Forgiveness in day-to-day life is often considered to be a healthy way of responding to the pain that others may have caused. While it can be beneficial  on the individual scale, the idea of incorporating the said concept into the morally complex web of procedures and precedents that is the American justice system is one that many would consider to be controversial. Who has the “right” to grant forgiveness? Is it the victim, the victim’s family or the community? Moreover, how important is forgiveness from any given entity when considering the severity of the crime? While programs centered around rehabilitation and approaches such as restorative justice may help reduce recidivism rates and improve the lives of those who show true remorse for their actions, the concept of a victim’s or their loved one’s forgiveness being grounds for reducing an offender’s punishment is an all too slippery slope that would be detrimental to the functioning of society. 

The most important factor to consider is the severity of a crime. Forgiveness for something relatively harmless like petty theft is hardly objectionable as long as it is the victim’s own decision, but with crimes that are far more weighted, such as first degree murder, letting someone off because they were “forgiven” is simply irresponsible. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, “63.8% of violent offenders recidivate by being rearrested for a new crime or for a violation of supervision conditions.” Just because a perpetrator is forgiven by a victim does not mean that they have changed or even hold any remorse for their actions.  It is also crucial that these punishments remain as pillars of impartiality delivered by the jury, not to be lessened by forgiveness nor increased by ire. However, the likelihood of forgiveness even being applicable  to such situations are, for mostly obvious reasons, far and few. One of these rare occasions is the case of the Grosmaires, who found a way to get resolution when their daughter was killed by her boyfriend Conor McBride, who felt real remorse for what he had done. Going through the restorative justice approach, “an approach to justice that seeks to repair harm by providing an opportunity for those harmed and those who take responsibility for the harm to communicate about and address their needs in the aftermath of a crime.” Restorative justice is solely dependent on the consent of the victim/their family and involves a community effort to find a resolution. While it did work out for them, the focus when it comes to restorative justice is on finding closure between the victim and the perpetrator in a civil manner, rather than to discuss what the perpetrator “deserves.”

The rights and privileges that criminals “deserve” is a hot topic of debate as well. In discussions about different approaches to the justice system, many make comparisons about the American prison system to various alternative models in different countries. Rehabilitation is a concept loosely linked to forgiveness, as it could be interpreted as the prison system’s way of saying, “although you broke the law, we will provide you with ways to recover and return to society because you deserve to live a normal life once you have repented.” According to a study done by the Nebraska College Preparatory Academy, in Norway, a country that has a rehabilitation-based prison system rather than punitive, the recidivism rate is only 20% compared to 76.6% in the U.S. Regardless of whether the victim forgives them, the perpetrator has access to both psychological and job building resources so they can hopefully learn from their experience, understand why they should be remorseful, and go on to return as a reformed member of society. 

While the remorse of the perpetrator and consent of the victim are key components in the process of restorative justice, there are other factors to consider when talking about whether someone “deserves” a form of pardon from their crimes. The topics of mental illness and the age of the offender are often talking points when looking at exceptions. While having a mental illness does not automatically make someone more prone to violent behavior according to the American Psychological Association, pleading insanity is an example when charges may be lessened in order to accommodate for someone who genuinely lost control of themselves and therefore could not be held as responsible for the crimes as someone who was entirely lucid. However, this also leads to issues of people attempting to fake insanity in order to abuse the system. According to a study published in the National Library of Medicine, 17.5% of criminals who plead insanity are “malingent,” or faking a sickness for ulterior motives. Although not an excuse for the crime, a proper explanation of background may help victims find closure. Whether or not they forgive them is irrelevant. 

Colt Gray, 14-year-old, responsible for the Georgia school shooting on Sept. 4, could not be tried for the death penalty, but the maximum sentence was life without parole.According to the National Institute of Mental Health, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for planning, prioritizing and making good decisions is not fully developed until the early-to-mid 20s. While caveats to the crime, these examples do not involve forgiveness, merely balances via the acknowledgement that there is room for growth in such individuals, whereas the worst punishments should be reserved for those who have caused irreversible damage and very clearly show no intention of improving themselves and desiring to return to society.  

The broad range of perspectives that the term “forgiveness” can cover makes it difficult for there to be a one-size-fits-all solution to its implementation. Although individuals can choose to forgive, there still needs to be some form of direct punishment so that the consequences of breaking the law continue to be upheld. All that can be done is to improve the society around it so that hopefully, there will be less reasons for people to commit crimes in the first place.