When one individual commits a transgression or aggressive act against another, third parties often have expectations about how the victim should respond, even when they do not have any personal involvement in the event. When their justice expectations are violated, such as when a victim forgives the offender for an act that third parties deem too heinous to forgive, third parties may react in a way that is critical of the victim. This research examines how third-party observers react when victims forgive seemingly ‘unforgivable’ offences. Study 1, a scenario-based experiment, showed that although third parties were not directly critical of a forgiving victim, they did not agree with the decision to forgive. Study 2 replicated these findings and explored in more depth third parties’ justice-related feelings about the transgression and the victim, using both quantitative and qualitative data. Results suggest that although third parties are reluctant to directly criticize ‘extreme’ forgivers, they are not supportive of their decision to forgive. This could have implications for victims, who may interpret this disagreement with their choice as a lack of support.