Forgive and forget?
by Sam
Although the Obama Administration’s evolving position on torture during the Bush era undoubtedly counts as the most fraught, complex and compelling ethical issue of the day, I’d rather focus on this interesting but ancillary gem from our President:
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.
Obama is saying something significant here about the nature of the crime and the idea of responsibility. He is, first and foremost, casting off the notion that torture in these instances really violated any meaningful law (even if it offended American or global principles).
He is also saying something more fundamental about the kind of responsibility at issue. Retributive justice, the bedrock of our criminal justice system, seeks to assign blame for harm caused. A forward-looking model of responsibility would attempt to address the systems, structures, or behaviors that allowed the harm to take place. Obama appears to be favoring the latter approach.
But there is something in between. South Africa’s post-apartheid Truth and Reconciliation Commissions sought to give the abused a chance to speak retrospectively, while, at the same time, laying a foundation for future progress. In essence, they tried to heal South Africa’s wounds by talking about them aloud.
A similar idea for the American case achieved some attention, when Senator Patrick Leahy proposed a Truth Commission to investigate potential Bush-era malfeasance in the treatment of terror suspects.
Responsibility tends to be a case of different strokes for different folks. Where a desire for revenge dominates, retribution carries the day. When there tend to be few strong victims, a forward-looking approach prevails. But when a victim demand for voice is met by the collective need to move on, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have been forwarded to fill the void.
Their ultimate success, however, remains a matter of great debate.
Related posts:
- Public healthcare, private practice
- Guest Post: Responsibility in Rwanda
- Sticky situations
- If you win, a gold medal
- Should terror suspects be tried in court?
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
