swiftcobra15 said:It’s just human nature—when someone hurts you, there’s this deep-seated hunger for retribution, a desire to see them feel the exact same pain they caused.
Pure forgiveness rarely achieves that. If it did, we wouldn't bother with our entire legal system and the concept of punishment. 😉
Take a simple, grim example: a man hits his wife. She forgives him. Next time, he hits her even harder. By forgiving, she hasn't actually protected herself from an abuser, nor has she changed who he is. In my view, punishment—not forgiveness—is far more appropriate here. A woman facing this has endless paths: she can forgive him indefinitely until she eventually snaps and kills him; she can walk away without ever forgiving; she can leave and forgive; she can become cynical toward all men because of one injustice; or she can move on and let go of the bitterness entirely. But if he isn't held accountable, he remains an abuser, ready to target another woman—regardless of whether his previous offense was "forgiven" or not.
Most of us in this debate seem to agree that forgiveness helps restore internal balance—that sense of security and control over one's own life after something unforgivable happens. However, many people, much like you, argue that forgiveness is essentially giving someone permission to keep abusing you. They conclude that the only real answer is punishment, revenge, or simply walking away from any positive expectations of that person—and people in general.
How would that apply to your example? Neither revenge, nor forgiveness, nor even punishment serves as a perfect solution here, though there is arguably more room for forgiveness than for vendettas. Given recent headlines, it's clear that our justice system and social services often nudge women toward a type of forgiveness that actually enables their own abuse. (I mean, imagine a judge telling a victim of a domestic abuser, "Just go home and make him dinner instead of dragging this through the courts!" while the perpetrator is likely to kill her soon.) The message being sent to women is either to endure the violence or to take justice into their own hands. And if they choose the latter, they end up facing a legal nightmare because they didn't "know how to forgive and endure."
So where does forgiveness fit in? A woman absolutely needs help escaping a dangerous situation and finding a way to live normally afterward—which requires processing, accepting, and reconciling what happened. In other words, forgiving. Of course, she can live a full life if no one stops a determined vigilante from seeking vengeance against the person who left them (and perhaps their friends). And then who is left to seek justice for the family of a murdered woman? (Talking about revenge is easy; executing it is a messy, complicated business...)
The domestic abusers and killers we read about in the news were often victims themselves—raised in broken homes dominated by violence and alcoholism. They are simply repeating the patterns they learned because no one taught them anything else. If society punishes them, we’re just temporarily removing them from the equation; in prison, they’ll likely just sit there nursing their grudges, lacking the psychiatric help that would have benefited everyone had it been provided before the crime. That’s how you actually focus on prevention rather than just fighting fires.
So, even in this scenario—though no one is advocating for "empty" forgiveness—understanding and forgiveness are better options, as unconvincing or weak as that might sound compared to the alternative of revenge.