Is Amnesty a Collective Act of Forgiveness?
- PDF / 104,097 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 442 x 663 pts Page_size
- 98 Downloads / 222 Views
Feature Article: Theory and Practice
Is Amnesty a Collective Act of Forgiveness? Christopher Bennett Department of Philosophy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK E-mail: c.bennett@shef.ac.uk
Amnesty in the context of national reconciliation involves waiving or cancelling the punishment of convicted or suspected criminals in the name of peace. We can distinguish three positions: (1) amnesty is wrong because it is unjust; (2) amnesty is unjust, but necessary; and (3) amnesty is just because it expresses forgiveness. The third position sounds promising. However, it assumes that when we forgive, we can justifiably waive or cancel the need for punishment. I argue that only punishment that expresses repentance and atonement brings about true reconciliation between the wrongdoer and the rest of the community. If we forgive in the absence of repentance and atonement, we restore our (civic or personal) relationship with the wrongdoer, but in doing so ignore the way the wrongdoing conditions the relationship. An adequate, properly reconciled relationship can only be forged on the basis of some agreement on fundamental values, and that requires a change of heart from the wrongdoer. Forgiveness cannot properly be conceived as cancelling the need for repentance, atonement and punishment. Contemporary Political Theory (2003) 2, 67–76. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cpt.9300072 Keywords: amnesty; forgiveness; reconciliation; Tutu; Truth and Reconciliation Commission
The apparent rationale for granting amnesty is reconciliation: it has its place within a polity divided by past wrongs. But what sort of reconciliation can amnesty really achieve? We can distinguish three broad understandings of amnesty. One position disapproves of amnesty on the grounds that it sacrifices the demands of justice. Call this view the Hard Line: it is punishment that brings about true reconciliation. Another, which we can call the Art of Compromise, accepts that amnesty involves a sacrifice of justice, but sees it as necessary in achieving a peaceful transition. However, there is a third way that denies that amnesty is a sacrifice of the demands of justice at all. It sees the amnesty process as a ‘collective act of forgiveness’, an act that seeks genuine reconciliation rather than mere compromise, but does not require punishment. We can call this the Forgiving Approach: amnesty is an act of reconciliation that can be achieved in the absence of punishment through forgiveness.1 The possibility that, through the Forgiving Approach, amnesty be interpreted as something other than the sacrifice of the demands of justice to
Christopher Bennett Is Amnesty a Collective Act of Forgiveness?
68
the needs of political expediency (however laudable the end-state might be) rests on the question whether forgiveness can properly waive or cancel the need for punishment. The Forgiving Approach thinks that justice can be done without punishment. In this paper, I deny this claim. As the Hard Liner thinks, true reconciliation can only be achieved through punishment. One
Data Loading...
