Quickfire Debate: Justice, Retribution, and Forgiveness

Thanks again to Con for this debate, and thanks for the response. I'll get right into it--trying to get this response in in under an hour (I've got 5 minutes to go!). To do so, I'd like to remind us of the definition of forgiveness, as provided by Con:"Forgiveness is the intentional and voluntary process by which a victim undergoes a change in feelings and attitude regarding an offense, lets go of negative emotions such as vengefulness, with an increased ability to wish the offender well. Forgiveness is different from condoning (failing to see the action as wrong and in need of forgiveness), excusing (not holding the offender as responsible for the action), pardoning (granted by a representative of society, such as a judge), forgetting (removing awareness of the offense from consciousness), and reconciliation (restoration of a relationship)."Emphasis mine on "voluntary". C1Con says that failure to forgive is a failure to relieve yourself of pain. But how does that relate to our motion? Is he arguing that it's necessary to relieve yourself of pain? He says there are benefits to forgiveness. And I would certainly agree! But we're talking about justice here, and whether forgiveness is necessary to obtain it. C1Con argues in C2 that "Forgiveness may release them to move on with their lives, and rejoin society as productive members, not haunted by their actions, but not given a pass on those actions as well. It is restorative justice at its finest."But restorative justice requires restoration. The criminal can't undo what he did. Forgiveness is an intentional and voluntary process to change feelings. Con argues here, if we assume that this C2 relates to the motion, that the victim owes to the criminal forgiveness so that the criminal doesn't have to be "haunted" by his own acions. How is that justice? Con hasn't quite explicated that yet, and I really don't see how. C3In C3, Con tells us that taking responsibility and involving the victim result in higher satisfaction. But he gives us no reason to think it has helped justice. C4In C4, Con actually gets into addressing justice directly. He claims that there's "an instrumental good in the pursuit of justice", but his justification for that good is that "it makes doing other things (like reconciling) easier." I confess I'm not clear how reconciliation is necessary for justice. Con says "It is hard...to reconcile or pardon when one still harbors enmity towards the criminal. When victims are able to forgive, reconciliation can begin. So, forgiveness promotes the attainment of justice through making other actions easier or more likely."But, how is reconciliation necessary for justice? Con again seems to put a burdeon on the victim--a burden that I simply don't see justification for. Con claims that "if a friend commits a wrong against me, and I cannot forgive my friend, I will be denying myself a relationship that could still be beneficial for me". Yet, given that forgiveness is voluntary, failing to forgive indicates that you no longer think that relationship is beneficial. And, indeed, depending on the wrong it's entirely possible that it's not beneficial any more. Con says "Everyone makes mistakes, and preventing relationships from re-forming due to a lack of forgiveness denies all participants in that relationship any future benefits that may arise from that relationship." But how does this relate at all to justice, which is the resolution?Con claims that "If we cannot forgive, then it becomes harder to pardon. Politically speaking, no official can pardon someone who the populace feels strongly about. It requires a kind of social forgiveness to make it politically viable for an official to allow a person out of jail. In the U.S., for instance, pardoning certainly serves justice interests insofar as many people held in prison for small crimes often serve overlong sentences in poor or rough conditions, which is not their due." He argues here that forgiveness is necessary to give criminals their due. Except that's not true--society has deemed that the sentence is the criminal's "due", so how does Con justify that it's not their "due"? Only because he thinks they should be forgiven, yet there's no link to justice there. It's just Con saying it. C5Con says that "Acknowledging the victim's power to forgive recognizes their power over the assailant or criminal, and asserts that they are the ones with power." Yet, under Con's framework, that's false. Because we should all agree that the pursuit of justice is good and necessary. So i the victim's forgiveness is seen as necessary for justice, then there's an obligation to forgive. That's not power, because it negates the voluntary aspect of forgiveness. Con says "The victim has the final say over the criminal, they can refuse to allow the criminal to haunt them and they can make forgiveness a statement of that power. Asserting the victim's rights, which are their due, is a final and very important benefit to forgiveness." But, that power is only present if they WANT it. If they don't want it, Con wants us to say they're violating justice. I reject that wholly, and I reject that it's an expression of power to claim that victims are obligated to forgive criminals to obtain justice. Thanks again to Con, and I'm looking forward to his next round!