BBC preaches forgiveness for man who murders his partner.

[ArabellaScott]

What the fuck, BBC?!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnv6ne1zqyro

We are told a story which could only have been recounted by a man who murdered his partner, which is accepted without question. And then preached at about forgiveness.

This mother can do and say what she wants, I wouldnt presume to censure her. But the BBC has effectively written an apologia for abuse, domestic violence, and murder.

It enrages me when the two get conflated. Forgiveness is for helping the individuals move on. What the state/wider community should do is unaffected by whether the individual forgives or not.

In fact I’d argue that the state must not forgive – it’s even what makes forgiveness a possibility, by keeping responsibility away from the victim. And in any event the state’s duty is to do what’s best for the whole community, not to meet the wishes of victims/families. The whole idea of criminal law being about getting justice for victims is toxic imo.

Draft complaint, I will.adapt:

Dear BBC Editorial Complaints,

I am writing to complain about the BBC News article concerning the killing of Ann Grosmaire, which centres the narrative of forgiveness expressed by the victim’s parents.

The article’s framing is inappropriate for reporting on a domestic homicide and appears inconsistent with both the BBC’s own Editorial Guidelines and recognised media guidelines on reporting domestic abuse, including those developed by the Level Up campaign.

The piece repeatedly foregrounds forgiveness as the central theme, for example stating that “forgiveness has been the best way for her to find peace” and that “advocating for forgiveness and restorative justice has become her daughter’s legacy.” Presenting forgiveness as the dominant narrative risks implying that forgiveness is the appropriate or morally preferable response to lethal intimate-partner violence. The Level Up guidelines on reporting domestic abuse explicitly caution against framing forgiveness or reconciliation as a model response, as this can place harmful social expectations on victims and bereaved families. Many survivors and families do not forgive perpetrators, and responsible reporting must avoid suggesting that they should.

The article also omits meaningful context about domestic abuse and coercive control, despite the fact that intimate-partner killings frequently occur within patterns of possessiveness, monitoring, intimidation and control. The BBC Editorial Guidelines on Accuracy (Section 3) require that reporting should not materially mislead audiences by omitting relevant context. Without this context, the killing is presented primarily as a story about forgiveness rather than as part of the broader reality of domestic abuse.

In addition, the article devotes space to the perpetrator’s activities in prison and involvement in restorative justice programmes. This risks shifting the narrative focus toward the perpetrator’s rehabilitation rather than the dynamics of violence that led to the killing. The BBC Editorial Guidelines on Harm and Offence (Section 5) require particular care in the framing of violence and distressing events, especially where editorial choices may cause harm or misrepresentation.

Taken together, the article’s framing risks distorting public understanding of domestic abuse and fails to meet recognised standards for responsible reporting on domestic homicide.

I ask that the BBC review this article in light of both the BBC Editorial Guidelines and the Level Up media guidelines on reporting domestic abuse, and ensure that journalists covering intimate-partner violence receive appropriate training in these standards.

Yours sincerely,
[Name]

I've used chatgpt, so will need to check references.

The BBC had another article a few days ago that enraged me. A bloke became a penpal with a man on death row for raping and strangling the woman who was trying to escape him. At the end of the article the bloke described it as something that could happen to anyone, like he'd clumsily knocked a cup of tea over, not violently taken a woman's life. I'm not sure if this article isn't worse.

However, as the BBC essentially mark their own homework (the tiny number of complaints that they uphold is laughable), complaining to them seems a waste of time and enraging.

Really good complaint letter.

Without judging a grieving family whose relationships I don’t presume to understand the dynamics of, I’d fucking haunt my mum for eternity if she gave a similar interview about me. I’m not the forgiving type and I certainly wouldn’t want it to be my legacy. I was also in a violent, coercive control relationship when I was (and he was) 19. Luckily I got away.

I think there is a significant tendency to weigh forgiveness far above accountability these days. I don’t believe it is a real value that people hold, I think it is more likely a misapplication of religious values basically a religious manipulation pushed by culture. I personally think it is the wrong way around. Start with accountability then understanding then forgiveness.

Agree.

Apologies, having reread the OP, I see my question has already been answered. I have asked MN to remove my post.

I do wonder if the parents “had” to forgive the bastard because they’d pushed their daughter to be in that position in the first place - the way they don’t mention the abuse before the murder but describe the relationship as volatile, talk about how they liked him, etc. They paint it as though this must have come out of the blue for everyone, rather than the reality that, like many abused women, their daughter was manipulated and abused for years, and tried to get away but couldn’t. If they didn’t forgive him they might have to confront their own role in keeping her trapped with her killer.

Exactly.

Had similar thoughts.

From the second interview:

'McBride and Ann had discussed marriage. The Grosmaires knew the teenagers weren't ready. They struggled with how to guide the young couple. In the book, Kate retells about a moment when Andy asked Ann, "Does being with Conor make you a better person?"

There was a long moment of silence. Ann burst into tears. She never answered'.

Why were they asking this young woman whether her abusive partner 'made her a better person'?

With Ann on life support, Kate decided to visit Conor in jail.

Kate told him both she and Andy loved and forgave him. "And when I said those words, I just felt a peace come over me."

Days later, Kate and Andy made the difficult decision to turn off Ann's life support.

I am trying not to judge because I have thankfully never been in her shoes, but I struggle with this. Also her determination to excuse his behaviour and almost blame her daughter. I imagine that may help her live with herself but I don't think it's right.

My understanding was that forgiveness in Christianity was tied to repentance, however everyone has their own interpretation and perhaps she has more heavily been sold on quotes such as:

"For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
— Matthew 6:14-15

Perhaps she felt she would go to hell if she didn't forgive him and that was her true motivation.

In the excuse letter she wrote to her daughter she wrote:

"Forgiveness allowed us to move forward and heal," she says. "Do we continue to feel grief?

"Of course we do. But we aren't imprisoned by our grief."

Except she forgave him before her daughter had even died. She prioritised visiting him in prison over being at her daughter's side. She seemingly prioritised her own "peace" over her daughter.

But Conor was exhausted from arguing and wanted it all to be over, "so he pulled the trigger," Kate says.

He was exhausted and wanted it to be over so he shot... his girlfriend. No, sorry, doesn't ring true. That's not normal or understandable behaviour.

The whole thing comes across to me as someone who feels tormented by her conscience and her loss and has woven a narrative to allow her to live with that. I would not begrudge her that if she wasn't using it in the way she is.

For what it's worth, I believe that society is safer when we focus on rehabilitation and I don't think locking people away in dehumanising damaging institutions for decades makes their future nextdoor neighbours safer. I think Scandinavian prisons are much more effective at making communities safer and reducing reoffending than our broken system or the US system.

But that shouldn't be tied to whether the family of victims forgives them or not. The sentence he received seemed more likely to improve community safety, so I think that should be the preferred sentence irrespective of the victim's family forgiving or not. Victims and their families should not be the ones determining sentences.

I would interpret that question as referring to a belief that marriage to the right person will bring out the best of both parties. And trying to prompt her to reflect on whether a marriage to this particular person would achieve that.

It is not clear whether they have ever seen him as abusive or would be able to allow themselves to accept that.

I agree, what sort of excuse for shooting your girlfriend (and not yourself, I note) is that?

Wow, what a terrible bloody mother.

I understand that she's grieving, but it genuinely sounds like she values the emotionally abusive man who murdered her daughter more than she ever valued her daughter! They shouldn't have been facilitating the pair's relationship at all - they should've been trying to protect her from him.

But clearly she still thinks he's just lovely despite the fact that he executed her daughter in cold blood (of course, they never kill themselves first, do they?). Her language in talking about him is all justifications and excuses, and she almost sounds as though she thinks her daughter was partially responsible, and brought it on himself.

Aww, the poor baby was just so exhausted by arguing that he had to shoot his girlfriend

And I'm forever confused by people (mostly Christians) who think that forgiving the perpetrator is required for them to 'move on'. It's not. Acceptance works fine too. But Christianity is obsessed with forgiveness.

I'm disgusted in this woman, frankly. It sounds like she's failed her daughter in both life, and death.

This is Florida we're talking about.

A linked article says that if Ann's parents hadn't spoken up, he would've faced life in prison - and in Florida, a life sentence means you're in there until you die. So no. Realistically, he wasn't necessarily going to be released.

But her parents made sure he will be.

I read that article earlier and found it very odd, in particular this sentence; :

'But Conor was exhausted from arguing and wanted it all to be over,'

This article was not about forgiving an abusive man who murdered his young partner , it was about providing excuses for him. Outrageous reporting.

I've noted some people on MN argue that guns in US help women defend themselves against attackers, and there certainly have been cases of that

But let's not forget that guns are also often used by abusive men to shoot their partners

Imo this shows the dangerous aspects of some types of US Christianity.

Jesus preached forgiveness but that doesn't mean ignoring abuse of women or that someone who murders or abuses shouldn't be punished. The Bible in fact has several examples of at least one form of abuse of women (rape) being punished : Dinah, Susannah and Tamar.

Imo this ties into how patriarchal theology urges women to forgive. Some churches urge counselling by untrained church pastors and prioritise keeping the couple together rather than keeping women safe from abuse. This is partly why women's church attendance is falling.

I wonder if Ann's sisters have forgiven him too, and what they think about their parents' decision to support and excuse their sister's murderer. I notice they haven't said anything publicly.

Also, this article sheds some more light on the situation: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/magazine/can-forgiveness-play-a-role-in-criminal-justice.html It's paywalled but you can read it using this - removepaywall.com.

What's wrong with all this is that A shouldn't get to "forgive" B for what B did to C.

Agree @Heggettypeg