This week let's talk about Truth and Reconciliation. This is a peacemaking policy that has been used in various nations torn by civil war around the globe. Take some time to look over the following links. As you read/watch the information that is linked here what do you think? You might want to also think about last week's discussion of Compassionate Release. Do you seen any connections? Differences? Do you feel differently about this than you did about Compassionate Release? Why or why not?
For the sake of discussion, be sure to mention where you are getting the information that supports your opinion. This will enable everyone else in the conversation to more easily respond to you.
Wikipedia: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)
Wikipedia: Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Africa)
Personally, I think the Truth and Reconciliation has the same motive as the Compassionate Release. At first when I looked at the brief overview, I got the impression that the Truth and Reconciliation was programmed to prevent war where its true purpose was to grant forgiveness for past offenses. It’s pretty much a second chance for those who have done wrong. Compassionate Release seems relatively close to the same idea (letting someone out of prison for being deathly ill). Once again, it’s allowing that person time out of prison to be free before their passing. According to BBC News, the commission was set up to aim for investigations and provide “as complete a picture as possible of the nature, causes and extent of gross violations of human rights”. On the contrary, the Truth and Reconciliation seems to stand for so much more. According to the truth report, the TRC proposes a series of taxes on business corporations to offset apartheid’s legacy of poverty; the TRC distinguishes the role of the English-language media under apartheid from that of the Afrikaans media; and the TRC recommends that where there is evidence that an individual has committed a gross violation of human rights and amnesty has not been sought then prosecution should be considered. A peacemaker seems necessary to have to keep people from fighting, yet working to release the guilty doesn’t seem needed. I have never even heard of such a thing until now. If your proven guilty you should pay the consequences for it. I don’t really support the whole set up of this act!
ReplyDelete“Reparation is a desirable and appropriate mechanism to redress the violations of human rights and shall apply to” criminals. This is one of the many statements the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia declared this past year as part of their system. Another was that those who disclosed their crimes would not be prosecuted in a true court of law. Both of these declarations are gross. Not charging a criminal but instead having them pay for their mistakes is unbelievable. Criminals should always be charged in a court of law and proven guilty for the crimes and, thus, sentenced. However, I understand that many, many people are partaking in Truth and Reconciliation Commissions and their information be not be one-hundred percent true in order to cover up something or please someone or receive more reparations. Not only are reconciliations occurring in Liberia, South Africa, etc., they have happened throughout history. With “peace” treaties such as that of World War I (Treaty of Versailles), Germany became a poor country with no future causing Hitler’s campaign in the 1930s to gain momentum. Reparations are never the answer just as Compassionate Release is not the answer for those criminals that are ailing. Through money and probable death, harmful people are running around while those who were hurt by them continue to suffer. Such a loophole is despicable. I do not believe that Compassionate Release or Truth and Reconciliation Commissions have real ideals in mind but rather quick and easy schemes and political gains.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely see the benefit in the Truth and Reconciliation method. If a perpetrator is given the opportunity to seek amnesty and not only face persecution, they are instinctively more inclined to honestly recount what crimes they committed, rather than simply deny that they had any involvement in human rights violations. However, this more compassionate method of trial might not seek justice for those who were victims of these human rights violations. If victims see their persecutors on trial to gain amnesty rather than on trial to be punished for their crimes, they might not gain the satisfaction that human rights victims rightfully deserve.
ReplyDeleteI do see a parallel between Truth and Reconciliation and Compassionate Release, as they both seem to be empathetic aspects of the justice system. While both have many advantages for perpetrators, as well as the public at large, the victims affected by the crimes committed would certainly be opposed to such gentle treatment of their abusers. The information from Wikipedia (link Truth and Reconciliation Commission South Africa) mentioned that Truth and Reconciliation was a stark contrast to the Nuremburg method. This makes me a bit more wary of Truth and Reconciliation as I feel as a Jewish American that the Nuremburg Trials truly sought justice for the millions of victims of the Holocaust. The Nazis being tried for their crimes were condemned, and penalized for the inexplicable crimes they committed against humanity. The world at large finally became aware of what truly happened during World War II, and the families of those whose lives were lost at the hands of the Nazis were granted their just deserts. It was not a matter of being granted amnesty or not, it was trial and conviction, something that Truth and Reconciliation simply does not offer.
According to the Wikipedia article as well as the TRC website, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was a way for South Africa’s ethnic groups to recover from apartheid. The three main groups involved in the conflicts were the Afrikaners, English, and Xhosa. Also, there were two governments that were under review which were the apartheid and the African National Congress. The Apartheid government was in control between 1948 and early 1994. This government segregated whites, blacks, coloured, and Indian people. If you have seen the movie The Color of Friendship, it’s based off the same time period. The main character Mahree was from apartheid South Africa. She was white so she had privileges that people of different races didn’t have. It’s just one example of many from this government. The other government, the African National Congress, has been in power since 1994 when the party won the election against apartheid. It’s criticized for resorting to violence on many issues. So, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission took accounts from people from the apartheid and African National Congress and conducted reports accordingly. As a reward for coming forward with their accounts, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission granted amnesty to 849 out of 7,112 people who gave their accounts and/or testified. Those people themselves committed violent acts against the other party. I think that the link between this and the compassionate release is that guilty people were let go in both cases. However, the people who were granted amnesty by the TRC were not necessarily murderers like the man last week’s blog was about. The TRC also did similar things in other countries to resolve issues. In a way, they are like arbitrators, or the middle man. I think it’s a good way to help countries resolve internal conflicts and it should keep on being used.
ReplyDeleteJordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about the fact that if you’re proven guilty, you should pay if not all, than some consequences. In the case of the people that were granted amnesty and immunity by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, they were risking a lot to speak up about the atrocities that were committed. For instance, even though the apartheid government was not in power anymore, the party members were still very much alive. They could probably easily try to track down whoever was reporting bad things about their party. So, I agree that the people should be punished and given consequences for their acts but I think that if someone gave information that could lead to other peoples’ prosecutions, then that person could be cut a small break. We do it in the United States all the time during trials. District Attorneys make deals all the time when the defendant has information on other people that are higher up in whatever scheme they might have been involved in.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, according to all of the articles and according to The Final Report of the TRC of Sierra Leone, has been “appropriate, necessary and indeed, highly significant for the healing of a traumatized nation.” Yet, as I read over the articles I cannot help but think that the TRC is not enough.
ReplyDeleteThe brief Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was set up did not remedy the hardships that the people of South Africa faced. Even in the Wikipedia article it states, “A 1998 study…which surveyed several hundred victims of human-rights abuse…found that most felt that the TRC had failed to achieve reconciliation between the black and white communities. Most believed that justice was a prerequisite for reconciliation rather than an alternative to it.” The Wikipedia article also goes on to explain how the testimonials became a major problem and was quickly scrapped. This information is backed by the Amnesty Hearing Transcripts where it says that some translation may have been lost. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission did not resolve the crisis that occurred with the apartheid. I do not believe it gave justice to those that involved. For each the Afrikaners, the English, and the Xhosa, the effectiveness of the TRC came in varying degrees.
This situation parallels that of the Compassionate Release, for me, in that they were both developed with the understanding that these are special situations with extenuating circumstances. I think that although it was seen as a weak move to resolve the issues that plagued South Africa, and the people of the commission hoped it would be a success, I am not sure this was the correct move. Perhaps it should have been thought out a little more.
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI really like what you said about it having the same motive as the Compassionate Release: a second chance for those that have done wrong. I think that’s exactly what it was set up to be. I think that the politics involved allowed both situations to be set up so that if there were circumstances they felt badly about, they could allow freedom for past crimes. I agree with you in your last statement, “I don’t really support the whole set up of the act!” It seems like a temporary solution to a permanent problem. As I said in my Compassionate Release comment, there’s nothing we can do about it now, but I’m not sure this was going in the right direction. I guess it all depends on the situation, but one should pay for what he or she did for. I liked your thoughts on the TRC!
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree when you commented, “ the link between the Truth and Reconciliation and the Compassionate Release is that guilty people were let go in both cases” and when you commented “the people granted amnesty by the TRC were not necessarily murderers like the man last week’s blog was about”. The two systems are a like but different at the same time. I respect your stance on the matter off of the basic fact that the TRC stands for more than just letting a guilty person off the hook yet I still believe it isn’t necessary. On the surface, I feel like they try to portray this system as a solution to internal conflicts that you talk about but on the inside I don’t feel like that’s the main goal of this group. I think you gave a great reference to the movie “The Color of Friendship”. It helps people understand what is going on in this time period in an easier manner!!
From just skimming/reading the first Wikipedia article about Truth and Reconciliation in South Africa, I’m somewhat appalled. What stood out to me was the amnesty given to criminals who confess their wrong doings in a public trial. It is definitely just like Compassionate Release, it makes no sense. Who is to say that just because they have confessed to committing crimes during apartheid, that they actually feel regret and have learned their lesson. I mean I understand what the South African government was trying to do, which was something different from the Nuremberg trials, but in those cases justice was served to the fullest extent. I think everyone effected by the Nazi brutality was satisfied to see their oppressors be sentenced to life or put to death. However, in a way, I think South Africa was just trying to unite the country so that a transition into a new government regime would be accepted by all and maybe that was the only way they could think of to accomplish it. The next article I skimmed was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia. What I got out of this article was that it was more concerned with why people violated human rights and things of that fashion. It found out the root cause as to why people conflict with each other, which I feel is more effective into stopping these things from happening instead of just accepting it and brushing it under the mat. I feel that this Commission is better for any government to have to help society as a whole become more united.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer McQ.
Alex P,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. I feel the same way about the TRC and Compassionate Release, too. Justice is not served with both of these methods and there is documentation to prove that the people involved are not necessarily happy with the results. I don’t understand why the nation would feel that the TRC was an appropriate way to deal with the aftermath of apartheid. I feel the Nuremberg trials should have been a testament on how effect it was of getting rid of people who caused the country so much turmoil in the first place. I guess South Africa didn’t want to have a violent transition into a new regime of government and society which of course is the goal for any nation but human rights violation is a serious crime. People shouldn’t be given amnesty for taking away or violating another person’s rights. That’s when rights of the criminals should be taken away just so it is fair and justice be satisfied.
-Jennifer McQ.
Hannah,
ReplyDeleteI understand what occurred in South Africa regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but don’t you find that even some of the phrasing used to describe the occurrences that took place to be a bit sympathetic towards the accused? For example, you wrote, “As a reward for coming forward with their accounts, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission granted amnesty to 849 out of 7,112 people who gave their accounts and/or testified.” Why should someone who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity ever be rewarded? We should seek them out using evidence to convict them for their crimes, not simply wait around for them to feel guilty and come forward. Isn’t it obvious that some of these people have no conscience? Obviously they do not if they were able to commit such terrible crimes against their fellow men. It is simply unjust to allow such horrible people to go free simply because they mustered up the courage to admit what they did in hopes of being granted amnesty.
After the turmoil in South Africa during the apartheid, I can see where the intentions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would satisfy many South Africans and heal some of the chaos in the country. After reading "The facts of the TRC" from a BBC article, it seems that the Commission has been rather effective and successful. TRC has heard the testimonies of over 21,000 victims of the apartheid, received 7,000 applications for amnesty, and granted only around 125 amnesties. This data proves that the system isn't just granting amnesty to those criminals who caused violence and segregation in South Africa. More than 50% of gross human rights violators simply gave their testimonies to allow people to understand what was going on, but to also publicly admit the racial crimes they had committed. I believe that this method would unite the country, those who were harmed coming together with those who did the harming. Personally, I would find some sort of satisfaction from hearing a criminal openly speak about and admit his wrong doings to so many people he affected. Granted, I don't believe that this action should be a way out of a proper punishment but I believe it is a valuable step in the process of curing the uproar of the apartheid.
ReplyDeleteI understand that this method is similar to the Compassionate Release but I also see them to be very different. Speaking about these two systems of justice casually can make them seem too lenient because they are “allowing criminals to get out of their just punishment,” but I believe that each case is heavily rationed and justified. Neither of the systems is so simple as to say that anyone who will publicly admit his crime will be granted amnesty or anyone who is in need of special care will be let off the hook.
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the honesty of your comment. When I saw that you were appalled by the description of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, it made me step back and look at the system from a different perspective. I can definitely see where you are coming from even though that wasn't my first reaction. And I like that you acknowledged what the South African government was trying to do, because I think you were right on. They used this system to unite the country so that the transition to a new government would hopefully be more accepted and stable. I agree that the TRC should not justify as a way out of a deserved punishment but I think that the TRC is properly aimed towards bringing justice to South Africa.
The Commission’s findings force us as a nation to confront the past. They reinforce the belief that the past cannot, indeed must not, be forgotten. Forgetting or ignoring the past means we cannot learn its lessons and are at greater risk of repeating it.” This statement can be found in the Article of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone. It is extremely important that we look at our past in order to prevent the same mistakes from happening. After all, that is the reason why we take history classes throughout our academic careers.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the compassionate release, I feel as if the past is being overlooked or forgotten. There is no lesson or example being made to the next person who plans to blow up a plane, or kill someone. Instead, he or she knows that there will always be a possibility for early release for good behavior or because of sudden illness.
Likewise as discussed in the Wikipedia article on Truth and Reconciliation, many victims of abuse believed that the policy “failed to achieve reconciliation between black and white communities.” Not only did the TRC fail to do this, but many of the black South African victims were angered by amnesty being granted to those who partook in the abuse. This again goes back to the same concept of the compassionate release of al- Megrahi. These people were not forced to live with their actions, but rather given another chance. But where is the second chance for the victims? Who deserves the justice?
Jordan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that someone who is proven guilty should pay for the consequences. You mention that TRC recommends that people who have not received amnesty should be prosecuted, but what are the chances that those who did deserve to be prosecuted did indeed. TRC should have partnered with the International Court to hold trials for those who were to be convicted for their abuse. I believe it was the Wikipedia article on TRC that said the former Apartheid government president, Botha, refused to appear in court even after being subpoenaed. This is obviously not the actions of a man who is sorry or should be shown any compassion. While the article does not state this, I researched a little more to find that Botha was sentenced to five years of jail time for his crimes, but it was overturned by the Higher Court. How could there be justice without punishment or an example to prevent this from occurring again?
Jennifer,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your stance on the similarities between Truth and Reconciliation and Compassionate Release. They both do not make much logical sense. It seems as if there is something the governments are hiding by using these techniques of law. Maybe there are some political or economic deals being made. Or, as you said, maybe countries like South Africa just wanted to get the ball rolling and forget the atrocities past leaders committed. Yet, punishment is necessary when crimes are committed and these two peacemaking policies refrain from distributing true penalties to true criminals in these places. I also agree that the Nuremburg trials were far more satisfying for the victims of the Holocaust then these Truth and Reconciliation Committees were. Death versus reparations or apologies and freedom as punishments are on completely different sides of the spectrum of the law. I would like to think that Truth and Reconciliation and Compassionate Release do not occur in the United States and will never occur even if unification is needed between two groups.
According to the article “Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Sierra Leone” I do believe that it is necessary. I feel that with this in place, the country of Sierra Leone is able to run smoothly and have a document stating what is right and wrong. Although I believe it will benefit this country I do not think that it is right, because for a criminal only to be tried for amnesty is almost scary. Personally, I think if you commit a crime you should be tried under the court of law and punished for your criminal actions.
ReplyDeleteIn a way this does have a connection to Compassionate Release, but I feel the same about both. I do not believe either should take place. In both, the criminals are eventually able to go on and return to living the rest of their life. Meanwhile, I really don’t believe this is an appropriate measure to be taken because in the end the innocent victim is the only one who was hurt by the situation. The only difference between Truth and Reconciliation and Compassionate Release is that with Truth and Reconciliation a criminal doesn’t have to serve time and if so not a lot, all they have to do is get tried for amnesty and forgiven from the crime they committed. On the other hand, with Compassionate Release the criminal serves their time until they are deathly ill in which they return to their home with their families. If I had to choose one that I would rather see in effect it would be Compassionate Release.
Laura,
ReplyDeletePersonally I find your statement, “not charging a criminal but instead having them pay for their mistakes is unbelievable. Criminals should always be charged in a court of law and proven guilty for the crimes and, thus, sentenced,” very true. I agree one hundred percent. If someone is not charged in the court a law and proven guilty, than criminals will be out on the streets doing as they please and then not get charged in a true court of law. If a criminal pleads amnesty once they will plea amnesty again and they will be forgiving from their crimes no matter how severe. Also, as you stated, “harmful people are running around while those who were hurt by them continue to suffer.” I do not understand nor do I see why this should be allowed, I believe that it is crazy and some measures should be taken for those who perform such unrealistic behavior.