• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is the purpose of revenge?

Alyssa said:
Karma does not exist.
Click to expand...

Oh but it most certainly does. What goes around will most certainly in the fullness of time come around.
 
Fearandloathing said:
It is a primitive form of so-called justice, to inflict the same or greater level of pain on an enemy, the core kill or be killed. It is the 'final victory', a comeupence for the wrongful deed doen, that deed being deemed wrongful, of course, by the victor. It has been refined over the ages from beheading to crucifiction, to hanging and lethal injection. It has at times been justified by the need to remove true evil from the face of the earth, protect society; necessitating in genocide, slavery, and wholesale slaughter.

Interesting is the fact that most first world traditions carry this "eye for an eye" belief, while most Native American cultures did and do not; there is no evidence first nations even had jails and lore and spoken tradition indicates law and order was kept through no more than peer pressure.

There is a Tusing'ah phrase that translates "to hold vengeance in the heart is to consume an burning coal."...kind of a "turn the other cheek" way of thinking.

So in answer to the question? None, it serves no useful purpose than this mythical thing called "closure", the new neologism for getting even.
Click to expand...

Revenge is justice at least to those who were wronged. It is also a preventive measure, a preemptive strike if you will. It shows potential hostiles that there will be retaliation and reprisal for injuries inflicted upon the victims. Its a message to the other would be wolves **** with me at your peril.
 
RiverDad said:
The deed is done. What do you gain by seeking revenge? Discuss.
Click to expand...


Revenge is simply the policy of reprisal on an individual level.
 
Jerry said:
To reclaim a little piece of myself.
Click to expand...

Why do you let the unfairness of life . . . or the actions of another . . . claim a piece of you in the first place?

PirateMk1 said:
Revenge IS justice. It is also a dish served very very cold. The colder the better. Too many people serve it hot which makes for a mess and the potential for being caught up in and caught by the heat of the moment great.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't understand the mindset. I'm a self-confident person who realizes that life isn't always fair. That **** happens. That he may not always love me. (The old kisses aren't contracts meme.) That people make mistakes. That others may use me if I allow myself to be used.

Those who slash tires, cut me off because I accidentally cut them off, try to poison the neighbor's dog because of some real or imagined wrong, whatever else, let others pull their trigger. Nobody pulls my trigger except me.

Jerry's answer is really deep, I think. "To reclaim a little piece of myself." It's sad that people's dignity is so wrapped up in the actions or non-actions of another. What power vengeful people give others over their lives.

Revenge isn't sweet. It's stupid.
 
RiverDad said:
What do you gain by seeking revenge?
Click to expand...

Personal satisfaction. When someone wrongs you it is an open wound that will stay open until the scales are balanced.
 
Alyssa said:
Some people deserve to suffer. That is my purpose for revenge.
Click to expand...

Korimyr the Rat said:
It's a matter of respect. When someone insults you, you must retaliate, or else everyone will know that it is safe to insult you and the insults will never end. If the person who insulted you gives you recompense, honor is satisfied, because he has shown you respect; everyone else will regard you as someone who must be shown respect, and will be careful not to insult you.

Of course, you have to balance your honor against your wealth and keep your vengeance in proportion.
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
To reclaim a little piece of myself.
Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:
Revenge IS justice. It is also a dish served very very cold. The colder the better. Too many people serve it hot which makes for a mess and the potential for being caught up in and caught by the heat of the moment great.
Click to expand...

PoS said:
Personal satisfaction. When someone wrongs you it is an open wound that will stay open until the scales are balanced.
Click to expand...

I'm very interested what another needs to "do to you" that would cause you to seek revenge. Examples?
 
PirateMk1 said:
Oh but it most certainly does. What goes around will most certainly in the fullness of time come around.
Click to expand...

I absolutely believe it exists, but it's the very opposite of revenge. Most people who use the word do so pretty inaccurately. This is what karma's all about.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's a matter of respect. When someone insults you, you must retaliate, or else everyone will know that it is safe to insult you and the insults will never end. If the person who insulted you gives you recompense, honor is satisfied, because he has shown you respect; everyone else will regard you as someone who must be shown respect, and will be careful not to insult you.

Of course, you have to balance your honor against your wealth and keep your vengeance in proportion.
Click to expand...

How do you define honor and respect? I think those are two quite subjective concepts. Revenge and retaliation aren't.
 
MaggieD said:
Why do you let the unfairness of life . . . or the actions of another . . . claim a piece of you in the first place?
Click to expand...
"Let" implies I had a choice. My children were taken from me. I din't "let" that happen, she waited until I was on active duty orders and out of the state. Revenge would reclaim my children, reclaim a degree of control over my own life which she has, and regain some of the self respect I've lost for tolerating heaploads of bull**** "for the sake of the children".

Of course, my children would never have anything to do with me if I murdered their mother, and rightly so, and so I don't act on it. I can only hope that one of the gang-bangers she pissed off along the way eventually catches up with her.

Obama demonstrated a basic understanding and even mastery of the typical person when he said "vote for revenge", as revenge is a powerful motivator.
 
Jerry said:
"Let" implies I had a choice. My children were taken from me. I din't "let" that happen, she waited until I was on active duty orders and out of the state. Revenge would reclaim my children, reclaim a degree of control over my own life which she has, and regain some of the self respect I've lost for tolerating heaploads of bull**** "for the sake of the children".

Of course, my children would never have anything to do with me if I murdered their mother, and rightly so, and so I don't act on it. I can only hope that one of the gang-bangers she pissed off along the way eventually catches up with her.

Obama demonstrated a basic understanding and even mastery of the typical person when he said "vote for revenge", as revenge is a powerful motivator.
Click to expand...

What a terrible thing to have happened, Jerry. But still. Revenge serves no purpose there. Any energy you put into "getting even" is lost down the rabbit hole. Energy that could be spent writing a loving letter to your children once a week and calling them, reminding them that you love them still. They don't get the letters? Then keep a copy of each one and put them in a notebook. Kids grow up. Planning for that reality is much kinder on the human soul than plotting revenge.

Forgive her. You picked her. Let it go, live life and be happy. That's the best revenge of all. *hugs*
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
It's a matter of respect. When someone insults you, you must retaliate, or else everyone will know that it is safe to insult you and the insults will never end. If the person who insulted you gives you recompense, honor is satisfied, because he has shown you respect; everyone else will regard you as someone who must be shown respect, and will be careful not to insult you.

Of course, you have to balance your honor against your wealth and keep your vengeance in proportion.
Click to expand...

This is the best answer so far. But I would add to it. Revenge also serves another purpose. In showing nasty people that when they act nasty that it is likely to cost them, it serves society in general because they are more cautious in their actions with everyone.

Some would say that is the place of our system of justice. Perhaps. And if it works out that way, then great. But, I am completely sympathetic to those lawless folks who have had to fix things when the justice system has failed them.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm very interested what another needs to "do to you" that would cause you to seek revenge. Examples?
Click to expand...
In the 3rd grade I made the conscience decision to become a bully. I didn't like bullies, but I didn't like getting bullied even more. That summer a friend and I started taking a Ju-Jitsu class. The studio offered a 3-day per week course, or a 2-day per-week course. We got our parents to get both and went 5 days a week.

*play [Eye of the Tiger]*
*insert montage*

The next school year, I wasn't an equal-opportunity bully. I was still quiet and 'weird' and left pretty much everyone else alone. But I had marked a couple kids for special attention and looked for ways to pick fights at every opportunity. The friend I had attended Ju-Jitsu classes with didn't like that and decided to start hanging out with other people, but I wasn't deterred. My popularity (so important in those days) went down the tubes as everyone saw what I was doing. At first the guys who would, say, trip over an unseen foot as they walked by me, would stand their ground, until they realized that's exactly what I wanted so that I could egg them further into a fist fight. These guys were born assholes, but I was an asshole on purpose and they weren't ready for that. There were a few fist fights, I won some, I lost some, to many were broken up by teachers before I could get a good swing in. Strangely enough this behavior actually made me a few friends, but not the 'right' friends. Maybe some nerd just liked that I punched a kid who literally called him names all the time (though my punch was unrelated to the name-calling). Maybe a jock saw me as a challenge to his alpha ego and appreciated that I retained self-respect even if I lost (that's actually how I got on the soccer team for a season, his dad was the coach).

My highschool GF would later say that side of me was attractive to her because she liked 'bad boys', which explains why, in retrospect, our subsequent marriage fell apart at the same time I was really trying very hard to be the 'good--guy husband'.

Nice guys do finish last. I should return to the Dark Side.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
The deed is done. What do you gain by seeking revenge? Discuss.
Click to expand...

Depends on the deed. Unjust deed, revenge imparts on the actor the justice to his action.

An eye for an eye does not leave us both blind, it forces the actor to live as he has condemed another to live.
 
MaggieD said:
What a terrible thing to have happened, Jerry. But still. Revenge serves no purpose there. Any energy you put into "getting even" is lost down the rabbit hole. Energy that could be spent writing a loving letter to your children once a week and calling them, reminding them that you love them still. They don't get the letters? Then keep a copy of each one and put them in a notebook. Kids grow up. Planning for that reality is much kinder on the human soul than plotting revenge.

Forgive her. You picked her. Let it go, live life and be happy. That's the best revenge of all. *hugs*
Click to expand...
While I was on leave from Afghanistan, I went to pick the children up for visitation. While there, I gave her my wedding ring back and forgave her for the adultery. I do understand why someone with her history would act the way she did.

But I am still hollow.
 
Jerry said:
While I was on leave from Afghanistan, I went to pick the children up for visitation. While there, I gave her my wedding ring back and forgave her for the adultery. I do understand why someone with her history would act the way she did.

But I am still hollow.
Click to expand...

You're hollow because you haven't found someone new, don't you think? You need a to-do list. ;) ;)
 
RiverDad said:
The deed is done. What do you gain by seeking revenge? Discuss.
Click to expand...



Ah. An interesting topic.


First we must define "revenge", and ask the question of where does it differ from "justice", or IF it differs.

Revenge is typically viewed as personal, rather than societal, and carried out by the victim or victim's family/clan/friends/associates, rather than by society (or a justice system).

But in reality, is there really so much difference? The operation of the justice system is to provide recompense for the wronged, or else punish the wrongdoer appropriately, or both.

Revenge is simply doing it yourself, rather than relying on society as a whole, or the justice system to do it for you.


NOW, the big difference is this: it is ASSUMED that the Justice System (society), as a neutral and objective 3rd party, will be more likely to judge the situation correctly and apply a PROPORTIONATE recompense or punishment to the offender... whereas personal justice is seen as more likely to be wrongfully applied or excessive due to the emotional involvement of the parties dispensing it.


There's a certain truth to that, at least in theory.


Where does revenge come in, or where does it come FROM? Two things to understand:

1. Revenge may originate as a personal impulse, but it flourishes where there is no societal justice mechanism, or where there is one but it is seen as inadequate.

Why then seek revenge in such a circumstance?

Because if the guilty are NOT punished, then the bad element is encouraged to continue or escalate their wrongs against the non-avenging group.

This comes to part 2...

2. "The culture of honor". This phrase (which I might quibble with) is often used in opposition to "the culture of Law", to refer to a state of being where a person, family, clan or group's "honor" is expressed as their power and reputation, and where one's power and reputation are your primary defenses against being victimized in some way. In a state defined under point 1, it makes perfect sense that a clan known for taking vicious revenge when wronged is SAFER than one known for being non-retaliatory when wronged in such an environment.

Street gangs operate this way, because they operate outside the law. The notion of personal and family honor and the need to maintain it against offenses is also popular in areas settled by the clan-oriented Scots and Irish, among other peoples. Korimyr expressed it well in this post:


Korimyr the Rat said:
It's a matter of respect. When someone insults you, you must retaliate, or else everyone will know that it is safe to insult you and the insults will never end. If the person who insulted you gives you recompense, honor is satisfied, because he has shown you respect; everyone else will regard you as someone who must be shown respect, and will be careful not to insult you.

Of course, you have to balance your honor against your wealth and keep your vengeance in proportion.
Click to expand...


Among the chief problems with a "culture of honor" (I think "culture of revenge" would be a more correct title) is the increased likelihood of wrongfully targeting the innocent or taking revenge that is all out of proportion to the offense, where there is no presumed-objective 3rd party mediating such things.

Another issue is the prevalence of cycle-of-violence "blood feuds" among such cultures, where a small wrong or a dispute over who was in the wrong can escalate into a deadly feud, where neither side will admit and accept that it was in the wrong and stop retaliating... and when one side is "satisified" the other side figures they are "still owed blood". This can go on for generations, and the Hatfield-McCoy feud is the most widely known example.

This sort of thing can rise when the justice system is seen as inadequate, too soft, or corrupted or otherwise ineffective.


Revenge can indeed serve a useful purpose as a social inducement to treat others fairly, for fear of it. It is generally considered inferior to a good system of laws and courts for reasons defined above.

Now, another matter...




RiverDad said:
What happens in international affairs when national honor is invoked and irrational defense of national honor is implemented? What was Pearl Harbor? It was a mosquito bite of an attack that COULD have been dealt with in a more COST EFFECTIVE way. That though was not the American way. We're not cold-blooded bean counters.

What happens to nations that are cold-blooded bean counters, where revenge and honor don't play a role in international affairs? They absorb slight after slight and people don't get riled up. What happens to countries like that?
Click to expand...



Nations operate as units in an environment where isn't really an over-arching international "Justice System", at least not worth mentioning (UN, bwhahahah)... so they operate in something much like a "culture of honor" scenario. Thus nations seen as weak and unwilling to retaliate when wronged tend to paint themselves as easy marks.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm very interested what another needs to "do to you" that would cause you to seek revenge. Examples?
Click to expand...

**** happens. That's a fact of life. However there is a place for revenge, which is why I say it is a dish served very, very, very, cold. It is something to be carefully and extensively meditated on and thought though exceptionally thoroughly, before one acts. For me it would have to be an organization that inflicts great harm to my family or myself either intentionally or as a matter of policy. When I say harm, I mean physical harm, slights are air that happen to pass though somebodies lips and meaningless for the most part. Individuals are generally pointless unless they are powerful or particularly harmful, they are murderers or they have the ability to cause said murders or inflict great harm. As I said previously revenge is simply the policy of reprisal abet on the individual level. Reprisal is useful as deterrence. After you do it once effectively the other predators stay very clear of you and yours, at least for a while. Predators don't want to tangle with somebody that's going to return the favor and take extra.
 
Andalublue said:
I absolutely believe it exists, but it's the very opposite of revenge. Most people who use the word do so pretty inaccurately. This is what karma's all about.
Click to expand...

The article describes pretty much what I believe karma to be and I have found it to be true. What goes around comes around is just the simple explanation for it.
 
MaggieD said:
I'm very interested what another needs to "do to you" that would cause you to seek revenge. Examples?
Click to expand...

The important thing is not the damage done, but the insult; it is the implied contempt that must be redressed. I'll likely overlook being called a name or two-- with some exceptions-- but I won't tolerate someone questioning my honesty or my intelligence or my courage without damned good reason. I will not be laid a hand upon. I will not have my property vandalized or stolen. I will not be denied my rightful place-- I am an inheritor of my family name, I am a freeman, when I marry I shall be my wife's husband, and when I have children I shall be their father. I will not allow these things to be done to me, and I will not allow them to be done to any in my family.

Retaliation doesn't necessarily mean "lethal force"; the goal is not to punish the offender, but to persuade him or his family to apologize and make necessary recompense. On the other hand, any of those offenses can escalate to lethal force if lesser means prove insufficient. The goal of revenge is justice, so it doesn't stop until justice is achieved-- until myself and the offender will agree that the matter is settled.

Andalublue said:
How do you define honor and respect? I think those are two quite subjective concepts. Revenge and retaliation aren't.
Click to expand...

There are two facets of honor: integrity and esteem. Integrity is behaving consistently both with one's self-image and with the image one projects to the world; esteem is one's reputation for same, and the expectation of treatment corresponding to that reputation. They are not identical, but they are closely related and any assault upon one will quickly undermine the other.

Dezaad said:
This is the best answer so far. But I would add to it. Revenge also serves another purpose. In showing nasty people that when they act nasty that it is likely to cost them, it serves society in general because they are more cautious in their actions with everyone.

Some would say that is the place of our system of justice. Perhaps. And if it works out that way, then great. But, I am completely sympathetic to those lawless folks who have had to fix things when the justice system has failed them.
Click to expand...

Indeed. My ancestors had courts of law, to prevent feuds and to settle them. They valued peace, but understood that peace could not be achieved without justice and that it was better for the wronged party to seek justice first, before referring the matter to the courts; they understood that justice that came from the participants in the conflict was better, truer, than justice that was imposed upon them by a third party.

Goshin said:
Revenge is typically viewed as personal, rather than societal, and carried out by the victim or victim's family/clan/friends/associates, rather than by society (or a justice system).

But in reality, is there really so much difference? The operation of the justice system is to provide recompense for the wronged, or else punish the wrongdoer appropriately, or both.

Revenge is simply doing it yourself, rather than relying on society as a whole, or the justice system to do it for you.
Click to expand...

I would say that justice is the product of successful negotiation between aggrieved parties; revenge is a tactic for forcing parties whom have wronged you to the negotiating table.

Goshin said:
Another issue is the prevalence of cycle-of-violence "blood feuds" among such cultures, where a small wrong or a dispute over who was in the wrong can escalate into a deadly feud, where neither side will admit and accept that it was in the wrong and stop retaliating... and when one side is "satisified" the other side figures they are "still owed blood". This can go on for generations, and the Hatfield-McCoy feud is the most widely known example.
Click to expand...

This is the moral purpose of the justice system. The problem arises when the justice system does not allow for natural justice, and seeks to punish all participants in the feud, and thus the feuding parties can not trust the courts and will neither seek nor heed their "justice". Of course I worship all the Aesir, but my primary deity is Forseti-- the Perfect Judge, Before Whom All Suits Are Settled-- whose court is renowned for every injured party walking away satisfied. Mortal justice can not be so perfect, but notice that modern "justice" systems place themselves in the role of the victim; it is "the State" versus the criminal, and the criminal's sentence is his "debt to society". This neither restores the victim's honor nor preserves the criminal's, and thus there is no justice.

In order for justice to be done, the criminal must repent his crimes and the victim must receive recompense, and both must be made whole with society. Our "justice system", our "culture of law", does neither.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
The important thing is not the damage done, but the insult; it is the implied contempt that must be redressed. I'll likely overlook being called a name or two-- with some exceptions-- but I won't tolerate someone questioning my honesty or my intelligence or my courage without damned good reason. I will not be laid a hand upon. I will not have my property vandalized or stolen. I will not be denied my rightful place-- I am an inheritor of my family name, I am a freeman, when I marry I shall be my wife's husband, and when I have children I shall be their father. I will not allow these things to be done to me, and I will not allow them to be done to any in my family.

Retaliation doesn't necessarily mean "lethal force"; the goal is not to punish the offender, but to persuade him or his family to apologize and make necessary recompense. On the other hand, any of those offenses can escalate to lethal force if lesser means prove insufficient. The goal of revenge is justice, so it doesn't stop until justice is achieved-- until myself and the offender will agree that the matter is settled.



There are two facets of honor: integrity and esteem. Integrity is behaving consistently both with one's self-image and with the image one projects to the world; esteem is one's reputation for same, and the expectation of treatment corresponding to that reputation. They are not identical, but they are closely related and any assault upon one will quickly undermine the other.



Indeed. My ancestors had courts of law, to prevent feuds and to settle them. They valued peace, but understood that peace could not be achieved without justice and that it was better for the wronged party to seek justice first, before referring the matter to the courts; they understood that justice that came from the participants in the conflict was better, truer, than justice that was imposed upon them by a third party.



I would say that justice is the product of successful negotiation between aggrieved parties; revenge is a tactic for forcing parties whom have wronged you to the negotiating table.



This is the moral purpose of the justice system. The problem arises when the justice system does not allow for natural justice, and seeks to punish all participants in the feud, and thus the feuding parties can not trust the courts and will neither seek nor heed their "justice". Of course I worship all the Aesir, but my primary deity is Forseti-- the Perfect Judge, Before Whom All Suits Are Settled-- whose court is renowned for every injured party walking away satisfied. Mortal justice can not be so perfect, but notice that modern "justice" systems place themselves in the role of the victim; it is "the State" versus the criminal, and the criminal's sentence is his "debt to society". This neither restores the victim's honor nor preserves the criminal's, and thus there is no justice.

In order for justice to be done, the criminal must repent his crimes and the victim must receive recompense, and both must be made whole with society. Our "justice system", our "culture of law", does neither.
Click to expand...




Hi Kori! Missed ya; you always have something interesting to say.


Your point about modern legal systems is interesting, and I'd like to hear you expand on how a legal system could restore the victim's honor in various cases, if you care to.

When I was in my mid-20s, my closest and dearest friend was murdered during a robbery at his place of business; many here remember me telling this story before so I shall forego the details. Suffice it to say I was devastated; I was in his mother's house when the detectives arrived with grim faces to tell her they'd found his body, and heard her agonized and forlorn screams. This was a crime that tore at my soul.

A couple of years later (too long, too long!) we had our day in court... well days actually. His mother was allowed to testify as to the pain of her loss of her only child. That is was "The State vs _______" was something we didn't really think about, but we thought long and hard about how justice needed to be done.

It was hard to sit there in court and see the murderer sitting not far away. I thought more than a little about how I could smuggle a weapon in and kill him, and had a hard time talking myself out of it. I discussed it with my other best friend and he begged me to let justice run its course and trust that it would decide rightly.

In the end, it did: his murder was sentenced to death for his crime. Even so, it took another decade for sentence to be carried out; my friend's mother was allowed to attend as an observer, but I was not.

Not as satisfying as a public hanging, but at least we felt justice had been served: a life for a life.
 
Jerry said:
In the 3rd grade I made the conscience decision to become a bully. I didn't like bullies, but I didn't like getting bullied even more. That summer a friend and I started taking a Ju-Jitsu class. The studio offered a 3-day per week course, or a 2-day per-week course. We got our parents to get both and went 5 days a week.

*play [Eye of the Tiger]*
*insert montage*

The next school year, I wasn't an equal-opportunity bully. I was still quiet and 'weird' and left pretty much everyone else alone. But I had marked a couple kids for special attention and looked for ways to pick fights at every opportunity. The friend I had attended Ju-Jitsu classes with didn't like that and decided to start hanging out with other people, but I wasn't deterred. My popularity (so important in those days) went down the tubes as everyone saw what I was doing. At first the guys who would, say, trip over an unseen foot as they walked by me, would stand their ground, until they realized that's exactly what I wanted so that I could egg them further into a fist fight. These guys were born assholes, but I was an asshole on purpose and they weren't ready for that. There were a few fist fights, I won some, I lost some, to many were broken up by teachers before I could get a good swing in. Strangely enough this behavior actually made me a few friends, but not the 'right' friends. Maybe some nerd just liked that I punched a kid who literally called him names all the time (though my punch was unrelated to the name-calling). Maybe a jock saw me as a challenge to his alpha ego and appreciated that I retained self-respect even if I lost (that's actually how I got on the soccer team for a season, his dad was the coach).

My highschool GF would later say that side of me was attractive to her because she liked 'bad boys', which explains why, in retrospect, our subsequent marriage fell apart at the same time I was really trying very hard to be the 'good--guy husband'.

Nice guys do finish last. I should return to the Dark Side.
Click to expand...

I believe you said yourself the dark side has a cost. The question is the end result worth the price?

I don't go down that sort of path unless I have a very crystal clear plan and goal. Its not a life style but a mission with a singular purpose. A mission to be performed only as absolutely necessary and as quickly and efficiently as possible. I know of that man, your alter ego you talk off when you speak of the dark side. It would seem you are like me and don't like him much do you? I have met mine and lived with him for three years. I don't like him. Not at all. He is a remorseless heartless pitiless bastard with no room for joy. That's not life, that's walking death. There is a place and time for that bastard to be unleashed. But to live with him? That is foolish. I prefer to laugh and to know joy and enjoy the small things life brings.

Your wrong about nice guys finishing last. Very wrong. Your not in a race by the way. Your on a journey. Why speed to the inevitable? You just need to sit back and really look at your life and you will see even with all the crap dumped on you there are things you would never ever change and are glad for. Find those. They may be few and far between. But I believe at least worth all the pain. Pain and Joy are two sides of the same coin. One cannot know one without the other.

The bad man we hold caged in our hearts that's for the special bastards who have earned him. Hopefully you spend the rest of your days with the bad man locked up. I hope I do.
 
Goshin said:
Your point about modern legal systems is interesting, and I'd like to hear you expand on how a legal system could restore the victim's honor in various cases, if you care to.
Click to expand...

Hard to do in cases of murder.

As you know, my faith does not teach forgiveness as a moral imperative; at the same time, it values peace and stability, and abhors wanton destruction. We have a concept called shyld, which is repayment for grievance; the shyld for a murdered man is called wergild, which you may be familiar with. It may seem mercenary to assign a monetary value to an insult, and callous to assign one to a man's life, but it's a price; it symbolizes that the criminal knows he's done wrong, and his desire to make peace with you. And if the criminal (and his family) can not or will not pay this price, you would be entitled by law to kill him right the **** back. Shyld has no value if it is not accompanied by a confession and an apology, and the price need not be monetary, as long as it is acceptable to the victim's family-- or the judge rules that the victim's family must accept it.

Again, it is not the price of the shyld that pays the debt, just like it is not the degree of harm that incurs it; it is what the harm and what the salve represent.

Imagine that the killer of your dear friend stood before your friend's mother, and confessed to the crime-- admitted that he was a murderer and that he slew your friend in cowardly fashion. Imagine that he apologized, and on behalf of his family, asked to be forgiven. Imagine that he paid a year of your friend's wages to help offset the costs of his burial, to repay his family's expenses in the wake of his death, and to support any dependents he left behind. Imagine then that he was in prison, to work and to study, until his debt to you was paid and until he had earned his own honor back.

That would not bring your friend back, but would it not still your rage? Would it not give you more peace than to wait ten years to watch him fall asleep and then die, at someone else's hand?

Or if it must be a life for a life, would it not have been better delivered by your hand, in the presence of both families?
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Hard to do in cases of murder.

As you know, my faith does not teach forgiveness as a moral imperative; at the same time, it values peace and stability, and abhors wanton destruction. We have a concept called shyld, which is repayment for grievance; the shyld for a murdered man is called wergild, which you may be familiar with. It may seem mercenary to assign a monetary value to an insult, and callous to assign one to a man's life, but it's a price; it symbolizes that the criminal knows he's done wrong, and his desire to make peace with you. And if the criminal (and his family) can not or will not pay this price, you would be entitled by law to kill him right the **** back. Shyld has no value if it is not accompanied by a confession and an apology, and the price need not be monetary, as long as it is acceptable to the victim's family-- or the judge rules that the victim's family must accept it.

Again, it is not the price of the shyld that pays the debt, just like it is not the degree of harm that incurs it; it is what the harm and what the salve represent.

Imagine that the killer of your dear friend stood before your friend's mother, and confessed to the crime-- admitted that he was a murderer and that he slew your friend in cowardly fashion. Imagine that he apologized, and on behalf of his family, asked to be forgiven. Imagine that he paid a year of your friend's wages to help offset the costs of his burial, to repay his family's expenses in the wake of his death, and to support any dependents he left behind. Imagine then that he was in prison, to work and to study, until his debt to you was paid and until he had earned his own honor back.

That would not bring your friend back, but would it not still your rage? Would it not give you more peace than to wait ten years to watch him fall asleep and then die, at someone else's hand?

Or if it must be a life for a life, would it not have been better delivered by your hand, in the presence of both families?
Click to expand...


At the time, I wanted to kill him myself, yes. A duel with swords or knives would have suited me fine; or else killing him the exact way he'd killed my friend: shot in the back of the head while kneeling in a ditch praying.

The infuriating part of the trial was that while he confessed to the murder and expressed some remorse, he was more concerned with making excuses for himself and expressing that it wasn't really his fault.

A total confession and acceptance of guilt would have been nice, but I don't think any sum of money would have satisfied me or his mother. Had this been a semi-accidental death in a brawl, or a sudden crime of passion over a woman or an insult or something, perhaps it would be different... but this was a cold-blooded murder after a robbery and kidnapping, which we believe was intended to be cover for revenge on someone who they expected to be there that night but who was not (my friend had swapped shifts with the one we believe was the intended target, but the murderers indiscriminately killed anyone who recognized them including another young man). Thus, it is hard to imagine any apology or price would suffice short of his death.

I can see apology-and-suitable-recompense as sufficient for many lesser offenses, but not so much for cold-blooded, no-excuse murder with no mitigating circumstances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom