retributive justice – Engaging Peace

[This is the third of four posts by Dr. Leakhena Nou on the legacy of the Khmer Rouge genocide.]

In the 21st century, efforts have been made to promote restorative justice and end the culture of impunity in Cambodia. For example, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, a hybrid court drawing on U.N. and Cambodian legal teams, began prosecuting senior Khmer Rouge perpetrators in February 2009.

Killing Fields bones of children in Cambodia. Photo by Oliver Spalt used under CC Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic license.

In Case 001, Kaing Guek Eav (alias Duch, former S-21 Chief Commandant), was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity (murder, enslavement, torture, and other inhumane acts). When Duch appealed the verdict, the ECCC responded by handing down a sentence of life imprisonment without parole or further appeals.

Duch’s formal apology was disseminated to the public:

“May I be permitted to apologize to the survivors of the [Khmer Rouge] regime and also the loved ones of those who died brutally during the regime […] I know that the crimes I committed against the lives of those people, including women and children, are intolerably and unforgivably serious crimes. My plea is that you leave the door open for me to seek forgiveness.”

In your view, how should Cambodians and others respond to such an apology after a genocide?

Case 002 brings to trial four other senior leaders of the Khmer Rouge including Ieng Sary (former Minister of Foreign Affairs), and his wife Ieng Thirith (former Minister of Social Affairs).

Despite current legal initiatives to end the culture of impunity and deter violence, Cambodia remains plagued by chronic, multifaceted, and evolving social problems. These include

Human and sex trafficking and other related human rights abuses
High rates of unemployment, poverty, diseases, and domestic violence
Widening inequalities among social groups, and
Lack of access to adequate education, health, and social services.

These shortcomings highlight and reinforce many of the social, economic, political, and structural problems and conditions that ignited the Khmer Rouge violence nearly forty years ago.

Leakhena Nou, Associate Professor of sociology at California State University at Long Beach and executive director of the Applied Social Research Institute of Cambodia

Americans are expected to pledge allegiance to a flag that symbolizes “liberty and justice for all.” But, as one of our readers asked recently, “What is justice?”

One common distinction is between retributive justice and restorative justice:

Retributive justice:

Focuses on punishment for perceived transgressions
Is imposed unilaterally on a weaker party by a stronger party
Argues that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the offense—e.g., an eye for an eye
Is viewed as having a strong basis in Western values, particularly those of men

Restorative justice:

Rejects the notion that punishment of an offender adequately restores justice
Views transgressions as bilateral or multilateral conflicts involving perpetrators, victims, and their communities
Recommends bringing together all parties to exchange stories and move toward apology and forgiveness.

Depending on our family and community values, we are exposed to varying levels of these forms of justice and develop ideas regarding which form is best. For example, in families:

Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and to follow strict rules and punish them if they don’t—consistent with retributive justice beliefs
Authoritative parents are more democratic, more responsive to their children’s needs and questions, and favor understanding and forgiveness over punishment—consistent with restorative justice beliefs

And in nations:

The U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people, including the most women in the world
Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”
The video above shows how the Rwandan government has approached the issue of justice in the aftermath of that country’s genocide

Which type of justice is embraced by each society? On what basis is one approach more just than the other? Which do you favor? Why?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology