The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Murder, He Wrote

21 Comments

June 23, 2008 by Kathy McManus

 If you can’t kill a man, forgive him instead.

That was the mind-boggling moral journey undertaken by a writer named David Holthouse, who, along the way, was forced to define and redefine his views of personal responsibility.

At age 7, Holthouse was sexually assaulted by a high school football player. He wrote about the attack in his diary but told no one--not even his parents, who were close friends of the assailant’s parents.

For 25 years, Holthouse kept the awful secret. Then he learned that his attacker had moved to the Denver area, the same place Holthouse—by then a journalist—had moved to work for a local newspaper.

First he fixated on the memory.

Then he fixated on murder.

"I arrived at a point in my mind," Holthouse said, "where it seemed to me that murder was entirely rational, justifiable and even a morally responsible course of action."

With a gun, a silencer, and a plan, Holthouse staked out the man’s house and followed him to and from work. But before he could lure him to an out-of-the-way baseball field—"a good place for a killing"—his mother inadvertently foiled the plot. She happened upon the old diary, read about the assault, and informed the assailant’s parents.

So the murder Holthouse planned became the murder he wrote. In a remarkable newspaper article, he divulged the chilling details of his intent to kill, but not his would-be victim’s name. And he arranged a different kind of meeting with his attacker. Instead of shooting the man—who apologized--David Holthouse forgave him, choosing redemption over revenge.

His story has become an oft-sited primer about the power of forgiveness, but some readers say Holthouse did the wrong thing by not naming his assailant, saying that statistically the man is likely to abuse other children. "The victim is WRONG! He should have revealed the rapist’s name,” wrote one critic. “He condemned untold others to being victims of sexual crimes!"

Tell us what you think: Should David Holthouse have responded differently? Would it have been more responsible to reveal his abuser’s name?

21 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• June 24, 2008 by twkae

  David's forgiveness certainly benefit's his attacker, but David as well. Would David be better off sitting in a jail cell contemplating the taking of a human life to simply later discover that his hatred and anger has changed to regret and remorse? Does revenge ever really satisfy us? It was certainly right to spare his attackers life, but I would think it only responsible in an attempt to protect others to report the attackers name. What baffles me, is just how he did it. If to truly forgive means to forget, how did David find closure in mind to the point that he could return to his life without the attack preoccupying his mind and fueling his anger?

  Reply

  • July 4, 2008 by D.S

    David indeed seems to have character. I'm sure that he withheld the name of his attacker for his attacker’s benefit and to protect him, in a way. However, I do think the attacker's name should be reported to protect others, and so he could know there are consequences for wrong. Your last question is also puzzlement to me - unless David is a Christian or a man of incredible....well, something else! It's an example for us all.

    Reply

• June 27, 2008 by The Moral Guy

  While I think David's ultimate decision (and surprising ability) to forgive his assailant is admirable, your post seems to suggest that David had to forgive the man, thereby "choosing redemption over revenge". But, the mere fact a rapist apologizes for his crime doesn't mean the victim must accept; even if the rapist were genuinely apologetic, saying you're sorry doesn't mean your victim is obligated to say its all okay. --The Moral Guy http://themoralguy.blogspot.com

  Reply

  • July 2, 2008 by Patrick

    First of all, I don't think that he should have kept it a secret for that long. When it happened he should have told someone right away. Also, it must have been hard for him not to do anything physically to him.

    Reply

  • June 1, 2010 by Bartleby

    I think forgiveness does more for the forgiver than the forgiven. It hurts when I carry anger and pain with me, and when I forgive the person who hurt me, I let it go and I remain happy and vibrant.

    I don't think anyone is obligated to forgive, but it's generally easier for me to live when I do.

    -Bartleby

    Reply

• July 2, 2008 by leila hedili

  I think that David Halthouse is a very sick man, but after what happened to him in such a young age I wouldn't blame him. He also should of never kept that secret he should of told someone so his attacker could get some help and also David could feel safe and not have to live with that secret for 5 years because that was the most traumatizing thing that could ever happen to a young boy or girl for this matter [from my point of view].

  Reply

• August 7, 2008 by L.C.

  Does anyone know of a sex offender who has been rehabilitated? Anyone who knows of a sex offender should make the name public. If you can tell the story, tell the whole story that would include the offenders name!

  Reply

• August 10, 2008 by Robyn Truxal Small

  Before commenting on David Holthouse's story of forgiveness versus revenge, I took the time to read his well-written article for the entire synopsis. Let's see- we have not only a pedophile (I call David's unnamed assailant this because he was mere months from adulthood himself at the time of his abuse of David), but one who uses weapons to exert immediate fear and control to subdue his prey; an animal abuser/killer (who cleverly uses the story to renew fear in the boy, thus assuring his continued silence- a common tool of experienced pedophiles for time immemorial); a young man who, while babysitting, uses alcohol to subdue and taunt children; one who employs threatening gestures toward the child at family gatherings for- surprise- personal pleasure and, yes- control again; have I missed anything? Oh, yes, the scenario of the attacker's living with his parents years into adulthood, avoiding adult responsibility and autonomy (perhaps using his resources for predation instead of paying rent or bills?). During David's ensuing years he may be commended in researching pedophilia, as his summation of statistics conveys. Yet with his newly acquired knowledge he then fails to report not one "mentor" (Jim, his Little League coach), but two (David actually witnesses stuff and fellow players locked in a bedroom with "coach" Billy!). Statistics can never tell the whole story of child sexual abuse because of the secrecy involved; my own family members have suffered much because of it despite my and others' efforts to reveal the horrors of incest. I will be the first to acknowledge how strong the urge is to say nothing to "protect" the family from harm or disgrace. This perpetuates a false sense of safety for the innocent and allows the perpetrator to keep his comfortable "family friend" facade for future crimes. The letter and phone calls to David's parents' friends, appropriate and noble acts in themselves, ought to have been accompanied by reports to authorities. Confessions such as this man's are not uncommon in the face of family ostracism and one on one meetings with a now grown, physically imposing adult who is no longer easy to subdue- particularly when prefaced with assurances that the intent of the meeting will most likely not result in violence or arrest. And could David read as much as he reports and miss the correlation between animal abuse and murder? Child abuse may be the tip of the iceberg here. Lastly, we find David, with what seems the best of intentions, forgiving his abuser. Forgiveness such as this may allow David to put his past to rest and garner the praise of decent fellow citizens, but he of all people knows how cunning successful pedophiles are. Contrite or not, his tormentor is free to practice his craft as long as his name is hidden. And David Holthouse gains renown as a hero because he rightly chose not to kill. Only God, from Whom the command to forgive (and when to do so!) was issued- and the unnamed man's future victims- will know what ensues from David's choice. David, it's still not too late. -Respectfully, Robyn, a Fellow Survivor

  Reply

• August 20, 2008 by Gloria Ehrlich

  What does sexual abuse have to do with murder? The whole argument is twisted and convoluted, due to the intense dynamics that are revolving in both situations. Child sexual abuse is a disease, the people involved are in kind of dance, that nobody but the two involved can see. It becomes there little secret. Usually the victim is lead to believe that it is the fault of him or her. That is what the offender wants, so this way it takes away any responsibility for the his or her dirty minds. But, dirty minds resist the most, why? Why such harmful shame about something that is so natural? For the molester, it is not normal, it is a secret, that he or she anticipates, and sets it's sites on, with young innocent children, or innocent teenagers. Until, the potent sense of withdrawal and orgasm are reached, he or she is still in a state of experimentation. It is mind altering, because the molester has not taken responsibility for being over that crisis, or teen sexual identity crisis, which further evidence may prove the exact opposite, that the effects of sexual deviances, and sexual curiosity's need more time, especially in latent development.

  Reply

  • August 21, 2008 by Robyn Truxal Small

    The correlation I was referring to was the high number of "thrill" or serial killers who start their lives of crime by abusing and killing animals, usually while teens or preteens. By no means did I intend to include all pedophiles with David's abuser in this comment (though some do resort to killing their victims, either to silence them or for the "rush" some report in the killing); the point I was making is that child sexual abuse is probably only one avenue of violence enjoyed by David's attacker specifically (he tells David in detail his delight in the animal's panic and pain before its death, which he also clearly relishes), and killing could naturally follow if his known crimes were not brought to light. According to David's account, their families are the only ones who know to date. They are likely to continue to be. Pity.

    Reply

• January 14, 2009 by

  I read and agree with what you wrote.

  Reply

• June 3, 2009 by Anonymous

  Maybe it is luck that I came to this site. Maybe it is fate. My family is being torn apart over the theft of an extensive estate following my father's death. The pain of this process for the past two years is unbearable. I am plotting revenge. The perpetrators hurt me and my family members to steal my father's money and business. They psychologically abused a man dying of cancer to affect their evil objectives. Like Holthous my planning is detailed. Unlike Holthous, I am a professional soldier whose skills were perfected in battle. So, killing is easy for me. But, the morale issues confuse me. Yes, these people are evil. They hurt and continue to hurt my family members. So, I ask myself, and now the readers here, is Murder every justified? I seek revenge for what they have done. I understand the Christian way is to forgive. But, my Sicilian genes scream out for a Sicilian solution. If I act, no doubt I will be successful, but I will leave behind a wife and son. When families are harmed, and justice is either inadequate or non-existent, do we just look the other way? Why can't we extract justice to end the pain?

  Reply

• October 27, 2009 by superwoman

  i feel that he did the right thing by letting david apogloize because in the end that's all people really need is to just here people say they are sorry and he should have told because it could have been dealt with the by the law and i could defenilty can understand where he was coming from

  Reply

• December 15, 2009 by Elizabeth Myers

  I was also sexually assaulted and was also married to someone accused of doing the same to a family member of mine. Forgiveness? I'm not there yet even after all these years. Murder has never crossed my mind, as I believe the day will come when he they pay for their crimes. However, I think there might be a law against accusing someone that has not been tried and convicted in a newspaper. Correct me if I'm wrong though cause I'm not sure. If this man did this, he will pay for it in the end. I would definitely consider other courses of action if he can not see his way past this. Journal writing is what I do as well and God help these people if they ever had to read the anger in my journals. One tip a therapist gave me was instead of simply writing in a diary, write a letter directly to the person with name and all and then you choose what you do with it. I'm glad this person was not killed by the hands of the victim here because it would be a shame for him to spend the rest of his life in prison for being the victim of a violent crime. Use what you have been through to help others. Maybe instead of newspaper articles...write a BOOK!

  Reply

• December 27, 2009 by Joan-Arthur Commissiong nee Salfarlie

  I've read David's story and can't say yea or nay he did the right thing by not naming his assailant and chose to forgive him instead of murdering him as he had planned. I guess once he actually confronted the man several years later, his true feelings surfaced about the past injury he had suffered and the impact it had had on his overall life was lessened. Who knows why David forgave this man; maybe he hated him for walking out on him after he had seduced him into an act of intimacy at such an impressionable age and he was seeking closure of this chapter of his life to end the recurring memory. One more thing, if this man had turned out to be a repeat offender, David most certainly would have found out and then he would not be writing about a murder but rather he would have committed one. "All's well that ends well".

  Reply

• December 28, 2009 by ami low

  Unfortunately, what we should do and we do is often not the same. It is great that he could forgive. In my opinion, by not naming his assailant, he is possibly letting others face the same fate, that is incredibly selfish and irresponsible.

  Reply

  • January 9, 2010 by chuck

    Based on the history of the crime of child molestation it is not just POSSIBLE that others will face the same fate it is almost a certainty that the offender will reoffend until he is caught, tried, and incarcerated. U. S. Army (Military Police (ret))

    Reply

Tell us what you think.