Ruining Lives Let’s play a game. Go to Google and type in, “The #MeToo movement . . .” Let autofill do the rest of the work. Notice that the suggestions include “needs to stop,” “is getting out of hand,” and “is out of control.” One of the loudest arguments against the #MeToo movement is that it’s ruining lives. People argue that it’s a tragedy when careers are shattered by sexual assault allegations. They worry that their loved ones will face allegations and have their lives torn apart. This is not a new viewpoint. The Brock Turner case was so shocking because it showcased this argument on a national scale. We learned that even our justice system prioritizes and protects offenders. We’re concerned about inadvertently ruining the offender’s life by punishing or canceling them. Meanwhile, we often disregard the intense impact that the offender has already had on the life of the survivor. But while some believe that the #MeToo movement is too extreme, the majority of people would disagree or even argue that the punishment for offenders is not extreme enough. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN), an American is sexually assaulted every 73 seconds. In a society where so many people are impacted or have loved ones who have been hurt, it’s no surprise that a conversation about forgiveness elicits strong reactions. “It’s like, you raped that person? Oh, you deserve to be put in a guillotine and have your head chopped off,” Millikin student Savanna Prasun says. And she’s not 22
BURST
alone in this sentiment. Most people subscribe to the eye-for-an-eye mentality, especially when it comes to violent crimes like sexual assault. Often, our impulse is to hurt people who have hurt others, which is why retributive justice—criminal justice that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation—is so appealing. But while a violent reaction might be instinctive, other people argue for a restorative justice approach. This is where forgiveness comes into play. Proponents of restorative justice support rehabilitation for criminals. As part of that, perpetrators are encouraged to face their victims and apologize to them. This alternative to retribution is gaining popularity throughout the U.S. “Restorative justice, at its core, is based in indigenous justice (New Zealand’s Maori tradition and practice) where offenders face their victims, with representatives of the community present to witness the encounter, but also to participate,” writes Millikin criminal justice professor Dr. Kenneth Laundra. “In this form of justice, punishment for offenders is not the overriding goal. Instead, this form of justice seeks reconciliation, repair and a restoration of relationships.” According to Laundra, key aspects of restorative justice are forgiveness and empathy. The public apologies can be “powerful moments of transformation” for offenders, and also help the survivor heal. Additionally, his research has shown that restorative justice results in lower rates of recidivism. While the practice of restorative justice for sex offenders is still controversial, Laundra feels that it
can improve the lives of offenders and survivors. “My research into [restorative justice] used in such criminal scenarios reveals that, because strong and brutally honest, emotional confrontations are often witnessed, a satisfactory outcome (measured in post-session interviews) is reported by most victims and offenders alike, with a stronger sense of resolution (and often genuine forgiveness) being reported by offenders, victims, and the community,” Laundra writes. But even if an offender can be rehabilitated, even if they apologize to the person they’ve hurt, do they deserve to be forgiven? For a lot of people, the answer is still no. “If you are out there, pushing something on somebody else, whether it be sex or something else,” Prasun says, “you don’t deserve jack shit.”
No Means No
