Political apologies are sometimes described as “acts of recognition”. What is being recognised and what political purpose does this recognition serve? Introduction Apology as a method of addressing past injustice has become a global phenomenon especially since the end of the Cold War (Smits 2008; Borneman 2005; Lazare 2004). Political apologies are a symbolic act that involve the recognition of an injustice or wrongdoing that occurred from one group to another, and acknowledges how it continues to affect the wronged group in the present day. It is also recognition of the regret by the apologiser for the harms caused and of the dignity of the wronged group. Specifically, I will discuss injustices done to minorities and citizens by the …show more content…
I will argue that the recognition of responsibility by the state of their past injustice serve a political purpose of dignifying the victim, transforming identity and the relationship between the two parties to reconsolidate national unity and beginning a process of rebuilding damaged relations. Political apologies achieve this through a practical and a moral dimension, in combination with other instruments of reparations and trials. Typically apology is seen as an act performed by the perpetrator taking responsibility of some previous wrongdoing that they inflicted on their victim and promising to not commit the act in the future (Thompson 2012). What distinguishes a political apology, in many cases, is that the agent, as a representative of a nation or state, may not have commit the wrongs they are apologising for and they are often apologising to the victims’ predecessors (Smits 2008). Political apologies are one form of redress against incomparable circumstances of injustice that unbalances society. In society there can be a …show more content…
However, Verdeja (2010) highlights that there are moral/symbolic and practical dimensions of apologies. Practical redress creates a tangible change in the position between the victimised group and their victimiser, it punishes the inflictors of injustice and compensates the victims for their pain. Without reparation (monetary compensation) and/or retribution (criminal trails), political apologies will not equalise the positions of the victim (Verdeja 2010). On the other hand, moral redress attempts to restore the intangible, but still essential, dignity and moral integrity of the victims. The perpetrator who fails to take responsibility for their wrongdoing leaves injustice inadequately addressed and the victim is characterised as unworthy of moral respect (Verdeja 2010). For instance, when Japanese Americans were interned in WWII, lagely because of racial prejudice, by the U.S. government, and housed in humiliating conditions, their dignity was damaged. When the government claimed it was out of military necessity, they failed to acknowledge their responsibility in betraying their own values of liberty. So whereas retribution in the form of criminal trails is necessary to dealing justice, it struggles to restore the moral integrity and the damaged self-worth of the victims (Borneman 2005; Verdeja 2010). Likewise aboriginal leaders of the time
The National Apology of 2008 is the latest addition to the key aspects of Australia’s reconciliation towards the Indigenous owners of our land. A part of this movement towards reconciliation is the recognition of Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders rights to their land. Upon arrival in Australia, Australia was deemed by the British as terra nullius, land belonging to no one. This subsequently meant that Indigenous Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were never recognised as the traditional owners. Eddie Mabo has made a highly significant contribution to the rights and freedoms of Indigenous Australians as he was the forefather of a long-lasting court case in 1982 fighting for the land rights of the Torres Strait Islanders. Eddie Mabo’s introduction of the Native Title Act has provided Indigenous Australians with the opportunity to state claim to their land, legally recognising the Indigenous and the Torres Strait Islanders as the traditional owners.
One of the things that makes the Apology so successful writing is the way that is written, at base, the record of a trial. By their extremely nature, trials have a tendency to be sensational and fascinating issues, particularly when,
A gesture that formerly connoted weakness grows to represent moral strength and provides a crucial step towards potential reconciliation. Within his text, Philpott expresses wholehearted belief in the power of apology stating, “Few acts undo the legitimacy of a crime more effectively than a perpetrator’s renunciation of it” (Philpott 205). Philpott describes the practice of apology as, “When a perpetrator apologizes, he condemns his own role in the political injustice and thus helps to defeat its standing victory from one angle. Yet, the victim retains his own freedom to decide how he will respond to the perpetrator and thus retains a measure of control over whether the standing victory of the injustice is defeated” (Philpott 264). Philosophically, the idea of apology within restorative justice and reconciliation could mark a reaffirmation of the fundamental moral principles of the community, promote national reconciliation, strengthen a principle of transnational cooperation and contribute to the improvement of international law and diplomatic relations. Following an apology, a relationship becomes possible between the perpetrator and the victim, which in turn creates the potential for a less hostile environment for the community, and marks a society’s affirmation of a set of virtues in contradistinction to a past of
in practice, forgiveness often produces exemption from punishment. Especially when a governmental body adopts a forgiving attitude toward offenders, the instrument often takes the form of amnesty or pardon, preempting prosecution and punishment. This institutionalizes forgetfulness, and sacrifices justice in a foreshortened effort to move on. Moreover, such an effort to move on often fails because the injury is not so much forgiven but publicly ignored, leaving it to
How has guilt and anger affected avenues of reconciliation between the subsequent generations of perpetrators and victims?
I take into consideration that instead of authorizing the state or professional to ratify and speak their mind, the most relevance to a case the court should take into consideration of what the victim seems fit as a fair punishment or payment in forms of restitution, whether it is labor or monetary to then go along with the judge 's sentence. “The Charter, apart from other things, sets forth that the victim should enjoy the same rights as the culprit. But it is not enough to put this in writing, the law has to be changed in such a way that the victim is not only not deprived of his say, but has rights at least equal to those enjoyed by the accused”. I agree with the previous quote due to the fact that victims should not be deprived from speech and equality. I believe that by having the original parties engaged rather than being driven to the side, society will be more concerned to make sure that everyone is given fair, equal and consistent resolution to a conflict. This would establish that the neighbourhood and state have a set of shared values and goals that they are working towards to support social order. “At present, the role of a victim of a crime is only at the periphery of the criminal justice delivery system. Once the first information is furnished, the only stage at which the victim comes into the picture is when she is called upon to give evidence in court by the prosecution. The victim virtually
Zehr (1990) who is thought to be one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach; what is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that ‘crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships’. He also noted that violations create obligations and liabilities and that restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs. Restorative jus...
Scapegoats appear abundant in the world today. Political parties and businesses consistently seem to find a person or small group that takes the blame for serious issues. This can cause problems and arguments that sometimes lead to something serious like wars. Scapegoats are just a way of passing blame off of oneself and on to others, just so reputations can remain intact. This sort of attitude shows how lethargic the world has become, where people don’t even take responsibility for their actions. Many people from older generations complain about how all the new generations become too comatose and unwilling to take on their own actions and indiscretions. With attitudes like this, peace will never be found and will inevitably lead to conflict. Something must be done to stem the flow of scapegoats which have been utilized far too much over time.
Especially in political contexts, knowledge of basic facts is critical because often victims and the broader political community do now know who was responsible for the wrong suffered, nor the extent of violations committed. Acknowledgement refers to the official, public recognition of what happened. This is often needed to counter official denial of wrongdoing or responsibility for wrongdoing. The often unspoken, Freudian assumption is that suppressed traumas will inevitably re-emerge in destructive ways. The more explicit arguments are that the acknowledgement of wrongs and of victims helps heal psychic wounds (van Ness and Strong, 2002), enable re-establish normative standards for behavior , and reassert that the victims are indeed members of the moral or political community (Llewellyn and Howse,
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
It aims to describe an arrangement of the major political and social institutions of a society such as the constitution, legal system, economy, family, and so on as being fair. Fairness is also at the core of restorative justice. Unlike the retributive system restorative justice is concerned with reforming. Not just the offender but the wrongdoing itself. As previously mentioned, the victim is not primary subject of the retributive system the law or state is. This is an unfair assurance of power by the state over the victim, to the point they where the victim may even feel re-victimized. The State assess what was lost, the state gets to talk at the trial, the victim rarely gets a chance to even see the offender before the trial. By keeping the participants of the trial apart the likelihood of proliferating long lasting resentment, and emotional trauma increases. Dining both parties closure and healing. Rawls believes the state should only be the facilitator of these communications between the parties not key participant in the
Stewart, M. (2011). The space between the steps: reckoning in an area of reconciliation. Contemporary Justice Review, 14(1), 43-63. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/10282580.2011.541076
A. Scapegoats: Transferring the Blame. London: Routledge, 1995. Print. The. Giblen, J & Frampton, D. “Finding Scapegoats”.
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process.