As odd as it might sound, America has a very peculiar social-economical-governmental behavior compared to its south american neighbors. Americans usually trigger change based on economic scenarios, such as the socialist tendency of the Hoover Bills triggered by the Great Depression.
On the other hand, South American revolutions (see definition of revolution below) tend to follow social change triggered by government regimes; economic circumstances are not factored in the equation.
This leads us to the analysis of a particularly interested set of incidents that happened in Argentina on the late 1900s: The Dirty War. These events basically consisted in a de facto regime ran by military officials, where in an effort to avoid a trend of bankruptcy and national catastrophe happening throughout South America, the regime leaders ended up wiping out "liable" cities, torturing citizens, and nationalizing private industries.
(If you're curious enough and not that well versed in the topic I'll suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War)
These events do not surprise me at all. South America was going through a phase where mono economies (especially those based on agriculture) were failing almost as much as Apple's first tablet, Newton, failed when it was first released to the market. However, once the Argentinian conflicts were resolved a series of trials were performed in order to evaluate the regime leaders' penalties.
After having clear allegations of terrorism and torture, the national judicial system and the inter-american court of human rights (plus all the passive bystanders that knew about these incidents) decided that it was rightful to pass a law of pardon to everyone involved in the regime and its criminal actions (extra reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop_law).
That being said, I ask the following question: If a country, ruled with "contemporary" laws and a functional judicial system decided that it was acceptable to forgive civil war crimes against humanity, what does this imply in future engagements of these same infringements of the law?
People sometimes assume that the world we live in is always fair and just, and that law is always executed in the most rightful way; this is just a subtle reminder that regardless of that law mandates, it is always officially possible to get around it.
Definitions:
revolution: In the words of Alexander Berkman, "social revolution means the reorganization of the industrial, economic life of the country and consequently also of the entire structure of society."
This post is even more interesting in light of our discussion about applying the findings of neuroscience to punishment. In class, Professor Tresan mentioned this case: We are still identifying people today who were members of the SS during the Holocaust. These people are now very elderly, and many of them have not committed a crime since the holocaust ended. Should these people be tried for human rights violations?
ReplyDeleteAgain, we must weigh the benefits of retributivism against consequentialism. In the case of both the criminals during the Dirty War and the now elderly SS guards, retributivist considerations point to punishing being the right choice, whereas consequentialist thinkers would see the merits of letting these crimes go unpunished.
I dont know what the right answer is, but I think this example presents a very strong argument for Dershowitz's "torture warrants." Countries continue to torture despite it being against the law. History (your example, my example) shows that after the torture ends, all those who have tortured will not go to jail. Maybe some will, but never all. Seems to present a strong reason for why torture warrants would be an effective way to decide which people should pay for the human rights abuses, and which human rights abuses should be seen as common acts of war.
This is very similar to what we covered near the end of the class with regards to natural law theory. According to natural theory, a law that is unjust is not a law. However, this seems to undermine the concept that laws should be fair or just rather than promote it. For example, at one point of time unjust law "x" may be passed and people act in accordance to it, but then it turns out that unjust law "x" is somehow destroyed and those who acted in accordance to "x" are being punished. There is punishment for the individuals not based on whether they broke the law in this case (e.g. remembering that unjust laws are not laws) but for the violation of particular moral principles. The idea that you can simply say that an unjust law is not a law seems to promote more unjust laws.
ReplyDelete