house broken into while they were sleeping. They have three children, and, not surprisingly, the kids are now very scared-as are the parents. Can’t blame them.

I was talking with a very religious friend of mine, and he went on a rant (there is no other word for it) about how the criminal was probably just looking for food money in this economy, that we need to forgive him, turn the other cheek, etc.

Ok, I get it-I’m all for forgiveness, I need it, you do, we all do. However, why do so many Catholics in particular want to worry just about the criminals and NOT about the victims? This goes for the death penalty (No argument about the morality of it-just about the victims family) where so many Catholics don’t seem to care about the victims family, just the murderer. Same with this dude who ranted about the rights of the criminal.

Is it not possible to be compassionate to wards both the victims and the perpetrator?

Any thoughts? Theories?

It is far more likely the criminal was breaking in looking for money for drugs, not for food. Normal, rational people do not break into houses looking for anything. Criminals do, though.

Did they catch him?

 

[Rascalking]

It is far more likely the criminal was breaking in looking for money for drugs, not for food. Normal, rational people do not break into houses looking for anything. Criminals do, though.

Did they catch him?

I totally agree with you.

Not to my knowledge on the capturing thing.

The bigger question is if Catholics focus too much on the perp, not the victim.

 

[JaneGrey]

I think I understand. I was recently the victim of a crime but one in which I was not physically hurt. I think if I was, people would be alot less reluctant to defend the criminal of course (I hope!).

I think people project their experiences onto things, and similarly lack of experiences. I find in my own experience that the people who have been more sympathetic to the perpetrators are usually those who have not had similar things happen to them. They think that bad things only happen in ‘bad’ neighbourhoods and to the people who ‘hang out’ there.

Now that is not to say that people who have led charmed lives are unable to empathise with others. Not at all. I do think people just dont realise how they come across at times.

Anyway those are my thoughts based on my own personal experiences.

 

[Pug]

Perhaps it is somewhat influenced by one of the corporal acts of mercy being to visit the imprisoned. To balance that, one of the spiritual works of mercy is to comfort the afflicted. That might be a victim of a crime.

Overall, I find the corporal acts of mercy to be easier to do, since one can feed the hungry even if one has the personality and charm of a puddle of mud. The two “visiting” ones are substantially harder.

If one is interested, there are things like “victim’s advocates” that one can train or volunteer to be. I’ve seen them in courthouses, sitting with victims of crimes. I think it is usually for victims of domestic violence, but they might have them for others.

 

[Rascalking]

I
I think people project their experiences onto things, and similarly lack of experiences. I find in my own experience that the people who have been more sympathetic to the perpetrators are usually those who have not had similar things happen to them. They think that bad things only happen in ‘bad’ neighbourhoods and to the people who ‘hang out’ there.
.

Good point. The famous adage, “A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged” comes into play. I’m not trying to get into politics!

 

[Rascalking]

Perhaps it is somewhat influenced by one of the corporal acts of mercy being to visit the imprisoned. To balance that, one of the spiritual works of mercy is to comfort the afflicted. That might be a victim of a crime.

Overall, I find the corporal acts of mercy to be easier to do, since one can feed the hungry even if one has the personality and charm of a puddle of mud. The two “visiting” ones are substantially harder.

If one is interested, there are things like “victim’s advocates” that one can train or volunteer to be. I’ve seen them in courthouses, sitting with victims of crimes. I think it is usually for victims of domestic violence, but they might have them for others.

Interesting thoughts Pug.

Again, I’m not saying the perpetrators don’t need counseling and forgiveness-they do. However, that doesn’t mean they should just be given soft kisses and hand holding. I know your not saying that, I’m just raising a point.

I stand by what I said-it seems most Catholics seem to forget about the victims.

 

[Wesley7]

. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The thing is, has the perpetrator ASKED for forgiveness? I don’t think so judging from Rascal’s posts. We don’t need to forgive people who don’t ask for forgiveness. At least, not until they DO ask forgiveness, and there have to be reasonable consequences if criminal acts have been done.

Personally, I think the original person who went on the rant is doing the equivalent of throwing salt over his shoulder. Superstitiously and probably unconsciously, he feels that if he ‘defends’ the criminal, somehow HE won’t become a victim of a crime himself. If he distances himself emotionally from the VICTIMS, he feels he will be less likely to be a victim himself.

Perhaps I’m wrong. I myself am currently dealing with a catastrophic illness in a family member out of state plus caretaking a relative whose mental illness has decompensated severely, so my own mental processes are more likely to be seeing the ‘less than normal’ if you can understand my train of thought.

 

[Wesley7]

If you’re not a Cop or a Detective the best you can do is hope for justice.

 

[Rascalking]

The thing is, has the perpetrator ASKED for forgiveness? I don’t think so judging from Rascal’s posts. We don’t need to forgive people who don’t ask for forgiveness. At least, not until they DO ask forgiveness, and there have to be reasonable consequences if criminal acts have been done.
t.

I’m not sure they’ve even caught the guy yet, so I have no idea about the forgiveness thing.

If they ask for forgiveness, the best thing to do is pray for guidance. It might be tough to forgive them. Yes, I know it’s what were supposed to do, but it can be quite hard.

 

[revert_jen]

Very interesting question. I suppose there are fashions in forgiveness like everything else.

This is (somewhat tangentially) related to something I have noticed in religious circles in recent years. I have seen some examples of this on this forum, but the best example comes from outside.

The following story was included by the Pastor of a nearby parish that I happened to attend one week. I am telling the story from memory, but I remember the gist of it anyway.

The Pastor was in a grocery store. There were three people in line at the checkout and he was the third. The checker was apparently new in her job and not very good. The first person in line was patient. The second person in line was impatient, asking for additional help in a loud voice after a few minutes. He was (I remember this was stated with a fair amount of disdain) buying cigarettes. The moral of the story was that the first person in line was concentrated on the needs of the checker and the second person in line was selfish, not seeing things from other people’s points of view.

Well, that was OK as far as it went, but as far as I could see, the third person in line was suffering from an equal blindness to the other person’s point of view. The second guy in line was supposed to sympthize with the checker’s incompetence, so why wasn’t the third person in line (the priest) supposed to sympathize with the second guy’s irritability? I mean, it’s good to be charitable and assume that the checker was new (rather than just unwilling to learn), but he didn’t know it for a fact. Isn’t it also good to be charitable and assume that the irritable guy was irritable and impatient for some valid reason as well? Maybe he was upset because he had tried to quit smoking and was failing. It could be anything. Quite possibly he was less annoyed with the checker herself than with the store, who should have let her shadow someone with experience for a while, if she was as new as all that.

How this relates to the subject of the thread is that we just don’t seem to want to sympathize with certain people. I think it has a lot with a laudable (in itself) desire not to be judgemental. It makes us judgemental toward those whom we perceive to be judgemental. But it seems to me that since we are admittedly aware of the sin of being judgemental, it is even worse for us when we commit it.

Perhaps your very religious friend perceives in sympathy to the victims a corresponding desire to judge the perpetrators. Aside from the fact that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former, there is not now nor has there ever been a proscription against judging actions. We are not in a position to judge the souls of the criminals, just as we are not in a position to judge the soul of the incompetent checker. However, it does not mean that we are not allowed to say that the criminal act was a wrong act, or that people should be good at their jobs.

If someone is hurt by a crime, they deserve our sympathy even if they react in a vengeful manner. (I do not mean that this family has done so, but that even if they had, they would still deserve our sympathy.) This is not to say that we shouldn’t try to talk them out of their desire for revenge, just that it doesn’t cancel out the harm that was done to them. In a much more trivial way, the fact that the guy had to wait in line for a much longer time than would reasonably be expected, was an injury to him. To some extent (a very much smaller extent of course), he deserves our sympathy for this, which is not canceled out by his becoming irritable about it. We should try to talk him (if we know him well enough of course) out of showing his irritability in such a way, of course.

Alternatively to all of the above, sometimes people just want to be thought of as merciful, so they like to appear really merciful toward people who have not in fact harmed them personally at all.

–Jen

 

[promethius]

The thing is, has the perpetrator ASKED for forgiveness? I don’t think so judging from Rascal’s posts. We don’t need to forgive people who don’t ask for forgiveness. At least, not until they DO ask forgiveness, and there have to be reasonable consequences if criminal acts have been done.

I think Archbishop Sheen handled this one best on his three part series “False Compassion” (available on youtube here)

The problem with this sort of false compassion is that it doesn’t seek reconciliation or righting of wrongs. It seeks to JUSTIFY gravely disordered acts as though they are not gravely disordered. In other words, it does nothing to redress the wrongs done against a person, and it does nothing to encourage the perpetrator to repent and return to righteousness.

So don’t forget to pray for the perpetrator, but never justify gravely disordered acts as somehow NOT disordered and never forget that a wrong has been done and reconciliatory justice needs to occur!

 

[Rascalking]

I think Archbishop Sheen handled this one best on his three part series “False Compassion” (available on youtube here)

The problem with this sort of false compassion is that it doesn’t seek reconciliation or righting of wrongs. It seeks to JUSTIFY gravely disordered acts as though they are not gravely disordered. In other words, it does nothing to redress the wrongs done against a person, and it does nothing to encourage the perpetrator to repent and return to righteousness.

So don’t forget to pray for the perpetrator, but never justify gravely disordered acts as somehow NOT disordered and never forget that a wrong has been done and reconciliatory justice needs to occur!

Hey thanks alot for this post dude (or dudette, if your a girl). Gave me alot to think about.

 

[RosaryFan]

Some dear friends of mine had their house broken into while they were sleeping. They have three children, and, not surprisingly, the kids are now very scared-as are the parents. Can’t blame them.

I was talking with a very religious friend of mine, and he went on a rant (there is no other word for it) about how the criminal was probably just looking for food money in this economy, that we need to forgive him, turn the other cheek, etc.

Ok, I get it-I’m all for forgiveness, I need it, you do, we all do. However, why do so many Catholics in particular want to worry just about the criminals and NOT about the victims? This goes for the death penalty (No argument about the morality of it-just about the victims family) where so many Catholics don’t seem to care about the victims family, just the murderer. Same with this dude who ranted about the rights of the criminal.

Is it not possible to be compassionate to wards both the victims and the perpetrator?

Any thoughts? Theories?

I tend to sympathize with the victim and believe that although mercy is okay, the saying goes: “mercy seasons justice”, which indicates that justice is, in fact, necessary and should not be dismissed. Justice is necessary, not only for the victims’ sake, but also as a punishment for the criminal and as a deterrant for anyone else with bright ideas.

There was a time (not now, because I have a child) that if he would have broken into my home in the middle of the night, he wouldn’t have gotten out without a bullet hole in his head (or foot - depending on my aim ). And I wouldn’t have had an ounce of guilt about it.

 

[manualman]

I think there are dangers on both sides.

I think we have a very real impulse in our society that tends to consider criminals as something subhuman to be disposed of. This is incompatible with how Jesus tells us to treat criminals, and honestly how God treats US (we’re all criminals, after all). This is the sort of attitude displayed when people speak of blowing people’s head off if they attempt to burglarize your laptop.

On the other hand, there is a sort of false compassion that, if unchecked, can simply enable criminal behavior. That’s no sort of charity at all.

Forgiveness isn’t the same as enabling. Crime deserves punishment and the innocent need protection from the guilty. But the guilty must still be seen as human beings, not vicious animals.