THIRD COMPONENT TO RECONCILIATION: Restorative and Punitive Justice for the Victimized
The process of reconciliation must include justice: accountability for perpetrators and the
righting of wrongs committed against innocent civilians. “The ultimate goal of justice is…to
make peace — by repairing damage, protecting victims, and reforming criminals — both apart
from, and also through, retributive punishment,”29 according to Bishop Nigel Biggar. People of
traumatized societies, like those of El Salvador and Guatemala, yearn for a sense that justice has
been done following tremendous violations of human rights, especially committed by
governmental authority. They ache for a definitive resolution. Genevieve Jacques explains, “the
victims need public recognition of the wrongs they have suffered and need to see those
responsible identified, named, and held to account.”
Punishing the guilty has the potential to bring a clear sense of relief and resolution — a sense
that justice has been done — to the victims, families, and general public. After suffering direct
damage or the death of a loved one, it is common to want retribution. The goal is that victims
and families who feel a need to inflict revenge may do so peacefully through the court system,
rather than resorting to one’s own devices. Instead of committing another wrong in response, the
wrong is righted. Court convictions of those responsible for disappearances and torture can be
rehabilitating and give a sense of protection to the families and friends of the victims.
30
Other
punitive measures could include removal from office or public service or obligation of financial
compensation to the victims or families. Agents of such punitive methods of justice argue that
12the convicted “got what they deserved” — social stigma, moral humiliation, and restrictions of
freedom. They are troubled by the perpetrator’s lack of feeling and sympathy in his/her exertion
of power over the victim. Punishment can potentially relieve family of the victim’s emotional
pain because it finally reverses the power relationship. The conviction functions to exert power
over the perpetrator and deny him/her sympathy. Just as the victim and his/her loved ones were
consequently held captive psychologically, emotionally, and physically by the violence inflicted
upon him/her, the perpetrator must be held captive, bound to his own actions, and denied
freedom and human dignity. The victim’s power and sympathy from the authority and society
are restored.
Effective justice comes in other forms besides the above retributive criminal trial method.
Favoring a more constructive restorative justice, Bishop Biggar argues, “Justice is primarily not
about the punishment of the perpetrator, but about the vindication of the victims, both direct and
indirect.”31 Minow writes about the reparative value of restorative justice that it is essential for
national reconciliation of different sectors of society:
Restorative justice emphasizes the humanity of both offenders and victims. It seeks to repair
social connections and peace rather than retribution against the offenders. Building connections
and enhancing communications between perpetrators and those victimized, and forging ties across
the community, takes precedence over punishment or law enforcement. 32
These aims of restorative justice reflect a practical view about human psychology. They are
unlike retributive approaches, which require inflicting suffering of another in order to raise one’s
self up, but may reinforce anger. In contrast, reparative approaches instead aim to help victims
move beyond anger, a sense of powerlessness, and destructive desire for revenge. Restorative
justice specifically seeks to stop a cycle of violence, while empowering the victimized. Typical
restorative justice measures include the exhumation, return, and reburial of relatives’ remains,
the opportunity to tell their stories of suffering publicly, and compensation or reparations to
13victims and families. It is important that when speaking about reconciliation and justice,
punitive court trials are not the only mechanism seen as pursuing justice. Any method used that
raises up the dignity of the victims after having been dehumanized by the offender or holds the
perpetrators accountable to their wrongful acts, furthers the ideal of justice.
Given the above explanation of reconciliation as both a goal to which conflicting parties
should aspire and a process, encompassing three vital ideals of truth, acknowledgment, and
justice, it’s now pertinent to explore truth commissions’ potentials for demonstrating and
promoting these goals of reconciliation. While some truth commissions have earned respect as
model commissions investigating the past, there are no binding rules of structure. Each of the
more than twenty truth commissions established around the world since 1973 is unique. 33 Truth
commissions in general, however, have the same overarching goal of airing the truth of the past
in order to facilitate societal and individual-level healing and reconciliation in the future. A truth
commission can be more or less nurturing of reconciliation, partly depending on its specific
context, structure, and mandates. Still, truth commissions have great potential to make
significant progress towards ideals of truth, acknowledgement, and restorative justice
Tags: justice, law enforcement, punishment, reconciliation