Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Violence against women
Violence against women
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Violence against women
Forgiveness and restorative justice are healing tools for victims and offenders. The benefits of forgiveness can help heal a broken heart of a victim, secondary victim, or offender. Forgiveness and restorative justice relieves a victim of malice, rage, vengeance, revenge, bitterness and regret. It is very difficult to forgive someone for a crime, violation, or misdeed they have done to you or a loved one. Forgiveness is not mandatory in order to get restorative justice. Forgiveness does not excuse the offender from the harm they have done but benefits the people involved to move on with their lives. In the books “Disgrace” by J.M. Coetzee and “The Sunflower” by Simon Wiesenthal forgiveness and restorative justice is imperative for the characters. …show more content…
Lucy was attacked by three men and raped. He tries to seek restorative justice for Lucy but to no avail David cannot convince Lucy to press charges on the offenders for the attack. David and Lucy are very much alike, both stubborn and set in their ways. David refused to apologize or seek forgiveness for his inappropriate behavior at the University. Lucy refuses to press charges for the rape because she is determined to have this situation just go away without further damage to herself. Lucy is a strong person because most people would find it hard to forgive or move on from an assault without getting some sort of revenge. Coetzee states, “Lucy, Lucy, I plead with you! You want to make up for the wrongs of the past, but this is not the way to do it. If you fail to stand up for yourself at this moment, you will never be able to hold your head up again.” (133). David cannot comprehend how Lucy is able to continue to live on the farm where she has been assaulted and continue to see one of the attackers regularly without feeling rage or anger for letting them get away with the attack. David is enraged to get punishment for the assault that happened to him and Lucy. Unfortunately, David does not get the restorative justice he wants which is imprisonment for the attackers. It is implied that Lucy chooses to forgive the attackers and try to live a decent life with her unborn child being able to have a …show more content…
Karl is a soldier that killed numerous Jewish people. Karl confesses his murderous activities to Simon and asks to be forgiven. Rightfully so, Simon does not give Karl his forgiveness at this time but seems to regret it later on. Once again forgiveness at this magnitude would only benefit Karl not Simon. Karl is the one suffering from guilt for his horrendous acts. Unluckily, Simon is the one chosen to hear Karl’s confession because he is the first Jewish person seen by the nurse. Forgiveness is not given but Simon ponders for months whether that was the right thing to do at the time. Wiesenthal states, “Today, I sometimes think of the young SS man. Everytime I enter a hospital, everytime I see a nurse, or a man with his head bandaged, I recall him” (95). In this case Simon is some what a second victim because he is a Jewish person and Jewish people were slaughtered by Karl. However; it is unfair for Simon to forgive Karl for all the wrongs he has done to innocent people. Simon is limited to how he can give Karl forgiveness because he is not the person Karl has hurt personally. Without a doubt Simon does feel sorrow for Karl because he is now a dying soldier that is expressing remorse for what he has done in the past. Karl wants to be at peace with himself before he dies because at some point in his life he was
Analysis and explanation of Wiesenthal’s actions When Simon was asked to forgive the SS officer, he blankly looked at the man, stood up, and left. One of the main problems that he faced is he definitely was not able to absolve the man of the crimes considering he could not speak for his entire people. Wiesenthal did not have authority to absolve the actions of those who were responsible for the holocaust nor did he want to in the first place. Different people have different ideologies about the way that one can accept forgiveness. Literature from the Jewish culture has a lot to say about this and understandably so.
In the symposium section, Abraham Joshua Heschel quoted, “No one can forgive crimes committed against other people. It is therefore preposterous to assume that anybody alive can extend forgiveness for the suffering of any one of the six million people who perished.” (171). Simon Wiesenthal would possibly never forgive the SS officer because he doesn’t represents to those who suffer and died by the SS officers because he is just one jewish person out of many different jews that died. At that point, Simon Wiesenthal does not represent the rest of the jews and other Holocaust
Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz states how schools that claim they are following restorative approaches through their policies in discipline are not necessarily restorative, but have enough flexibility to allow a restorative response.
Forgiveness is not an action that should be taken for granted. Nor should it be easily accepted without a second thought. It was strong of Simon to refuse to give Karl an answer to his request. “Possibly, there are circumstances in which forgiving is a temptation, a promise of relief that might be morally dubious. Indeed, the refusal to forgive may represent the more demanding moral accomplishment” (Brudholm 2). Simon did not give into the temptation to give a dying man the easy answer he sought and say that he forgave him without thinking it over. Karl assumed that he would be forgiven, even though he did not express much remorse about what he had done. Because he did not automatically tell Karl that he forgave him, Simon never had ...
“Yes. I see them plain before my eyes…I can see the child and his father and his mother(Wiesenthal,47).” This heinous act committed by the soldiers Karl served with seemed to haunt him on his death bed. The memory of the families and the cries of innocents burning in that home seems to be one of the main things Karl is asking for forgiveness for. The memories seem to haunt him and before he dies he wants to make peace with the ghost of his life, not wanting to bring them into the afterlife with him. The memories of that event have weighed heavily on Karl’s conscious, and it seems if there were such things as a double take in life he would go back and find a way to help those innocents. Karl has a lot of deaths on his conscious not from acts he committed; however, from acts seen by him or acts that he did not stop. By asking for forgiveness from Wiesenthal Karl wanted to die knowing someone knew he was truly sorry for his actions and was willing to pay for them in the afterlife. Even though Wiesenthal was not a Jew whose Karl’s actions affected, his apology was for the community as an SS
The act of forgiving a murder is out of the question for most people. Simon is confronted with this very dilemma in The Sunflower. Karl, a dying Nazi, is asking forgiveness from a Jew, the narrator. The narrator leaves the dying Nazi with no answer, leaving him with an agonizing thought of whether he did or did not do the right thing. Due to the fact both Karl and the narrator’s psychological well-being is affected by not only wartime but other extenuating factors, the narrator should grant Karl forgiveness, as this dying man is an individual who is genuinely repenting for the crimes he has committed. Forgiveness will allow Karl to die with piece of mind while the narrator will continue life with a stable and clear conscience.
The position to choose between forgiving one’s evil oppressor and letting him die in unrest is unlike any other. The Sunflower by Simon Wiesenthal explores the possibilities and limitations of forgiveness through the story of one Jew in Nazi Germany. In the book, Wiesenthal details his life in the concentration camp, and the particular circumstance in which a dying Nazi asks him for forgiveness for all the heinous acts committed against Jews while under the Nazi regime. Wiesenthal responds to this request by leaving the room without giving forgiveness. The story closes with Wiesenthal posing the question, “What would you have done?” Had I been put in the position that Wiesenthal was in, I would ultimately choose to forgive the Nazi on the basis
In Simon Wiesenthal’s The Sunflower on the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness the author is asked to fulfill a dying solider last wish to forgive him because of the crimes he has committed against the Jewish people of the Holocaust. When Wiesenthal is asked for forgiveness, he simply leaves the room. Wiesenthal states that the encounter with the dying man left “a heavy burden” (Wiesenthal 55) on him. The confessions in which he admitted to have “profoundly disturbed [him]” (Wiesenthal 55). As Wiesenthal tries to make sense of what he has encountered he begins to make excuses for why the man might have done what he did. He say...
Forgiveness and justice are very similar than we believe them to be. We believe that justice is
...harges on her and receive a far less severe sentences. She spends her time in prison overcoming her illiteracy and does not even recognize her crimes. In a way, her time in prison was never even punishment. She only ever begins to feel guilt when she realizes that she has been a burden to Michael, that she has completely destroyed his life and prevented him from living fully. When she finally achieved her goal of literacy, she spent her time reading about the holocaust, knowledge which lead her to understand her crimes. As her guilt grew with her knowledge, her suffering grew just as Raskolnikov’s does in Crime and Punishment, eventually leading her to seek her own redemption in death, when she commits suicide. This again, suggest how related guilt is to punishment; they are mutually assured. In order for punishment to exist, and not be torture, there must be guilt.
The concept of restorative justice became a game-changer in juvenile justice system. Through the course of time, professionals explored every possible methods and approaches that could positively affect the children without the expense of harming their future and wellbeing. The idea of restorative justice is “administer justice that focuses or repairing the harm done to the victim and the community. (Save the Children-UK, 2005)” The four guiding principles are to: (1) Repair and restore the balance within the community. (2) restitution for the victim. (3) Ensure that the offender understand and take responsibility. (4) Help the offender to change and improve. In South Africa, this is practiced in their community throughout
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
When Mary Catherine Parris was told that I would be talking to her about restorative justice, her response was, “Is that a real thing?” (personal communication, September 23, 2015). Through this assignment I realized that restorative justice is not talked about within the criminal justice system. For both of the individuals I spoke with, the idea of restorative justice seemed like a joke. In trying to persuade them both that restorative justice is a real thing, I was met with very similar beliefs and comments from both individuals. They both believed that restorative justice would not work and believed that some aspects of the approach were completely useless (M. C. Parris, & R. Clemones, personal communication, September 23, 2015). The responses
“Restorative justice is an approach to crime and other wrongdoings that focuses on repairing harm and encouraging responsibility and involvement of the parties impacted by the wrong.” This quote comes from a leading restorative justice scholar named Howard Zehr. The process of restorative justice necessitates a shift in responsibility for addressing crime. In a restorative justice process, the citizens who have been affected by a crime must take an active role in addressing that crime. Although law professionals may have secondary roles in facilitating the restorative justice process, it is the citizens who must take up the majority of the responsibility in healing the pains caused by crime. Restorative justice is a very broad subject and has many other topics inside of it. The main goal of the restorative justice system is to focus on the needs of the victims, the offenders, and the community, and focus
Restorative Justice is an approach to the justice system that focuses on the needs of both the