# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Birth of Forgiveness | Vayigash | Covenant & Conversation | The Rabbi Sacks Legacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’ Torah reflections on Vayigash The Birth of Forgiveness in Covenant and Conversation.

# data[].attributes.headline
8 times it might be better healthier not to forgive

# data[].attributes.subject
8 times it might be better healthier not to forgive

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/07/29/not-forgive-danger-pain-apologies/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Illustration by Alina Spatz/The Washington Post)

There's a "forgiveness industry" of books, coaches, TED Talks and services promoting radical exoneration from every angle. Yet after a decade researching the concept of forgiving for a book on the topic, I found that pardoning people too quickly can often be harmful and self-destructive. That's especially true when it comes to trauma.

"People who don't forgive are sometimes portrayed as cold, hardhearted or inflexible. But that's pathologizing the person harmed versus the offender who caused the damage," said Ramani Durvasula, a psychologist in Los Angeles and the author of the book "It's Not You: Identifying and Healing From Narcissistic People." But "sometimes it's more authentic and empowering to move on without forgiving."

To be sure, holding a grudge over small slights can be self-defeating and unhealthy, but there are cases where turning the other cheek might be the wrong move. The following is a list of situations in which it's better not to forgive and forget:

1. If prejudice is involved: Emillio Mesa, a San Francisco events planner, told me he was horrified by a homophobic story his mother relayed. He moved away, waiting years to come out to her, only reconnecting after she accepted him fully. Both of them made healthy decisions, one expert said.

"You never have to put yourself in a place where you're unfairly persecuted for who you are," said psychiatrist Carlos Saavedra. "In fact, self-protection and keeping the right boundaries are essential to your well-being."

2. When you aren't ready: After Kate Walter was dumped by her girlfriend of 26 years, Walter didn't feel that her ex deserved forgiveness - she said the woman had reneged on long-term promises and refused to apologize. While Walter might decide to forgive her someday, the Manhattan teacher soothed her soul through yoga, meditation, New Age retreats, joining a different church and publishing a memoir about her hurt.

3. When "sorry" is insufficient: Despite treaties and formal statements, most victims of mass persecution can't forgive their oppressors. Emanuel Mandel, a Holocaust survivor living in Maryland, noted to me that the Nazis who had slaughtered his relatives weren't the ones who apologized for killing 6 million Jews. The reparations Germany offered, however, greatly helped Mandel's family and he learned "to thrive out of spite."

4. If there's no regret or repairs: At 12, Kenan Trebincevic was exiled in 1993 during the Balkan War. He remained enraged that it ended in stalemate. By publicly rallying against the injustices he witnessed against Bosnian Muslims, Trebincevic, a physical therapist at Columbia University hospital, found peace as a spokesman for his people.

Something good came out of his anger. While promoting the book we co-wrote recounting his traumatic war experiences, he met the Sarajevo-born Mirela, now his wife and mother of his son, who has dual citizenship. By facing down his past, he found his future.

5. When conditions aren't met: After the drunk driver who killed Gary Weinstein's wife and two sons was jailed, Weinstein asked the court to take away the man's driver's license forever. The Michigan jeweler waited until a judge agreed before he publicly forgave the driver.

In her book "A Good Apology, " Boston psychologist Molly Howes says effective apologizing must acknowledge the offense, explain what happened, express remorse and offer reparations, and you can ask for - or demand - specific compensations or hold off until they're satisfied.

6. If personal safety is compromised: When Sharisse Tracey was 16, her father raped her. Their Baptist counselor, she said, coerced her to forgive him to keep their family together. Her father then tried to do it again. Tracey stopped him, but he was not punished. He has since died. In her 40s, Tracey posthumously un-forgave him, which she found liberating.

"The pressure to forgive can lead some people to feel guilty or prematurely forgive," Durvasula said. "We should not feel an obligation to forgive someone who has hijacked our souls and made it impossible to find peace."

Durvasula herself keeps several people in her life at a distance. "I don't forgive them because what they did changed my view of myself," she said. "I spent years crawling out from under that rubble. I still struggle with self-doubt. My trust is diminished. They took away my safety in the world. How do you forgive that?"

7. When forgiving could endanger others: Former D.C. Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell was almost killed in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Because of the injuries he sustained, Gonell had to leave his job, but he continues to testify against Jan. 6 defendants. Instead of forgiving, Gonell says he fears further attacks if those charged in the attack are released too soon. (Gonell and I were co-authors of his memoir, "American Shield: The Immigrant Sergeant Who Defended Democracy.")

8. Before you have all the information: "Something you don't know might shed light on what happened," said Vastal Thakkar, a psychiatrist in Connecticut. He shared an example: "A commuter was enraged when a woman in an SUV stopped abruptly to get something in the back seat, almost causing an accident. He didn't know the driver's infant was choking."

Following her parents' divorce, the only contact that a Texas student named Jackie Roberts had with her alcoholic mother was family calls. Her father would answer the phone and put her mother on speaker. If she was drunk, her father hung up. At first, Roberts believed her mom had deserted their family, with no remorse. But then her mom sent a Facebook message, asking if they could speak.

"I never got a chance to say I'm sorry," she told her daughter. "My drinking got out of hand. I wish things could have been different. I love you. You can always call me."

"I haven't seen her in 10 years. But we talk on the phone now," Roberts said. "When I call, if she slurs her words, I say 'I can't talk to you when you're drinking. I'll call you tomorrow, Mom.' And I do. It was a big deal for her to take responsibility and try to step up. It was healing my heart. Her apology opened a window. I totally forgave her. It's kind of crazy how much an apology can do."
Susan Shapiro is the author of the memoir "The Forgiveness Tour," which comes out in paperback this week.

Eight times it might be healthier not to forgive

Earlier today

Eight times it might be healthier not to forgive

Earlier today

Pedicures have health risks, especially in summer

July 28, 2024

Pedicures have health risks, especially in summer

July 28, 2024

How a Republican who blocked gun violence research came to regret it

July 25, 2024

How a Republican who blocked gun violence research came to regret it

July 25, 2024

View 3 more stories

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight times it might be healthier not to forgive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Sometimes it's more authentic and empowering to move on without forgiving," says one psychologist and author.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why it is in your best interest to forgive and how to do it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Turns Out Getting Revenge Really Does Make You Happier

# data[].attributes.subject
Turns Out Getting Revenge Really Does Make You Happier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Revenge is a little like bingeing on an entire cake or texting an ex in the wee hours of the morning: something that seems like a good idea, but soon enough reveals itself to be a mistake. The problem, of course, is that it's hard to think of those long-term consequences when it feels so good in the moment - especially when, as a recent study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology illustrates, retaliating against people who have wronged you really does make you feel measurably happier.

For the first part of the study, as Alex Fradera explained over at BPS Research Digest, the authors had their subjects write personal essays, then told them they'd be swapping with another volunteer to provide feedback; some of the participants instead received pre-written, mean-spirited messages trashing their writing. The researchers then gave them all a voodoo doll, telling the participants to pretend it was the person who had insulted them - and sticking it with pins, it turned out, went a long way toward boosting participants' moods.

The problem, though, was that the link between revenge and intention still wasn't clear: Participants felt better after they took advantage of the opportunity to (sort of) harm their foes, but would they actively seek out that same opportunity in search of the same end? To find out, the study authors recruited a separate group of 154 volunteers, giving each one a pill that would allegedly sharpen their cognitive skills (actually just a placebo). Some subjects were also led to believe that the pill had a mood-stabilizing effect, effectively locking them into whatever mood they were feeling until the medication wore off.

Afterwards, participants played what they believed to be a team-based computer game, with some games programmed to make them feel ignored by the other players. When that was done, the researchers gave the volunteers a chance to "punish" their teammates by sending an uncomfortably loud blast through their headphones. And most of them went for it, with a weird twist: The only rejected subjects who didn't enthusiastically exact their revenge were the ones who thought they'd taken the mood-freezing pill - who "presumably believed they had no prospect of improving mood, so there would be no point in lashing out," as Fradera put it.

In other words, participants didn't just enjoy revenge; they sought it out as a way of making themselves feel better. It's not exactly a flattering reflection of our collective psyches, but it's one of those things that's nevertheless good to know; once you're aware, at least you can try to channel your rage into more productive outlets. Maybe talk it out, or just take a few deep breaths. Or, if all else fails, swearing feels pretty good, too.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Turns Out Getting Revenge Really Does Make You Happier

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Revenge is a little like bingeing on an entire cake or texting an ex in the wee hours of the morning: something that seems like a good idea, but soon enough reveals itself to be a mistake.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A tale of revenge is always bittersweet. Take the sack of Troy, as depicted in Homer's epic poem The Iliad. When Paris steals away Helen, her husband King Menelaus cannot bear the injustice and seeks to attack her seducer. He brings an entire army to Troy, waging a lengthy war that kills thousands.

The theme of revenge spirals through the entire narrative. When Achilles' best friend and cousin Patroklus is killed, he too seeks a reckless and bloody revenge.

Revenge has been part of human behaviour for almost as long as we have existed on Earth. Literature has used it throughout history, from Greek tragedies such as Aeschylus' Oresteia trilogy - where Orestes wants to murder his mother to avenge his father - to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

Many of us have no doubt imagined vengeance against those who have wronged us, or even lashed out at them. In the moment, it can certainly feel cathartic to do so. But what motivates us to seek revenge in the first place? Researchers are gradually getting some answers, and they are finding that revenge has some unexpected upsides.

Revenge is a powerful emotional trigger that mobilises people into action. "It's this very pervasive experience in human lives, people from every society understand the idea of getting angry and wanting to hurt someone who has harmed you," says evolutionary psychologist Michael McCullough, of the University of Miami, who has spent over a decade studying revenge and forgiveness.

It drives crime - up to 20% of homicides and 60% of school shootings are linked to revenge, studies show. And it shapes politics too. Donald Trump's presidential victory, for instance, came as a result of "revenge of working-class whites... who felt abandoned by a rapidly globalising economy," according to an article in the Washington Post. The same sentiment is echoed by many other outlets.

While the topic of aggression is well-studied - its triggers include alcohol, being insulted and narcissistic personality traits - revenge is lesser understood. It is not easy to untangle from violent behaviour, making it a difficult topic to study. David Chester of Virginia Commonwealth University was initially studying aggression but quickly realised that there is often a lot more going on before a violent interaction. He refers to the emotions involved as the "psychological middlemen" - the thoughts and feelings that come between a provocation and an aggressive outcome. "I was curious, how do you take something like [receiving] an insult and how do you go from that to an aggressive response." The key, he believes, lies in the desire to retaliate. "So by the nature of trying to understand aggression I started studying revenge."

He set out to uncover more about what causes it. First he, along with his colleague Nathan DeWall of the University of Kentucky, discovered that a person who is insulted or socially rejected feels an emotional pain. The area in the brain associated with pain was most active in participants who went on to react with an aggressive response after feeling rejected. "It's tapping into an ancient evolved tendency to respond to threats and harm with aggressive retaliation," says Chester.

In a follow-up study he was surprised to find that emotional pain was intricately yoked with pleasure. That is, while rejection initially feels painful, it can quickly be masked by pleasure when presented with the opportunity to get revenge - it even activates the brain's known reward circuit, the nucleus accumbens. People who are provoked behave aggressively precisely because it can be "hedonically rewarding", Chester found. Revenge it seems really can be sweet.

The link between aggression and pleasure itself is not new. The "father of psychology" Sigmund Freud was well aware that it could feel cathartic to behave aggressively, but the idea that revenge provides its own special form of pleasure has only become apparent recently.

To understand this further, Chester and DeWall set up a series of experiments, published in the March 2017 journal of Personality and Social Psychology, where the participants were made to feel rejected by being purposely left out of a computerised ball tossing game. All participants were then allowed to put pins in a virtual voodoo doll. Those in the rejected camp stabbed their doll with significantly more pins. This rejection test was first done remotely online and later replicated with different participants brought into the lab. In the lab version, rather than a voodoo doll, participants acted out their "revenge" by blasting a prolonged, unpleasantly loud noise to their opponents (who were computers, not real people, which the participants were not aware of). Again, those that felt most rejected subjected their rivals to longer noise blasts.

Lastly, to understand the role of emotion in the desire to seek revenge, Chester and DeWall gave participants what they believed was a mood-inhibiting drug (it was in fact only a harmless vitamin tablet). Still, the placebo effect was so strong that the participants who took the "drug" didn't bother to retaliate against the people who rejected them - whereas those that were not given the placebo acted far more aggressively. The placebo group, it seems, did not seek revenge because they believed they would feel no pleasure from doing so.

Taking these results together the team came to a startling conclusion. Not only can revenge give people pleasure, but people seek it precisely because of the anticipation it will do so. "It's about the experience of regulating emotions," says Chester. And it worked. After having the opportunity to get revenge, the rejected individuals scored the same on mood tests as those who had not been rejected.

This finding, however, does need to be taken with a necessary pinch of salt. There are currently no long-term follow up studies on how revenge feels days or weeks after the act. Preliminary - as yet unpublished results - show that revenge-seekers only get a momentary feeling of pleasure, Chester found. "Just like a lot of things, it feels good in the moment. That begins a cycle and it starts to look like an addiction... then afterwards you feel worse than when you started," he explains.

And that might help explain why those who seek the high of revenge fail to anticipate disastrous personal consequences. The footballer Zinedine Zidane, for instance, will forever be remembered for head-butting Marco Matterazzi in the 2006 World Cup. Along a similar vein, Richard Nixon is well-known for his list of foes, the goal being to "screw his political enemies". Some of his dirty tricks later led to his forced resignation.

The question then becomes, why has this seemingly destructive behaviour persisted in our evolution if it can cause us so much trouble?

The answer is that far from an evolutionary mistake, revenge serves a very useful purpose. Michael McCullough puts it this way: although people might say seeking revenge "is really bad for you" - that it might ruin your relationships, for example - the fact that it exists at all is a very good thing. Its main goal is to work as deterrent, which in turn has clear advantages for our survival. Consider prison or gang culture, where if you meddle with the wrong person, revenge attacks are a sure consequence. "If you have a reputation for someone who is going to seek retribution, people are not going to mess with you or take advantage," says Chester. In Leonardo DiCaprio's Oscar-winning performance in The Revenant, so powerful is his desire for revenge that it keeps him alive. With broken bones and open wounds, he drags himself through a hostile and dangerous terrain to avenge his son's killer.

Even the threat of revenge might deter an attack, says McCullough. "The individual who responds to that harm is going to do better than the individual who takes the slap on the cheek and lets the bad guy have his way." Just like hunger, he considers it a primal urge that needs to be itched. Only then can the avenger move on "because that goal has been fulfilled", in a similar way that we only stop feeling hungry after we have satiated our appetite.

So if a main purpose of revenge is about deterring harm, it is a very good thing indeed. That is not to say, says McCullough, that we should encourage people to indulge in seeking revenge. "We can both appreciate what it's for, understand it's not the product of afflicted minds, and also have an interest in helping people curtail their desire for revenge," he says.

It might also be comforting to know that not everyone acts out on their desire to seek revenge. One 2006 study found that men get more pleasure from the idea of revenge. Male participants were found to have more activity in the reward circuit of the brain than women when they saw cheating opponents receive an electric shock. In another 2008 study, Ozlem Ayduk of the University of California, Berkeley and colleagues, found that those with specific personality types were more likely to act violently after rejection. She found that certain individuals had higher levels of "rejection sensitivity" - who were more likely to expect rejection based on past experiences.

These individuals were also found to be more neurotic and to show anxiety and depression. "They have this tendency to see rejection even where it doesn't exist. Rejection is an existential threat, so that expectation [of rejection] actually prepares - both mentally and physiologically - the person to defend themselves," says Ayduk. Retaliatory aggression for these individuals was therefore a "knee-jerk" reaction to feeling rejected.

It is important to note that not everyone who has the "rejection sensitive profile" has violent tendencies. Some deal with their feelings of rejection in other ways, such as self-harm. "Somehow this makes people feel that they are in control of something. Aggression is only one of the responses," says Ayduk.

As well as that, those who are more prone to retaliatory aggression can learn ways to overcome their outbursts, in a similar way that an addict can learn to control his or her urges with various psychological tactics. When Chester and DeWall peered into individuals' brains during one of their revenge studies, they found that those who were able to restrain themselves from acting out showed brain activation in the lateral pre-frontal cortex, an area known to be important for reasoning and inhibiting impulsive actions. "So we're not doomed to succumb to our revengeful impulses. We have evolved this very sophisticated pre-frontal cortex that can inhibit impulsive behaviour and guide it to more social outcomes. There is hope whether we're aware of it or not."

So next time you are plotting revenge against someone who has wronged you, know that the anticipation of revenge may feel good in the moment, but don't expect these hidden "upsides" to last for long. Rather, understand that this feeling is there for a very good reason, and it could well have protected many of your ancient ancestors from being taken advantage of.
- Melissa Hogenboom is BBC Earth's feature writer. She is Join 800,000+ Future fans by liking us on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter. @melissasuzanneh on Twitter.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Earth, Culture, Capital, and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A tale of revenge is always bittersweet. Take the sack of Troy, as depicted in Homer's epic poem The Iliad. When Paris steals away Helen, her husband King Menelaus cannot bear the injustice and seeks to attack her seducer. He brings an entire army to Troy, waging a lengthy war that kills thousands.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding how emotions and thoughts influence behavior is important for people who have intense emotions and are often ruled by them. Knowledge about emotions and the thoughts that strengthen or soften those emotions can help people develop ways to better manage their actions.

One urge that people experience but rarely discuss is revenge. Webster's online dictionary defines revenge as to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree or to inflict injury in return for something, such as to revenge an insult.

The struggle with revenge is centuries old. Shakespeare said, "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?" Shakespeare clearly thought revenge was as normal and predictable as the sun rising.

Maybe, but what about the idea that revenge is self-destructive? Confucius said, "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Gandhi seemed to agree with him when he said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Revenge seems to be one of the deepest instincts we have. Who hasn't said, "I hope he gets his," or wished that Karma would strike sooner rather than later? Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day" resonates across generations. Out-of-control revenge, attack, and counterattack can be blinding and destroy the lives of all involved. But our instincts and emotions usually serve a purpose.

Researchers and theorists believe that revenge is a form of establishing justice and that the threat of revenge may serve as a form of protection, a kind of enforcement of social cooperation. Imagine that your neighbor hosts large, overnight parties and his guests continually park so that you can't get out of your driveway. If you believe that your neighbor is a rational person who won't retaliate, you may be tempted to key the guests' cars or smear them with eggs. If you think your neighbor would "come after you," then you are less likely to act on your anger.

Maybe the purpose of revenge is in preventing certain hostile actions or the threat of revenge insures people do not hurt you in the future. But sometimes people act revengeful when no good can come of their actions, other than to inflict suffering on others. Those actions can go to unfathomable extremes. From lovers running over a beloved iPhone or destroying what their ex most values, to businessmen damaging the careers of those who have rejected them, to students opening fire in school hallways, revenge can be an act of anger, hurt, and power.

People who have been hurt or betrayed seem to believe without any doubt that if the other party suffers, then they will feel better, and their emotional pain will lessen. Is this true?

Revenge Makes You Feel Worse

To test whether revenge makes people feel better, Kevin Carlsmith and his colleagues set up a group investment game with college students where if everyone cooperated, everyone would benefit equally. However, if someone refused to invest his or her money, that person would benefit at the group's expense.

A secret experimenter (called a free rider) in each group convinced the group members to invest equally. But when it came time to put up the money, the free riders didn't go along with the agreed-upon plan. As a result, the free riders earned an average of $5.59, while the other players earned around $2.51.

Here's the revenge part. Carlsmith offered some groups a way to get back at the free rider: They could spend some of their own earnings to financially punish the group's defector. Everyone who was given the chance for revenge took it. And they predicted that they would feel much better after they got their revenge.

The results showed that the students who got revenge reported feeling worse than those who didn't, but believed they would have felt even worse if they hadn't gotten back at the free riders. The students who didn't get the opportunity for revenge said they thought they would feel better if they'd had that opportunity, even though the survey results identified them as the happier group. Both groups thought revenge would be sweet, but their own reported feelings showed that revenge made them less happy.

How to explain this? Carlsmith suggests that the reason revenge increases anger rather than decreasing it is because of ruminations. When people don't get revenge, they tend to trivialize the event by telling themselves that because they didn't act on their vengeful feelings, it wasn't a big deal. Then it's easier to forget it and move on. But when people do get revenge, they can no longer trivialize the situation. Instead, they go over and over it and feel worse.

Or Maybe It Makes You Feel Better

After considering the studies that found revenge wasn't so sweet for the avenger, Mario Gollwitzer still thought there were some situations in which revenge could be satisfying. He considered two possibilities. One was that revenge alone wasn't enough for the avenger to have satisfaction. The offender must know the connection between the original insult and the retaliation. He called that the "understanding hypothesis."

The second possibility was that of "comparative suffering." This meant that seeing an offender suffer was important. His research results showed that the only situation when acting on revenge was more satisfying than not acting on revenge was when the offender understood and acknowledged why the act of revenge had occurred. He described this "understanding hypothesis" as reestablishing justice.

The problem, according to Eric Jaffe, is that while the avenger often believes the offender received "just desserts," the offender usually perceives the retaliation as too harsh. Thus an endless cycle could follow. Most people understand this concept. So why do people continue to believe in and have such strong urges for revenge?

Is Revenge Hardwired?

Dan Ariely discusses revenge experiments in which the participants' brains were scanned by positron emission tomography (PET) while they were making decisions about revenge. The results showed increased activity in the reward center of the brain (striatum). The greater the activation, the more the participants punished the offenders. Ariely suggests that this punishing betrayal or perceived betrayal has a biological basis and feels pleasurable. At least the decision to get revenge does.

Reestablishing Trust

Ariely states that revenge and trust are opposite sides of the same coin. Perhaps the idea that people believe revenge restores justice is really about reestablishing trust.

Ariely's experiments on revenge showed that the tendency to seek revenge did not depend on whether the actual person responsible for the offense suffered, but only that someone associated with the offense pay. Time passing helped lower the urge for revenge for small annoyances. In addition, apologies completely counteracted the effect of small annoyances. When an apology was given, the participants did not extract revenge. Please note this was a one time annoyance, not a series of repeated offenses.

What to Do When You Have Thoughts of Revenge

As with all internal experiences, being mindful of what you are experiencing is the first step. Thoughts of revenge apparently feel good and may be a basic human instinct, perhaps to help us survive. Accept your urges and thoughts of revenge as a basic human response related to trust.

Trust is important in any relationship and critical for cooperative societies. When you are thinking about revenge, it usually means you believe trust has been broken. Remember, while the anticipation of revenge may feel pleasurable, the actual carrying out of revenge brings little satisfaction and may create more problems and suffering. Acts of revenge do not repair trust or reestablish a sense of justice for both parties.

Wait until you are calm emotionally and can think rationally before making any decisions. This is the cold part of "revenge is a dish best served cold." If you act impulsively on such urges you are likely to create more suffering for yourself and others and regret your actions.

Consider whether the loss of trust is justified. Do you have all the facts? If not, get clarity about what truly happened before taking any action or making any decisions. If someone has acted in ways that truly are untrustworthy and hurtful, then the task suggested by your thoughts and urges is to find ways to repair the trust or to move forward in a different direction. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding, a miscommunication, or maybe there is a problem that could be solved.

Would a dialogue with the offending person to explain your position be helpful for you, even if nothing changed? Would the offending person be willing to listen? Sometimes expressing your views and feelings is helpful. An apology could be quite healing and having a dialogue could give the offending person the opportunity to do that.

Learn from the experience. Were there signs of problems that you ignored? Were you careful about who you trusted? What positive changes can you make based on what you have learned? How do you see yourself as a result of this experience? Did you make decisions that show self-respect and reflect your values, regardless of how the other person behaved?

Focus on what is in your control and take the next right step. Sometimes it may be that standing up for yourself is the right step, but doing so in a positive way rather than for revenge.

Practice radical acceptance that some people will break your trust. That is a statement about them, not about you. Your response is about you. When you are emotionally sensitive, you may experience many situations in which you feel hurt by others and those urges for revenge can be managed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understanding how emotions and thoughts influence behavior is important for people who have intense emotions and are often ruled by them. Knowledge about emotions and the thoughts that strengthen or soften those emotions can help people develop ways to better manage their actions. One urge that people experience but rarely discuss is revenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"If we think only of ourselves, forget about other people, then our minds occupy very small area. Inside that small area, even tiny problem appears very big. But the moment you develop a sense of concern for others, you realize that, just like ourselves, they also want happiness; they also want satisfaction. When you have this sense of concern, your mind automatically widens. At this point, your own problems, even big problems, will not be so significant. The result? Big increase in peace of mind. So, if you think only of yourself, only your own happiness, the result is actually less happiness. You get more anxiety, more fear."
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Wisdom of Forgiveness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"If we think only of ourselves, forget about other people, then our minds occupy very small area. Inside that small area, even tiny problem appears very big. But the moment you develop a sense of concern for others, you realize that, just like ourselves, they also want happiness; they also want satisfaction.

# data[].attributes.body
Desmond Tutu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Archbishop Desmond Tutu was the chairman of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC was created by Nelson Mandela's Government of National Unity in 1995 to help South Africans come to terms with their extremely troubled past. It was established to investigate the violations that took place between 1960 and 1994, to provide support and reparation to victims and their families, and to compile a full and objective record of the effects of apartheid on South African society.

To forgive is not just to be altruistic. It is the best form of self-interest. It is also a process that does not exclude hatred and anger. These emotions are all part of being human. You should never hate yourself for hating others who do terrible things: the depth of your love is shown by the extent of your anger.

However, when I talk of forgiveness I mean the belief that you can come out the other side a better person. A better person than the one being consumed by anger and hatred. Remaining in that state locks you in a state of victimhood, making you almost dependent on the perpetrator.

If you can find it in yourself to forgive, then you are no longer chained to the perpetrator.

You can move on, and you can even help the perpetrator to become a better person too.

But the process of forgiveness also requires acknowledgement on the part of the perpetrator that they have committed an offence. I don't like to talk about my own personal experience of forgiveness, although some of the things people have tried to do to my family are close to what I'd consider unforgivable. I don't talk about these things because I have witnessed so many incredible people who, despite experiencing atrocity and tragedy, have come to a point in their lives where they are able to forgive.

Take the Craddock Four, for example. The police ambushed their car, killed them in the most gruesome manner, set their car alight. When, at a TRC hearing, the teenage daughter of one of the victims was asked: would you be able to forgive the people who did this to you and your family? She answered, "We would like to forgive, but we would just like to know who to forgive." How fantastic to see this young girl, still human despite all efforts to dehumanise her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
charity forgiveness story prison programme exhibition book education resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Archbishop Desmond Tutu was the chairman of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC was created by Nelson Mandela's Government of National Unity in 1995 to help South Africans come to terms with their extremely troubled past.

# data[].attributes.headline
Revenge or forgiveness: Which road do you walk?

# data[].attributes.subject
Revenge or forgiveness: Which road do you walk?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For many, the first option might seem to be the most satisfying. After all, it provides immediate justice. It allows us a chance to see the other party suffer and that can bring us some level of pleasure. Seeing people suffer for the wrongs they have done makes us feel that justice was dealt. What would the world be without justice?

Revenge, or "an eye for an eye" approach is becoming the predominating mood in society. We want things quickly, including our justice. We're running out of patience for just about everything. When the signal turns green, we need the person in front of us to move immediately. We need our computers to boot up faster. During rush hour, I try to be the first one out of the subway car so I don't have to wait behind all the people going up the stairs. In reality, I probably save myself only about 60 seconds. It's a little scary to imagine the lack of patience our future generations will have.

It's important for us to analyze the kind of impact a culture of revenge can have on our society. There is the risk of us becoming completely intolerant of each other. We are already becoming so intolerant that it's scary to think about what it will lead to. We hear about it all the time in cases of road rage where people will tailgate, cut each other off and even run another person off the road because of a slight offense.

Revenge doesn't always involve hurting others on a physical level. It can also lead us into actions where we want to bring harm to another's reputation, career or family members. It can drive us into a sick mentality of wanting to cause pain to others. Ultimately, we run the risk of becoming the same kind of person that hurt us, or possibly even worse. We end up becoming that which we focus on most. Filling our mind with anger, hate and vengeance deteriorates our consciousness and brings us into a dark space. It's important to understand that such emotions and feelings are very stressful and can deteriorate our physical health.

Hinduism teaches us about the law of karma, where every actions bears a reaction. This means that if we cause pain of any sort to others, we become responsible for a future reaction. This reaction may come in this life or in a future life. However, it will come. Karma doesn't mean that we can't protect ourselves or our family members from harm, but that we shouldn't go after someone to settle the score. Ultimately, the choice is ours. As long as we're aware that all actions are being accounted for by a higher power and that we don't actually get away with anything. This also applies to all the good we do in life. Those results will also come back to us either in the present life or a future one.

Forgiving is hard. We have such a hard time letting go of the hurt that others have caused us. In some cases, it can take years for the pain and bitterness to go away. In more extreme situations, it may stay with us our entire life. It's not possible to forget the incident or person that caused us pain. Hinduism suggests that the highest platform to exist on is the platform of compassion. Compassion means trying to adjust our vision in the following manner:

1. Trying to understand the pain and suffering of the offender that is causing them to behave in hurtful ways.

2. Seeing what lessons we can learn from the situation and how we might have contributed to it.

3. Understanding that the soul inhabiting all bodies is pure and good but is being forced to act in irrational ways while stuck in the material world.

Forgiveness takes incredible amounts of strength and character. In fact, it builds character. We have to decide, if we want to live a life filled with vengeful and angry thoughts or a life in which we are trying to forgive, even if not always successfully.

The Amish demonstrated an unforgettable act of forgiveness in October 2006 when a gunman entered one of their schools and shot 10 girls, killing five. The gunman then shot himself. The community not only attended the killer's burial, but also donated money to his widow of three children.

Forgiveness doesn't mean the pain and anger go away. It doesn't mean that there isn't resentment towards the perpetrator. These are very natural human emotions. One thing that I tell myself whenever I feel hurt by others is that whatever is happening to me is coming back to me as my karmic reaction from something I did to someone, either in this or a previous life. That there is no need for me to seek revenge, as the law of karma will ultimately balance everything out. After enough time passes, I try to find the strength to pray to God, who I call Krishna, to forgive that person. I don't think forgiving serious offenses is ever going to be easy. However, I hope to keep trying because deep down inside, I know it is the higher platform to exist on.

Hopefully, someday, I can come closer to the platform of the self-realized soul, as described in the sixth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita:

A person is considered still further advanced when he regards honest well-wishers, affectionate benefactors, the neutral, mediators, the envious, friends and enemies, the pious and the sinners all with an equal mind.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Revenge or Forgiveness: Which Road Do You Walk?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many, the first option might seem to be the most satisfying. After all, it provides immediate justice. It allows us a chance to see the other party suffer and that can bring us some level of pleasure. Seeing people suffer for the wrongs they have done makes us feel that justice was dealt.

# data[].attributes.headline
Her Father Shot Her in the Head, as an ‘Honor Killing’ - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
Her Father Shot Her in the Head, as an ‘Honor Killing’ - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHETHER it wins or not, the Oscar nominee with the greatest impact - saving lives of perhaps thousands of girls - may be one you've never heard of.

It stars not Leonardo DiCaprio but a real-life 19-year-old Pakistani woman named Saba Qaiser. Her odyssey began when she fell in love against her family's wishes and ran off to marry her boyfriend. Hours after the marriage, her father and uncle sweet-talked her into their car and took her to a spot along a riverbank to murder her for her defiance - an "honor killing."

First they beat Saba, then her uncle held her as her own father pointed a pistol at her head and pulled the trigger. Blood spewed, Saba collapsed and her father and uncle packed her body into a large sack and threw it into the river to sink. They then drove away, thinking they had restored the family's good name.

Incredibly, Saba was unconscious but alive. She had jerked her head as the gun went off, and the bullet tore through the left side of her face but didn't kill her. The river water revived her, and she clawed her way out of the sack and crawled onto land. She staggered toward a gasoline station, and someone called for help.

About every 90 minutes, an honor killing unfolds somewhere in the world, usually in a Muslim country. Pakistan alone has more than 1,000 a year, and the killers often go unpunished.

Watching the documentary about Saba, " A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness," I kept thinking that just as in the 19th century the central moral challenge for the world was slavery, and in the 20th century it was totalitarianism, in this century the foremost moral issue is the abuse and oppression that is the lot of so many women and girls around the world.

I don't know whether "A Girl in the River" will win an Oscar in its category, short subject documentary, but it is already making a difference. Citing the film, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has promised to change the country's laws so as to crack down on honor killings.

Saba's story underscores how the existing law lets people literally get away with murder when honor is the excuse. After doctors saved Saba's life - as police officers guarded the door so her father didn't return to finish the job - she was determined to prosecute her father and uncle.

"They should be shot in public in an open market," she told the filmmaker, Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, "so that such a thing never happens again."

The police arrested Saba's father, Maqsood, and the uncle, Muhammad, and their defense was that they did the right thing.

"She took away our honor," Maqsood said from his jail cell. "If you put one drop of piss in a gallon of milk, the whole thing gets destroyed. That's what she has done. ... So I said, 'No, I will kill you myself.'"

Maqsood said that after shooting Saba he went home and told his wife, "I have gone and killed your daughter." He added: "My wife cried. What else could she do? I am her husband. She is just my wife."

Perpetrators of honor killings often are not prosecuted because Pakistani law allows families of victims to forgive a killing. So a man kills his daughter, the rest of the family forgives him, and he's off the hook.

Tremendous pressure was applied to Saba by community elders to pardon her father and uncle. In the end, her husband's older brother - the head of her new family - told her to forgive and move on. "There is no other way," he said. "We have to live in the same neighborhood."

Saba complied, and her father and uncle were released from prison. "After this incident, everyone says I am more respected," her father boasted. "I can proudly say that for generations to come none of my descendants will ever think of doing what Saba did." The families still live near each other, although the father insists he will not try again to kill Saba.

The way to reduce honor killings is to end the impunity. Saba tried to do her part, and let's hope Prime Minister Sharif does indeed end the legal system of forgiveness.

"I wanted to start a national discourse about the issue," says Obaid-Chinoy, the film's director. "Until we send people to jail and make examples of them, honor killings will continue."

Since 9/11, the United States has spent billions of dollars reshaping Afghanistan and Pakistan with the military toolbox; I suspect we would have achieved more if we had relied to a greater extent on the education and women's empowerment toolboxes.

A starting point would be to encourage governments to protect teenage girls from fathers who want to murder them. Chipping away at this broad pattern of gender injustice is in the interest of all of us. It is our century's great unfinished business.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Her Father Shot Her in the Head, as an 'Honor Killing'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHETHER it wins or not, the Oscar nominee with the greatest impact - saving lives of perhaps thousands of girls - may be one you've never heard of. It stars not Leonardo DiCaprio but a real-life 19-year-old Pakistani woman named Saba Qaiser.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In my new book I emphasize the importance of forgiveness and why revenge doesn't work. Forgiveness is the act of compassionately releasing the desire to punish someone or yourself for an offense. It's a state of grace, nothing you can force or pretend. There are no short cuts. Mistakenly, some of my patients, wanting to be " spiritual," have prematurely tried to forgive after someone emotionally knifes them in the gut. First, you must feel anger before you can begin to forgive. I gradually guide patients to the large-heartedness of forgiving injuries either caused by others or self-inflicted.

Revenge is the desire to get even when someone does you wrong. It's natural to feel angry, to say "I'm not going to let that **** get away with this," whatever "this" is. However, revenge reduces you to your worst self, puts you on the same level with those spiteful people we claim to abhor. Additionally, studies have shown that revenge increases stress and impairs health and immunity. Sure, if someone hits you with a stick, you have the impulse to hit them back--the basis for wars. To thrive personally and as a species, we must resist this predictable lust for revenge, and seek to right wrongs more positively. This doesn't make you a pushover; you're just refusing to act in a tediously destructive way antithetical to ever finding peace. As Confucious says, "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."

What I'm suggesting is a version of "turn the other check" yet still doing everything to preserve what's important to you. The hard part, though, is watching someone "get away with something" when there's nothing you can do about it. Yes, your wife left you for the yoga instructor. Yes, your colleague sold you out. With situations like this in my life, I take solace in the notion of karma, that sooner or later, what goes around comes around. Also know that the best revenge is your success, happiness, and the triumph of not giving vindictive people any dominion over your peace of mind.

Forgiveness refers to the actor not the act. Not to the offense but the woundedness of the offender. This doesn't mean you'll run back to your battering spouse because of compassion for the damaged person he or she is. Of course you want to spare yourself mistreatment. However, from a distance, you can try to forgive the conscious or unconscious suffering that motivates people. Our desire to transform anger is a summoning of peace, well worth the necessary soul stretching.

To experience forgiveness, try this exercise from "EMOTIONAL FREEDOM'
Emotional Action Step. Be Bigger Than Anger--Practice Forgiveness Now

1. Identify one person you're angry with. Start with someone low on your list, not your rage-aholic father. Then you can get a taste of forgiveness quickly. After that you can proceed to tackle more challenging targets.

2. Honestly address your feelings. Talk to friends, your therapist, or other supportive people, but get the anger out. I also recommend writing your feelings down in a journal to purge negativity. Then, decide whether you want to raise the issue with someone.

3. Begin to forgive. Hold the person you're angry with clearly in your mind. Then ask yourself, "What emotional shortcomings caused him or her to treat me poorly?" This is what you want to have compassion for, the area to forgive. Definitely, don't subject yourself to shabby treatment, but reach for compassion for the person's emotional blindness or cold heart.

Here's how forgiveness can work in a range of situations where you'd have every right to be angry. It establishes a kinder mindset whether or not you decide to confront someone.

A good friend acts inconsiderately when she's having a bad day. Remember, nobody's perfect. You may want to let the incident slide. If you do mention it, don't make this one-time slight into a big deal. Give your friend a break--forgive the lapse.

A coworker takes credit for your ideas. Do damage control, whether it means mentioning this situation to the coworker, your boss, or Human Resources, and don't trust her with ideas in the future. However, try to forgive the coworker for being such a greedy, insecure, mean-spirited person that she has to stoop so low as to steal from you.

Your mother-in-law is needy or demanding. Keep setting kind but firm boundaries so over time you can reach palatable compromises. But also have mercy on the insecurities beneath her neediness and demands--perhaps fear of being alone, of aging, of being excluded from the family, of not being heard. This will soften your response to her.

You suffered childhood abuse. The healing process of recovering from abuse requires enormous compassion for yourself and is facilitated by support from other abuse survivors, family, friends, or a therapist. Still, if you feel ready to work towards forgiveness of an abuser, it necessitates seeing the brokenness and suffering that would make the person want to commit such grievous harm. You're not excusing the behavior or returning to it, but grasping how emotionally crippled he or she is, a huge stretch of compassion, but the path to freedom.

Forgiveness is a paradigm-shifting solution for transforming anger. It liberates you from the trap of endless revenge so that you can experience more joy and connection. Forgiveness does more for you than anyone else because it liberates you from negativity and lets you move forward. Forgiving might not make anger totally dissolve but it will give you the freedom of knowing you are so much more.

Judith Orloff MD is the author of the New York Times bestseller Emotional Freedom: Liberate Yourself From Negative Emotions and Transform Your Life (Three Rivers Press, 2011) upon which this article is based. Her work has been featured on The Today Show, CNN, the Oprah Magazine and USA Today. Dr. Orloff synthesizes the pearls of traditional medicine with cutting edge knowledge of intuition and energy medicine. An Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at UCLA, she passionately believes that the future of medicine involves integrating all this wisdom to achieve emotional freedom and total wellness. For more inspiration visit www.drjudithorloff.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Power of Forgiveness: Why Revenge Doesn't Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In my new book I emphasize the importance of forgiveness and why revenge doesn't work. Forgiveness is the act of compassionately releasing the desire to punish someone or yourself for an offense. It's a state of grace, nothing you can force or pretend. There are no short cuts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Few people can blame 13-year-old Ali Abbas for wanting revenge.

In April, Ali lost both his arms, his parents, his brother and several other relatives to an errant U.S. bomb during combat operations in Iraq. The image of the wounded and burned boy crying in pain on a hospital stretcher inspired people around the globe to raise money for his medical care and further outraged those who opposed the U.S.-led war against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Last month, after being fitted for prosthetic arms at a London hospital, Ali said he hoped the people responsible for his disfigurement and the loss of his family would suffer some of his pain.

"I hope that the pilot who hit our house would be burned as I am burned and my family were burned," he told Independent Television.

Very few can identify with Ali's tragic story and the circumstances under which he suffered his loss. But everyone has felt the need to extract revenge. From being cut off in traffic by a rude driver and wanting to return the favor, to fantasizing about putting a school bully in his place, we have all felt wronged by someone - and mulled ways of gaining vengeance.

But while the need for revenge can be understandable, experts say it is never healthy.

"It's not healthy, but like many other human needs, it's also normal," said Harold Takooshian, professor of psychology at Fordham University in New York.

"Like hate, revenge is something that takes a toll on the person who feels wronged, as well as the [person's] enemy. It is inherently unhealthy because it takes a psychological and physical toll on the person. Venting those feelings of anger and hostility does not decrease those feelings," he said.

"It may give you a cathartic feeling, but it doesn't last."

The Endless Cycle of Retribution

Revenge spawns an endless cycle of retribution. It is not a long-term solution, but a quick-fix. That, experts say, is part of its appeal - it gives a wronged party some gratification, even though it is only temporary.

Some people equate revenge with seeking justice, but the two are not the same. People who seek revenge are driven by anger and violence and have not thought about how channel their negative feelings into something positive. They have not considered how they could use their negative experience - the injustice they suffered - to bring about change.

"It doesn't mean that you don't want to hold people accountable for their actions or that you don't want to seek justice," said William Mikulas, professor of psychology at the University of West Florida. "With revenge, you are coming from an orientation of anger and violence or self-righteousness: 'I want to get him, I want to hurt them ... I want to make them pay.' You're coming from a place of violence and anger and that's never good."

A Grieving Father's Epiphany

Bud Welch fought his rage and desire for retribution when his daughter Julie was killed along with 167 other people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Welch had opposed the death penalty before his daughter was killed, but he reversed his stance as he tried to cope with his loss in the weeks following the bombing.

"People used to tell me, particularly when Julie hit her teenage years, that 'Bud, you'd change your mind [about the death penalty] if your daughter was murdered,' " Welch said. "After the bombing, I was so full of revenge and retribution, I didn't even want a trial for [Oklahoma City bombers] McVeigh and [Terry] Nichols. I thought the federal government and prosecutors were useless and I just wanted them fried."

Welch, who owned a service station in Oklahoma City at the time, said he was so grief-stricken and had such a hard time dealing with his loss that he would go home and drink to try to get himself to fall asleep. His drinking gradually increased.

One day, about 10 months after Julie's death, Welch went to the bomb site - which he routinely visited because that was the last place where his daughter was alive - and began to examine himself and search for a way to get past his grief. He found that he was being consumed that the same rage and thirst of revenge that had driven McVeigh and Nichols to blow up the Murrah Federal Building and kill his daughter.

"I finally asked myself three questions: Do I need to have a trial right away? Do I need to have a conviction? Do I need to have McVeigh and Nichols executed?" Welch said. "I came to the conclusion that none of those things needed to be part of the healing process I had to go through to get past this and stop the alcohol abuse and stop smoking three packs of cigarettes a day.

"It was hate and retribution that drove McVeigh and Nichols. They were getting revenge for what happened in Waco, Texas, exactly two years earlier on April 19, 1993" - when U.S. government agents began storming the Branch Davidian compound, and the sect's stronghold went up in flames.

"It was out of rage and retribution that Julie and so many fine people are dead today," Welch said. "After I began to realize what drove McVeigh and Nichols, I realized that I didn't want to let my rage and revenge get out of control like it did with them."

The Tug of War between Jesus and Batman

Still, society constantly seems to be in a constant tug of war between seeking revenge and "turning the other cheek."

Religious and historical icons such as Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II are admired for their legacies of love, peace and forgiveness. But pop culture celebrates vigilantism and stories where the heroes are driven by revenge.

All superheroes are vigilantes. Comic book protagonists such as Batman and Spider-Man are motivated by a desire to avenge the death of a loved one or seek vengeance for those who are perceived as helpless - and they are two of the most popular superheroes of all time. Quentin Tarantino's latest film, Kill Bill - Vol. 1 - which tells the story of a former assassin who seeks revenge on a team of former allies who tried to kill her - topped the box office last month.

Some argue that experiencing revenge, even through works of fiction, does not ease feelings of anger and vengeance.

"The media contains a lot of this [revenge themes]," said Takooshian. "There were studies in the 1960s that violence in films did not decrease feelings of anger and violence in viewers but increased those feelings. It increased those feelings of anger and retribution. ... This is not a trend found just in our [U.S.] society, but in other societies."

Reconciling the Roots of Revenge

So how does someone cope with a need for revenge? The first, and perhaps most important, step is taking responsibility for your emotions, like Bud Welch did.

"The first thing is to realize that ... by having need to hurt somebody, you're hurting yourself," Mikulas said. "You're allowing yourself to be hurt twice physically and emotionally. It's very important for the person to take responsibility for their anger and resentment.

"You can realize that you can be out there trying to create change in society, whether it's trying to make changes in the law," Mikulas added. "You can realize you can be out there actively trying to make changes without upsetting yourself."

Since losing his daughter in the Oklahoma City bombing, Welch has traveled around the country and given lectures on his experience and his opposition to the death penalty. He became associated with Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, a Massachusetts-based group that helps families cope with the loss of slain loved ones.

To the anger of some Oklahoma City victims' families, Welch strongly opposed the execution of Timothy McVeigh in 2001 and warned his execution would not bring anyone true peace of mind.

Two years after McVeigh's execution, Welch says some families are still searching for the sense of closure they thought his death would bring.

"I haven't had one family come up to me - or say in the newspapers or in the news - that they have felt better now that McVeigh is dead," Welch said. "Some people came up to me and said, 'Well, it was too easy. He just went to sleep.' Now that doesn't mean that some families don't feel better, but I haven't heard it."

The Road to Healing - From Within

Two objectives of the criminal justice system are to obtain retribution for the crime victim while also rehabilitating the offender - goals which can seem to clash at times. Some states have adopted victim offender reconciliation programs, where convicted offenders admit wrongdoing, have a supervised encounter with the people they've victimized and, under the guidance of a counselor, work out a restitution agreement. Under these programs, criminals pay for their crimes while having the chance to earn the forgiveness of their victims.

The pilot - or pilots - who dropped the bomb that killed Ali Abbas' parents and took away his arms have never been identified publicly and do not face any criminal charges. Pentagon officials have said it is very difficult to match individual soldiers with the targets they hit in combat, especially when multiple strikes are involved.

But perhaps an approach similar to a victim offender reconciliation program could help Ali deal with his own need for vengeance.

"My hunch is that timing is a critical factor here," said Ron Claassen, founder of a VORP program in Fresno, Calif., and professor of peacemaking and conflict studies at Fresno Pacific University. "If the pilot was made to recognize the victim's loss and the full impact that his actions had on him and that steps were done to do right by the boy and that that was made clear to the boy, maybe he might be open to a meeting in the future. It's hard to say, but if the process was made clear to the boy, the pilot is making serious steps to fully understand how he impacted him, it might be easier."

Although there's no way of restoring what Ali lost, Claassen said the boy probably needs an acknowledgement of his wrongs, and a chance to respond.

"He also might like this because he would have a chance bring all his feelings to the forefront and voice his opinions," he said. "It's important that he know that that is part of the process. This boy suffered a horrible loss and there's not much that could be done to make it up to him."

For now, Ali is under the care of his uncle and is living as a guest of Britain's Limbless Association in a suburb of London. He has said he is looking forward to returning home to Iraq as he undergoes occupational therapy and gets used to his new limbs - a daily reminder of his painful loss. Maybe someday they won't remind him of desire for revenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Murder Victims ' Families for Reconciliation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Few people can blame 13-year-old Ali Abbas for wanting revenge.In April, Ali lost both his arms, his parents, his brother and several other relatives to an errant U.S. bomb during combat operations in Iraq. The image of the wounded and burned boy crying in pain on a hospital stretcher inspired...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Understanding how emotions and thoughts influence behavior is important for people who have intense emotions and are often ruled by them. Knowledge about emotions and the thoughts that strengthen or soften those emotions can help people develop ways to better manage their actions.

One urge that people experience but rarely discuss is revenge. Webster's online dictionary defines revenge as to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree or to inflict injury in return for something, such as to revenge an insult.

The struggle with revenge is centuries old. Shakespeare said, "If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?" Shakespeare clearly thought revenge was as normal and predictable as the sun rising.

Maybe, but what about the idea that revenge is self-destructive? Confucius said , "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Gandhi seemed to agree with him when he said, "An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Revenge seems to be one of the deepest instincts we have. Who hasn't said, "I hope he gets his," or wished that Karma would strike sooner rather than later? Dirty Harry's "Go ahead, make my day" resonates across generations. Out of control revenge, attack and counterattack, can be blinding and destroy the lives of all involved. But our instincts and emotions usually serve a purpose.

Researchers and theorists believe that revenge is a form of establishing justice and that the threat of revenge may serve as a form of protection, a kind of enforcement of social cooperation. Imagine that your neighbor hosts large, overnight parties and his guests continually park so that you can't get out of your driveway. If you believe that your neighbor is a rational person who won't retaliate, you may be tempted to key the guests' cars or smear them with eggs. If you think your neighbor would "come after you," then you are less likely to act on your anger.

Maybe the purpose of revenge is in preventing certain hostile actions or the threat of revenge insures people do not hurt you in the future. But sometimes people act revengeful when no good can come of their actions, other than to inflict suffering on others. Those actions can go to unfathomable extremes. From lovers running over a beloved iPhone or destroying what their ex most values, to businessmen damaging the careers of those who have rejected them, to students opening fire in school hallways, revenge can be an act of anger, hurt and power.

People who have been hurt or betrayed seem to believe without any doubt that if the other party suffers, then they will feel better--their emotional pain will lessen. Is this true?
Revenge Makes You Feel Worse
To test whether revenge makes people feel better, Kevin Carlsmith and his colleagues set up a group investment game with college students where if everyone cooperated, everyone would benefit equally. However, if someone refused to invest his or her money, that person would benefit at the group's expense.

A secret experimenter (called a free rider) in each group convinced the the group members to invest equally. But when it came time to put up the money, the free riders didn't go along with the agreed-upon plan. As a result, the free riders earned an average of $5.59, while the other players earned around $2.51.

Here's the revenge part. Carlsmith offered some groups a way to get back at the free rider: They could spend some of their own earnings to financially punish the group's defector. Everyone who was given the chance for revenge took it. And they predicted that they would feel much better after they got their revenge.

The results showed that the students who got revenge reported feeling worse than those who didn't, but believed they would have felt even worse if they hadn't gotten back at the free riders. The students who didn't get the opportunity for revenge said they thought they would feel better if they'd had that opportunity, even though the survey results identified them as the happier group. Both groups thought revenge would be sweet, but their own reported feelings showed that revenge made them less happy.

How to explain this? Carlsmith suggests that the reason revenge increases anger rather than decreasing it is because of ruminations. When people don't get revenge, they tend to trivialize the event by telling themselves that because they didn't act on their vengeful feelings, it wasn't a big deal. Then it's easier to forget it and move on. But when people do get revenge, they can no longer trivialize the situation. Instead, they go over and over it and feel worse.
Or Maybe It Makes You Feel Better
After considering the studies that found revenge wasn't so sweet for the avenger, Mario Gollwitzer still thought there were some situations in which revenge could be satisfying. He considered two possibilities. One was that revenge alone wasn't enough for the avenger to have satisfaction. The offender must know the connection between the original insult and the retaliation. He called that the "understanding hypothesis."

The second possibility was that of "comparative suffering." This meant that seeing an offender suffer was important. His research results showed that the only situation when acting on revenge was more satisfying than not acting on revenge was when the offender understood and acknowledged why the act of revenge had occurred. He described this "understanding hypothesis" as reestablishing justice.

The problem, according to Eric Jaffe, is that while the avenger often believes the offender received "just desserts," the offender usually perceives the retaliation as too harsh. Thus an endless cycle could follow. Most people understand this concept. So why do people continue to believe in and have such strong urges for revenge?
Is Revenge Hardwired?
Dan Ariely discusses revenge experiments in which the participants' brains were scanned by positron emission tomography (PET) while they were making decisions about revenge. The results showed increased activity in the reward center of the brain (striatum). The greater the activation, the more the participants punished the offenders. Ariely suggests that this punishing betrayal or perceived betrayal has a biological basis and feels pleasurable. At least the decision to get revenge does.
Reestablishing Trust
Ariely states that revenge and trust are opposite sides of the same coin. Perhaps the idea that people believe revenge restores justice is really about reestablishing trust.

Ariely's experiments on revenge showed that the tendency to seek revenge did not depend on whether the actual person responsible for the offense suffered, but only that someone associated with the offense pay. Time passing helped lower the urge for revenge for small annoyances. In addition, apologies completely counteracted the effect of small annoyances. When an apology was given, the participants did not extract revenge. Please note this was a one time annoyance, not a series of repeated offenses.
What to Do When You Have Thoughts of Revenge
As with all internal experiences, being mindful of what you are experiencing is the first step. Thoughts of revenge apparently feel good and may be a basic human instinct, perhaps to help us survive. Accept your urges and thoughts of revenge as a basic human response related to trust.

Trust is important in any relationship and critical for cooperative societies. When you are thinking about revenge, it usually means you believe trust has been broken. Remember, while the anticipation of revenge may feel pleasurable, the actual carrying out of revenge brings little satisfaction and may create more problems and suffering. Acts of revenge do not repair trust or restablish a sense of justice for both parties.

Wait until you are calm emotionally and can think rationally before making any decisions. This is the cold part of "revenge is a dish best served cold." If you act impulsively on such urges you are likely to create more suffering for yourself and others and regret your actions.

Consider whether the loss of trust is justified. Do you have all the facts? If not, get clarity about what truly happened before taking any action or making any decisions. If someone has acted in ways that truly are untrustworthy and hurtful, then task suggested by your thoughts and urges is to find ways to repair the trust or to move forward in a different direction. Maybe there has been a misunderstanding, a miscommunication, or maybe there is a problem that could be solved.

Would a dialogue with the offending person to explain your position be helpful for you, even if nothing changed? Would the offending person be willing to listen? Sometimes expressing your views and feelings is helpful. An apology could be quite healing and having a dialogue could give the offending person the opportunity to do that.

Learn from the experience. Were there signs of problems that you ignored? Were you careful about who you trusted? What positive changes can you make based on what you have learned? How do you see yourself as a result of this experience? Did you make decisions that show self-respect and reflect your values, regardless of how the other person behaved?

Focus on what is in your control and take the next right step. Sometimes it may be that standing up for yourself is the right step, but doing so in a positive way rather than for revenge.

Practice radical acceptance that some people will break your trust. That is a statement about them, not about you. Your response is about you. When you are emotionally sensitive, you may experience many situations in which you feel hurt by others and those urges for revenge can be managed.
References Ariely, D.(2010). The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home. New York: Harper Collins.
Carlsmith, K. (May 2008) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (Vol. 95, No. 6).

Jaffe, E. (October 2011.) The Complicated Psychology of Revenge. Observer Vol.24, No.8

Price, M. (June, 2009) Revenge and the People Who Seek It. Monitor, (40) 6.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Understanding how emotions and thoughts influence behavior is important for people who have intense emotions and are often ruled by them. Knowledge about emotions and the thoughts that strengthen or soften those emotions can help people develop ways to better manage their actions. One urge that people experience but rarely discuss is revenge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trust forms the foundation of healthy relationships, and now scientists are zeroing in on how the feeling is triggered by chemicals in the brain. A new study shows that the hormone oxytocin may spur us to trust others even after they have betrayed us by suppressing a region of the brain that signals fear. The findings could lead to a better understanding of social phobias and related disorders.

Previous research has shown that oxytocin increases our feelings of trust and plays an important role in bonding with others (ScienceNOW, 1 June 2005). But the areas of the brain it acts on to produce that effect have remained a mystery. To get a better handle on how the hormone affects our noggins, Thomas Baumgartner, a neuroscientist at the University of Zürich, Switzerland, and colleagues monitored the brain activity of 49 men while they engaged in a game involving trust and betrayal.

In the game, the men were given money that they could share with another person who might increase the funds through investments and split the profits or betray them and keep all the money. When volunteers got a whiff of oxytocin via a nasal spray, their trust did not diminish even when the second player kept the money to himself half the time. In contrast, men who received a placebo spray reduced the amount of money they forked over.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brains of the men who received oxytocin showed a drop in activity in a region called the amygdala, which plays a key role in triggering fear. The dorsal striatum, a region involved in learning from mistakes, also showed diminished activity. However, oxytocin did not reduce activity in these brain regions when the men played a similar game with a computer, confirming that the interaction with another person--and not just the hormone--was required to spur the changes, the researchers report in the 22 May issue of Neuron.

The findings suggest that oxytocin helps us maintain relationships by decreasing our fear of betrayal and other potential negative consequences of interacting with others, says Mauricio Delgado, a cognitive neuroscientist at Rutgers University in Newark, New Jersey. "Humans are typically averse towards social risks, so a little bit of oxytocin may facilitate carrying on relationships with others," he says.

The findings raise the possibility that social phobia is caused in part by a defect in how oxytocin normally regulates brain activity, Baumgartner says. Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg, a neuroscientist at the Central Institute of Mental Health in Mannheim, Germany, suggests that oxytocin signaling could also be disrupted in other disorders in which lack of trust or social attachment is a prominent problem, such as autism and schizophrenia.
Related sites

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Neurochemistry of Forgiving and Forgetting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trust forms the foundation of healthy relationships, and now scientists are zeroing in on how the feeling is triggered by chemicals in the brain. A new study shows that the hormone oxytocin may spur us to trust others even after they have betrayed us by suppressing a region of the brain that signals fear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Arguments in favor of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.subject
Arguments in favor of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arguments in favour of capital punishment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A breakdown of the arguments given in favour of keeping (or reintroducing) the death penalty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Efforts to prosecute Nazi criminals have been on-going since before the end of the Second World War. The first Soviet trials took place in 1943, and starting in 1945, there was a nearly global effort at prosecution. Trials took place throughout Europe, but also, later, in Israel, Canada, Australia, and (in the form of denaturalization hearings) the United States. The vast majority of these trials took place in the first decade after the war, but prominent trials continued in the 1960s and 1970s. These included the 1961 Jerusalem trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of the key Holocaust bureaucrats, and West Germany's largest Holocaust trial, the so-called Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, which just this past August marked its fiftieth anniversary.

What is more surprising, however, is that the criminal prosecution of Holocaust perpetrators continues to the present day. In May 2011, John Demjanjuk was convicted in a Munich courtroom of being an accessory to murder (though his conviction was voided when he died while his case was still on appeal). And just this past July, Oskar Gröning was likewise convicted by a German court of accessory to murder for the deaths of at least 300,000 Jews killed while he served as a clerk in Auschwitz. In both cases, the court reasoned that because the death camps existed for the sole purpose of murdering Jews, guards and functionaries who worked in the camps facilitated mass murder, even if they themselves killed no one directly.

This raises the important question of whether it makes sense to prosecute nonagenarians for crimes, however appalling, committed when they were young. While most jurisdictions offer no statute of limitations for murder, the usual justifications for why we punish criminals tend to break down when we try to justify prosecuting in the face of Holocaust perpetrators. Typically, we punish criminals for one of two reasons: deterrence or retribution. In the first case, punishment sends a message: don't act like this, or you will suffer the same fate. In the second, it is a form of collective vengeance. Punishment inflicts harm on the perpetrator just as he or she harmed the social fabric.

Neither of these justifications really works for Holocaust perpetrators. First, the Holocaust was, like genocide more generally, a political crime perpetrated by the functionaries of a criminal state. Such perpetrators only risk punishment in the event that they lose political power, typically by losing a war. And no one starts a war expecting to lose. (And even when they do lose, the risk of prosecution often remains vanishingly small. Just ask Cambodia's Pol Pot, who continued to lead the Khmer Rouge for twenty years after their ouster by the Vietnamese army in 1979). So criminal prosecution is unlikely to have much deterrent power for génocidaires. Second, how can one exact retribution for a crime that is as vast and all-encompassing as the murder of an entire people? Sure, you can hang the perpetrators. But each of them can only die once, hardly adequate expiation for the extermination of an entire people, an extermination that destroyed not just individuals but also an entire community and culture. The punishment of individual perpetrators pales in the face of crimes of such magnitude.

So why punish Holocaust perpetrators seventy years later, or even at all? The recent German film, Labyrinth of Lies, offers one important answer to this question. The film, just released in the U.S., is a highly fictionalized account of the origin of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. While the film plays fast and loose with the actual facts of the case, it nevertheless gets to the heart of the moral issues raised by Holocaust prosecutions.

In the film, Johann Radmann, a young prosecutor in 1960s West Germany, begins investigating crimes committed at Auschwitz. Assisted by the journalist, Thomas Gnielka, Radmann overcomes considerable resistance from his colleagues to get the investigation off the ground. (Radmann is a composite character, while Gnielka's character is based on a real journalist of that name who played a fleeting put important role in providing some key Auschwitz documents to the Frankfurt investigators). In the course of the film, Radmann becomes disillusioned with his investigation, as he discovers just how widespread was the complicity in Nazi crimes. Virtually everyone he knows is implicated in some way. He begins to feel that "no punishment is adequate," as he tells Gnielka, and he resigns from the prosecutor's office.

In a somewhat improbable turn of events, Radmann and Gnielka travel to Auschwitz to say Kaddish for the family of an Auschwitz survivor who had been part of the investigation. Gnielka confronts Radmann's disillusionment, demanding to know how he could abandon the investigation. Radmann replies that since he is unsure how he himself would have acted during the war, he no longer feels in a position to judge others, to "fight for the good cause," as he puts it. Gnielka replies, "You're missing the point, Johann. Look around, what do you see?" Radmann replies, "Auschwitz." "No," responds Gnielka. "You see a meadow. Trees, barracks, a fence. Auschwitz is in the stories that happened here and are buried here. Without the trial these stories will remain buried and be forgotten.... It is not about punishment. It's about the victims, about their stories."

Gnielka is right. One of the main reasons for prosecuting Nazi criminals is that such trials bring out the truth about the Holocaust, especially the truth of the victims' experience. They are an important way for victims' stories to be told. Arguably, this is even more important as the victims, like the perpetrators, reach the end of their lives and the world gets ready to confront a future in which there are no longer any Holocaust survivors, only the burden of living in a world in which Auschwitz is possible.

Yet telling stories, however important, is only part of the answer. After all, trials are only one venue for telling the truth of what happened. Stories without punishment can remain unsatisfying, as many who testified before South Africa's post-Apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commission discovered. This is why trials are not only about truth-telling; they are about justice. Yet Radmann is right that punishment can never be truly adequate for the crimes of the Holocaust. So what might justice mean then, if it can't be about punishment alone?

The possibility of legal punishment matters because it is one element in something larger, namely, atonement. Atonement means the expiation of sins, and this goes far beyond inflicting suffering on the perpetrators in the name of their victims. It means offering them the chance to repent and to seek to make right their wrongs. This is a task which - unlike deterrence or retribution - persists so long as the perpetrators live. That many - indeed, the vast majority - of them will refuse the opportunity to make amends, or even simply to express remorse, does not mean they should not be confronted in a court of law with their obligation to do so. Trials are, in this sense, a moral challenge to the perpetrators, as much as they are an opportunity for victims to recount their trauma. As the political philosopher Hannah Arendt pointed out during the Eichmann Trial, Holocaust perpetrators did more than murder millions of Jews; they launched a wholesale assault on the human condition itself. This makes it imperative to confront them with their crimes, and offer them the chance to rejoin humanity by atoning, even if they chose to remain apart. Otherwise, the fabric of human society itself remains torn.

In the end, these two dimensions - story telling and atonement - are related. When Oskar Gröning's sentence was announced, Auschwitz survivor Eva Mozes Kor told Britain's ITV that she saw no point in a prison term. "He has accepted responsibility and admitted his guilt. They are trying to teach a lesson that if you commit such a crime, you will be punished. But I do not think the court has acted properly in sentencing him to four years in jail. It is too late for that kind of sentence." Rather, Kor thought Gröning should have been sentenced to "community service by speaking out against neo-Nazis."

In other words, the point of prosecuting Nazi perpetrators in their nineties is to offer them the chance to atone for their crimes by telling true stories about them. We might all learn from those histories, and seek to build a better future based on this intimate knowledge of our terrible past.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why We Should Still Care About Prosecuting Nazi Criminals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Efforts to prosecute Nazi criminals have been on-going since before the end of the Second World War. The first Soviet trials took place in 1943, and starting in 1945, there was a nearly global effort at prosecution. Trials took place throughout Europe, but also, later, in Israel, Canada, Australia, and (in the form of denaturalization hearings) the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last month, the photographer Pieter Hugo went to southern Rwanda, two decades after nearly a million people were killed during the country's genocide, and captured a series of unlikely, almost unthinkable tableaus. In one, a woman rests her hand on the shoulder of the man who killed her father and brothers. In another, a woman poses with a casually reclining man who looted her property and whose father helped murder her husband and children. In many of these photos, there is little evident warmth between the pairs, and yet there they are, together. In each, the perpetrator is a Hutu who was granted pardon by the Tutsi survivor of his crime.

The people who agreed to be photographed are part of a continuing national effort toward reconciliation and worked closely with AMI (Association Modeste et Innocent), a nonprofit organization. In AMI's program, small groups of Hutus and Tutsis are counseled over many months, culminating in the perpetrator's formal request for forgiveness. If forgiveness is granted by the survivor, the perpetrator and his family and friends typically bring a basket of offerings, usually food and sorghum or banana beer. The accord is sealed with song and dance.

The photographs on the following pages are a small selection of a larger body on display - outdoors, in large format - starting this month in The Hague. The series was commissioned by Creative Court, an arts organization based there, as part of "Rwanda 20 Years," a program exploring the theme of forgiveness. The images will eventually be shown at memorials and churches in Rwanda.

At the photo shoots, Hugo said, the relationships between the victims and the perpetrators varied widely. Some pairs showed up and sat easily together, chatting about village gossip. Others arrived willing to be photographed but unable to go much further. "There's clearly different degrees of forgiveness," Hugo said. "In the photographs, the distance or closeness you see is pretty accurate."

In interviews conducted by AMI and Creative Court for the project, the subjects spoke of the pardoning process as an important step toward improving their lives. "These people can't go anywhere else - they have to make peace," Hugo explained. "Forgiveness is not born out of some airy-fairy sense of benevolence. It's more out of a survival instinct." Yet the practical necessity of reconciliation does not detract from the emotional strength required of these Rwandans to forge it - or to be photographed, for that matter, side by side.

Sinzikiramuka, Perpetrator (opening image, left): "I asked him for forgiveness because his brother was killed in my presence. He asked me why I pleaded guilty, and I replied that I did it as someone who witnessed this crime but who was unable to save anybody. It was the order from authorities. I let him know who the killers were, and the killers also asked him for pardon."

Karorero, Survivor: "Sometimes justice does not give someone a satisfactory answer - cases are subject to corruption. But when it comes to forgiveness willingly granted, one is satisfied once and for all. When someone is full of anger, he can lose his mind. But when I granted forgiveness, I felt my mind at rest."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Portraits of Reconciliation (Published 2014)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last month, the photographer Pieter Hugo went to southern Rwanda, two decades after nearly a million people were killed during the country's genocide, and captured a series of unlikely, almost unthinkable tableaus. In one, a woman rests her hand on the shoulder of the man who killed her father and brothers.

# data[].attributes.headline
After apartheid, truth and reconcilliation in S. Africa

# data[].attributes.subject
After apartheid, truth and reconcilliation in S. Africa

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa) - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission ( TRC) was a court-like restorative justice body assembled in South Africa after the end of apartheid. Witnesses who were identified as victims of gross human rights violations were invited to give statements about their experiences, and some were selected for public hearings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A photo taken 43 years ago of Kim Phuc, a young Vietnamese girl fleeing naked from a napalm attack, continues to resonate today as the personification of the horrors of war. Jane Pauley revisits that horrific chapter of the Vietnam War, and finds out how Kim Phuc - now 52 - has found healing and peace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The manifesto showcases a character markedly different from those the world saw on Friday, when several relatives of the nine people slain inside Charleston's historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church appeared in court and addressed Roof. The family members of the dead told Roof, a professed white supremacist, of their pain and anguish. But they also said they would forgive him.

"I will never be able to hold her again, but I forgive you," a daughter of one victim said. "We have no room for hating, so we have to forgive," said the sister of another. "I pray God on your soul."

Given the heinous nature of the crime, the willingness of Charleston's survivors to forgive was remarkable-and earned particular praise from President Obama. But the act of forgiving is more than just an expression of grace toward a wrongdoer. It's also an effective tool in helping individuals and communities touched by tragedy accelerate the healing process.

In March, the Atlantic's Olga Khazan profiled Everett Worthington, a professor of psychology at Virginia Commonwealth University whose mother was brutally murdered in a 1995 burglary. As it happened, Worthington's own research examined the effects of forgiveness. So in the days after his mother's death, he decided to employ a five-step process he had previously devised:

First, you "recall" the incident, including all the hurt. "Empathize" with the person who wronged you. Then, you give them the "altruistic gift" of forgiveness, maybe by recalling how good it felt to be forgiven by someone you yourself have wronged. Next, "commit" yourself to forgive publicly by telling a friend or the person you're forgiving. Finally, "hold" onto forgiveness. Even when feelings of anger surface, remind yourself that you've already forgiven.

Worthington found that his approach worked-and that other examples confirmed his intuition. Studies have shown that forgiveness aids mental and physical health, while the opposite reaction-holding a grudge and harboring resentment-has the opposite effect. This can also be applied to entire communities touched by mass tragedy. In 2006, 32-year-old Charles Roberts stormed into a one-room schoolhouse in an Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania and shot ten girls, killing five before turning the gun on himself. Despite enormous shock and grief, several of the victims' family members appeared at the killer's funeral just days later. When Roberts' aggrieved mother then announced plans to leave the community, relatives of the dead persuaded her to stay. Seven years later, CBS News reported that the elder Roberts had become the primary caregiver for a girl her son had wounded in the attack.

"Is there anything in this life that we should not forgive?" said Roberts.

An individual or community's gift of forgiveness, however, does not obviate a society's demand for justice. In a 2014 case described by the Atlantic's Andrew Cohen, a Colorado prosecutor seeking the death penalty for a prison inmate charged with murdering a corrections officer engaged in a contentious dispute with the victim's parents, who opposed capital punishment. After months of back and forth, the prosecutor finally agreed to forgo the death penalty. The defendant, whose attorneys believed him to suffer from mental illness, ultimately pled guilty and is now serving a life sentence.

In the wake of the Charleston murder, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley said that the state would "absolutely want" the death penalty for Dylann Roof. Even Roof's own uncle said he would support his nephew's execution, telling reporters that he'd volunteer to "be the one to push the button."

Several months-at the very least-will pass before a judge determines Roof's fate. But the decision of the victims' relatives to forgive may ease some measure of their pain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
After Charleston's Mass Murder, Forgiveness Duels With Hate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The manifesto showcases a character markedly different from those the world saw on Friday, when several relatives of the nine people slain inside Charleston's historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church appeared in court and addressed Roof. The family members of the dead told Roof, a professed white supremacist, of their pain and anguish.