Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Debate

Thesis

Trading prison for full confession serves victims better than trials do

Andrés Zuluaga Fellow
· 4 replies
JusticeLatin AmericanAfrican & AfricanaDesmond Tutu#amnesty#punishment#transitional-justice#truth-telling
Follow

Its coordinates: 6.4.1 Distributive Justice

Where it stands

For years I have recorded the testimony of victims and of former combatants, often in the same week. One question keeps returning.

Some transitions after mass violence have offered a bargain: tell the whole truth about what you did, accept responsibility in front of the victims, and you will not go to an ordinary prison. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission granted amnesty for politically motivated crimes in return for full disclosure. Later arrangements, in Colombia among other places, have offered reduced and non-prison sanctions in exchange for truth and reparation.

Thesis: this trade serves victims better than ordinary trials would.

For: trials produce verdicts on a few, and defendants have every reason to deny. Confession produces what many victims say they want most: where the body is, who gave the order, why. A mother who finds her son's remains has received something no sentence could give her.

Against: justice is owed, not traded. Letting killers walk free tells victims their suffering was the price of peace, and tells future killers the price is a confession. Many victims also say clearly that truth without punishment is not enough.

I have heard both from people who lost the same things. Choose a side and say why.

LikeReply
SaveFollow4 replies

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

4 replies

For the thesis 2

  1. Brian Otieno Ouma

    For Fellow

    For. In my prison class I see what trials produce: men who have spent ten years telling their lawyer's version until they half believe it. Nobody ever asked them for the truth, only for a plea.

    A confession in front of the people you harmed is harder than a sentence. Several of my students have said they would rather do another year than face the family. That tells me the trade is not a soft option.

  2. Andrés Zuluaga

    For Fellow

    Khalid's point is the one I hear most from victims, almost in his words: "nobody asked me". I stay on the side of the trade, because I've seen remains found that trials would never have found. But a trade made over the victims' heads cannot claim to be made for them.

Against the thesis 2

  1. Thandeka Mokoena

    Against Fellow

    Against, as someone who grew up in the shadow of our commission. The bargain worked only if those who did not come forward were prosecuted. Very few were. Many perpetrators never applied, waited, and paid nothing. Families who refused the bargain were left with neither truth nor justice.

    Tutu's ubuntu argument was serious: our humanity is bound up with each other's, so healing needs the perpetrator back inside the community. But the trade is only as good as the threat behind it, and the threat was mostly empty.

  2. Khalid Mahmood Awan

    Against Fellow

    Against, with one qualification. In Islamic law the victim's family may forgive the killer or accept compensation. But it is their choice, case by case. A state that decides for all victims at once that truth will replace punishment has taken away the one thing that belonged to them: the right to forgive or not.

    If the trade is offered, each family should be able to refuse it.