I don't know what's inside Mark Wahlberg's heart, but let's suppose it's someone whom, for the sake of argument, we know truly regrets their actions: what are they supposed to do if another person doesn't forgive them?
If you've wronged someone else, maybe you should live miserably if you can't possibly make up for the wrong.
No one should be punished for the rest of their life because they wronged someone in their childhood. If they’ve grown, feel remorse and regret, then they’ve done their time and need to forgive themselves.
There no point in carrying around such a burden. Very few people deserve to be miserable.
You do not have a right to be free from the burden you have caused someone else.
Actions have consequences and we shouldn't try to hand wave those away because some people seem uninterested in going to therapy and dealing with the guilt they have. You can always do better, but that doesn't invalidate the bad.
People are complex, the world is not black and white, everyone is a huge story with complex rationalizations. Reflect on why you do things, reflect on how you affect those around you.
If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.
Sometimes you hurt someone and you should feel bad about that. Deal with it. It's a part of life to be an imperfect human and this should help you keep in mind that EVERYONE IS AN IMPERFECT HUMAN.
I was not intending to argue that he should be pardoned.
This is generally unpopular among liberal and left leaning spaces, and is only marginally popular in right leaning ones.
It's called prison.
> This probably should follow you around forever, but maybe it shouldn't dominate every moment of the rest of your life.
Prison (and convictions generally) shouldn't follow folks forever because it disincentivizes rehabilitation, it incentivizes recidivism, it labels someone based upon behavior 20 years ago but not necessarily since, etc.
The victims are not morally obligated to forgive anyone. As a society, it's more beneficial to legally and morally treat offenders as having paid their sentence.
Please explain how prison enables someone to make amends and get a sense of closure.
The idea that most incarcerated people pled not guilty, were tried and found guilty, and are now incarcerated is not true in the US.
Many of incarcerated are still awaiting trial. The DOJ reports that a quarter of those in US jail and prison are awaiting trial [1]. I suspect most of those cannot afford bail.
In terms of after trial, npr reports, "98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain" [2].
[1] https://www.ojp.gov/files/archives/pressreleases/2022/us-jai....
[2] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim....
> It's called prison.
No.
Prison (and the threat of it) accomplishes a few things:
It's punitive, which allows people who enjoy retribution to feel some satisfaction at their idea of justice being carried out.
The threat of prison theoretically prevents some people from inflicting some societal harms on others.
And it keeps dangerous people away from the general public.
It also has the consequence of lining the pockets of the people running for-profit prisons (this is actually really really bad for society though), and also costs taxpayers a ton of money.
And another nice benefit of adversely affecting minorities, poor people, and otherwise marginalized people disproportionately.
It largely is not successful at rehabilitating people. Maybe some people, sometimes, but in the U.S. at least, there are more people who come out of prison more broken than they were going in, and also have fewer options for living an ethical life coming out. They fall in with gangs for protection, and those networks extend back out of the prison. The money spent imprisoning people (especially for things like nonviolent, victimless crimes) could likely do much more good to society if it was used differently.
If someone theoretically did something bad, and was remorseful for their actions, and we could say with a degree of certainty that they were no more likely to commit the same act again than any random person on the street, I think it would be better to not imprison them, and spend that money on, say, social services instead.
If you're looking for models of actually allowing people to atone and work towards improvements in their future behaviour, we'd do better with a restorative justice model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice
I dont think he shows real contrition either. After that Times article he backpedaled on the pardon request and told an interviewer months later that he was “pushed into it.”
Forgiveness is a broken concept. Just because you can be a better person later in life should not absolve you of bad things you did before. This isn't a call for everyone to carry grudges, but a call that we should stop trying to play this dumb "just keep pretending everything is always and will always be 'okay' in some way" ideology. People sometimes do bad things because they are bad people or do not care about others, and it's okay to not forgive that. People sometimes do bad things through no real fault of their own and it's okay to still not forgive that.
Now, it might be the case that the people profiting from the string and long punishments are so cynical and greedy that they started campaigning for longer, harsher sentences specifically for their own enrichment, but the people are buying it as purification and penance through pain. The prison industrial complex only works as a business because the people already want what's being sold to them.
The problem, though, with Christianity's take on it (or at least what some Christians take from it), is that they push the idea that all you need to do to achieve salvation is to believe in Jesus as savior, and all is fine and dandy. Doesn't matter what sins you've committed, or if you're even truly repentant. Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and you're good.
On one hand I agree that this could promote acceptance that we are all flawed beings, and will all end up doing bad things here and there, and that it's pretty much unavoidable. But I worry that this also can promote a sense of invulnerability and unaccountability. "Doesn't matter what I do, Jesus will take care of me."
Well yes let's be clear that only a very selective reading of the New Testament allows you to conclude Jesus doesn't think it matters what you do. It's the same kind of logic that leads one to preach the "prosperity gospel". It's very clear that loving Jesus goes hand in hand with loving others and living his commandments as best you can.
Also of course Matthew 22:36-40.
But then again, one could argue that any interpretation of Christianity is legitimate, just as any interpretation of art or literature is legitimate. Prosperity gospel is no more out there than Gnosticism was, and only politics and culture determines what is and isn't canon. It isn't surprising that the prosperity gospel is a product of the capitalist and materialist US.
Still... it seems like a reach.
Prosperity gospel churches are usually Pentecostal, which means they have a few special ways they like to interpret the Bible:
- They tend to take single Bible verses, often out of context, and use them as a foundation for entire novel lines of teaching. (This is opposed to reading and digesting whole stories)
- Those favorite Bible verses are emphasized, and passages that contradict them are downplayed. Once you decide that the Bible is pro-wealth, it can’t tell you it isn’t. (All Bible-believing Christians do this, whether they realize it or not. It’s called choosing a hermeneutic)
- There’s a culture that it’s common for the individual, especially the preacher, to hear directly from God. It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who claims the Holy Spirit told them something was true. (I always saw this as obviously problematic for a bunch of reasons)
When you put these together, you tend to get weird novel theologies. Other examples in the Pentecostal church include the personal prayer language (aka speaking in tongues) and faith healing.
My more general insight is that humans have put a lot of work into trying to seperate themselves from the complications of our obligate social brains. We will always feel bad, but maybe it can be ameliorated.
https://chrismowery.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-life-lesson-from-...
If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.
edit: "“My hope is that, if I receive a pardon, troubled youths will see this as an inspiration and motivation that they too can turn their lives around,” he writes." Yeah, I DO NOT believe the world famous multimillionaire needs a governor's pardon to help kids.
edit2: given the wikipedia article https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36805073's links to, it seems like Wahlberg himself now doesn't believe he should have tried to obtain a pardon.
You can’t control what other people do, only how you react to it.