To build the society that we want to live in, which principle do we think is more important — mercy or justice? This was the topic of the latest of the discussion groups that I attended. At first most of us had our knee-jerk opinion — we had decided on our principles and decided which was more appropriate for us. But as the discussion went on we began to question these immediate reactions and wonder if perhaps we were being a little too hard or too soft on ourselves and others.
To even start talking about this topic, we sort of need to get our heads around which is which, and whether they are in fact opposed at all. Can you have justice without mercy? Is blanket mercy just? Is justice antithetical for mercy — is it the search for retribution and punishment? And if it is, then where does restorative justice fit in? Let me tell you, it wasn’t light Wednesday evening conversation.
The creator of the particular discussion topic said that what had interested her was Prof Jansen’s decision in the Reitz 4 saga. That she felt mercy was the right decision in that case because it created a more open space for the discussion of racial tensions and issues that obviously existed. Other members of the group were vehemently in favour of punishment. She thought that what the 4 had done was inexcusable. That there was no space for mercy, because to give them mercy was to deny justice to the people involved in the video — the victims of their crimes. I was, unusually for me, a fence-sitter. I battled with the idea that these 4 should be excused, and allowed to continue as though nothing had happened. But in order for societal healing to take place what good would punishing them have done?
It would obviously acknowledge that what they did was inexcusable — that in a society based on the constitutional premise of non-racialism then activities like this cannot be accepted. The perpetrators need to be accountable to their actions, and accountable to a public that wants them to apologise. So let’s say that the rector had decided to expel them, to punish them and deny them the access to their education … is the feeling then that things would be all better. That this form of retributive justice would somehow heal the situation?
But complete mercy here also seems unjust. To let them off the hook and absolve them through letting this issue slide denies the community and the victims of their racism the right to dignity. It says to all of us who found their actions unforgivable that we must forgive, without apology or request for forgiveness. Can we forgive, without an apology? Should we?
But what is appealing about mercy is it forces us to admit that we are all flawed, and that to continue to deny that these tensions exist, or to expect them to cease to exist with the expulsion of 4 young men is only to strap on a giant pair of rose-tinted glasses and look the other way.
What is also appealing about this whole dilemma is that it forces us to tackle what is problematic about this situation. Are we all so angry because they have damaged the society, the premise that we live in the rainbow nation each of us in our own colour pressing up against people of other colour in a glorious arching unity? Have they destroyed our bubble, popped it and allowed us to see that the elephant in the room has not gone away simply because we’ve draped it in a colourless blanket. Are we unable to forgive because we can’t find a similar instance of hurtful behaviour in our own actions?
For me what was most upsetting about the whole ordeal was not the big picture but the small one. To try and empathise with the staff who these young men violated left me reeling with pain and anger. How could these young men, so self-assured and selectively ignorant, deny the dignity of the people who worked with them? This is where the injustice is. But now … where from here?
What would be the resolution that most of us would seek? Do we want an eye for an eye? Or are we ready to admit that this is not productive? Or do we forgive, because we recognise that it is also part of carrying on?
For me, I want more than either of these options. But I’m just not sure what …
Its an interesting phenomenon to see how most white bloggers and commentators either fence-sit or side with Jansen and the perpetrators. Its indicative of how sick our society really is! Unfortunately, people like Jansen will continue to drag their feet in the crucial transformation of a racist institution like UFS.
Why does your warped logic imply that simple expulsion of these this racist, ill-bred students would constitute “unmerciful” justice? Nobody is asking for these students to be lynched, stoned, tortured or even imprisoned! Any civilized society requires a basic sense of justice and expulsion is the LEAST we can to do to heal the damaged race relations:
-It gives these racist students and their parents time to reflect and atone for their atrocities.
-It gives the victims and the entire black community a sense of justice.
-It sends a CLEAR message to other would be perpetrators that this behavior will no longer be tolerated and clears the air at UFS.
-It says to SA and the world that we are finally transforming into a civilized society where debasement of our fellow human beings is not acceptable.
Apartheid indoctrination re-calibrated white superiority and black inferiority to such an extent that basic humanity dignity seems to be an alien concept to many South Africans. In our sick society, even plain old justice is now no longer deemed “merciful” and dealing with racism is now pondered upon as some kind of existential dilemma – sheesh!
Jennifer, I like the discussion topic; challenging, but hard to make a call on.
Can we have mercy AND justice? In the reitz 4 case, I believe so. Personally I think mercy was shown by the Uni, which didn’t need to happen. They had violated the institution in their behaviour, and therefore could stay expelled. That’s the justice part. It sends a clear message to others.
The Mercy part should come from the court. People are baying for blood here, and although rightly outraged, when compared to other crimes (rape, murder, home invasions, carjackings etc etc) the physical actions of the crime were not that great. It was the insensitivity of it all that caused the outrage. The way that it tarred white South Africans, left us feeling ashamed and embarressed. The way they felt no respect for the African ladies, enraged indiginous Africans. These boys need punishing, in my mind it’s clear. The court however can show mercy here in the punishment they command. The punishment should fit the crime – it should involve humiliation and leave them wondering about their values and respect for African women. I’d suggest that they would have to perform domestic duties for these victims over a period of time. Like community service, but specifically to the victims. They may find that they see these people as people at the end of it all.
We can have mercy, justice, and end it all with humility perhaps?
The Reits four were victims of a backward system that still exists within the university…namely segregated residences…How on earth in 2009 in South Africa do we still allow segregated living? Blacks in one res, whites in a anaother?
Thats shameful and its little wonder that these kids did what they did.
What are we talking about? Where are the two parties to this dispute, and what do they say about this matter? I find it odd that we incessantly condemn for those wronged and apologize for the perpetrators. Even as we partake in the matter, we must be led by them. No one apologizes for anybody and no one condemns for anybody.
How about justice, tempered by mercy….
Excellently put Jen. Thanks
In my opinion, the rector did the right thing in withdrawing charges; my joy in being South African rests gleefully on our recent history of choosing forgiveness over retribution.
However, I don’t think that the actions of the 4 cannot go unpunished, either – especially considering their brazenness, or at least the lack in the media of any indication of remorse or apology. Perhaps a few thousand hours of community service would be more beneficial that jail time or any forced apology. Experience of our sameness is perhaps, in part, what they need, to counter what they have learned.
As for justice vs mercy…here again, words fall short of what we need them to mean. Wouldn’t it be great if we could describe some kind of hybrid – and call it “jurcy”
This would be the perfect solution: a situation where victim and perpetrator alike understand and respect the need for both punishment and forgiveness.
It’s nice to dream.
It seems to me that mercy can only be given to those who truly repent. They have to recognise and understand what they did wrong. And if they really understand – then they will expect, and accept, that they deserve some form of punishment.
Only once they have fulfilled these requirements can some measure of mercy be shown. And should be shown, if we live in a civilised society.
Whether or not the Reitz 4 have shown any remorse is something that is unclear to me. And whether what they have been through is sufficient punishment is another question. Perhaps Prof. Jansen is in a position to know the answers?
Back to today’s Michael Francis post. Perhaps the white educated enjoy the luxury of debating points like this too much.
Pupils are expelled from schools for far less. Other pupils are hero-worshipped for far more, as long as race doesn’t enter into it.
Do thousands of black people feel utter embarrassment over every brutal farm murder?
Give over, Guys and stop giving the Reitz 4 column space.
Above all, they still deserve a damn good hiding from their fathers!
To quote the Bard, justice must be seasoned by mercy.
But note well that mercy must come properly from the victim — the one who will forfeit his/her due — not from society and state.
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
’T is mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s,
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, [Merchant},
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.
ATTRIBUTION: The Merchant of Venice. Act iv. Sc. 1. [text]
WORKS: William Shakespeare Collection.
The funny part about this dream is that Africans continue to be screwed.
Let me be Biblical for a moment. James 2:13 – because judgement without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful.Mercy triumps over judgement.
The Reitz4 need to find a way to show mercy towards those who were wronged, (on a personal level)otherwise judgement is without mercy.
Maybe Nahor’s suggestion of community service to the wronged is not a bad idea at all.
This is less of a comment regarding the philosophical dilemma at hand; however, in response to Terence’s comment: I think that the idea of court-ordered community service is something that seems to be vastly underused in South Africa while it is action that is instituted fairly commonly in the United States, for example. South Africa is certainly awash with opportunities for community service that could truly make a meaningful difference in people’s daily circumstances as well as (hopefully) giving perpetrators food for thought and the opportunity to physically make amends for their actions.
As I understood Prof Jansen in an interview he gave on 702 he saw that the University, as an institution, was itself guilty of racist practices and therefore it could not, in all honesty, righteously impose sanctions on the Reitz 4 because of their racist behaviour.
Therefore he had decided to withdraw the punishment imposed by the institution. This did not mean that he condoned their behaviour and it was rightly going to be judged by the State in a court case.
Prof Jansen is a deep thinker whose decisions have a profound spiritual base. We desperately need more people of his calibre in public life in South Africa. We seem to have far too few of them.
The problem in deciding upon the relevance of either mercy or justice must surely revolve around a comparison of the circumstances involved. To bring a sense of proportion to this current discussion it may therefore be worthwhile to relate the actions of the Reitz Four to those of the Odendaalsrust Two
The Two were of the same age as the Reitz Four when, in March of this year, they broke into a house on a smallholding occupied by a 77 year-old mother and her 57 year-old mentally retarded daughter. The boys held the women down, stripped them, shredded their vaginas with a broken bottle, cut the breasts off one of them, and then sat back to watch their agonised expiry from loss of blood.
My questions then are: Must the same standards of mercy and justice apply in both cases? And why the disparity of media publicity involved?
If you doubt the circumstances described above you can Google ‘Helen Lotter’ for details.
I believe in case of such an act the mercy should be left to the victim and the court should make a legal decission. The whole idea of justice should be that the victim should feel ok with the outcome.
I do not think anyone has the right to forgive execp the victim though I believe forgiveness always gets long term and lasting results.
the rector should then come up with other projects that will eradicate the cirsumstances that may result in similar acts in future.
As a suggestion, these guys can stay with these victims for a while and appreciate that they are human, mother, sister, aunt, daughter, etc. just like the ones of the victims.
zasucks newnation southafricathetruth are the websites some of you teach the kids to believe in the things the Reitz racist believe about us…How then you act ashamed when it is in ur culture to organise and run websites to hate the’African’ while arguing you are ‘African’ – Confusing.
Am of the view that in a country where independence(a lesser form of Freedom) is gained through debates, talk and forums, the African will never be respected(even if he can lead a country-as Mandela just witnessed in the Casino saga where a song cursing him was played)
So it may be that the solution to all of this belittling of the African person if for him to teach the belittler(sounds like Hilter) humanity. And if it needs to be the Frantz fanon humanism that comes with the gun, we wait and see. One thing I know about the Afrikan is that he has a lot of patience, but when it runs out…Zimbabwe will be a childs play.
Basically every time white South Africans show us their hate, WE ABSORB IT
Spot on Geraldo!
Mu Afrika: you and I can’t respect each other because we don’t even know each other. If I met you, I could then decide whether or not I liked you and vice versa. Respect grow for there. You assume I spend every day with dislike in my heart and soul for all black people. I don’t! I have far too much else on my mind.
The black people that I associate with regularly, appear to get on quite well with me. We enjoy each others’ company. Could you and I enjoy each others’ company? That depends, I think, what is in your heart and soul…
@MLH
Respect is not a result of liking to me. I give respect to everyone until they start making withdrawals on it without depositing.
Don’t go the heart and soul route with me cos then you start trying to analyze me based on my post and you start telling me of ‘hate’ ‘apartheid being gone and the need to ‘get over it’ Racism is not apartheid but it is the belief that fueled apartheid. So apartheid is gone a s a system but the belief is well alive.
Am not interested in you and me getting together and liking each other, am interested in you realize that the African people are no lesser beings, period. This idea of selecting the better ‘darkies’ and bringing them to the table is exactly why the sites I mention above still run, cos the people with access to the internet are the select darkies who are no longer identifying with the stigma of ‘blackness’ and as they say ‘I’M A HUMAN BEING’ to which i say human being my s!
Anyhow Mercy without apology got us here in the first place the fact that the blogger still questions it mean she does not feel the heat that most black people feel every time one of them is treated like an animal because they are black.
In the end the coconuts stall anti-racism talk by telling us there is no racism look I made it(e.g Redi Direko and FBJ debate!!)
A very relevant article! The most vital point to grasp is that mercy and justice are not mutually exclusive, in that it is not a case of choosing one over the other, or having one at the expense of the other. The truth is that there can be no mercy where justice is not satisfied.
C.S. Lewis writes that to be punished, no matter how severely, because we indeed deserve it, is to be treated with dignity as human beings created. And in this sense, it is through punishment that the offender is able to regain the humanity he/she has lost in committing an offense (for this is what happens: I lose a part of my own humanity when I disregard the humanity of others). So to punish someone, is to love and care for them and their humanity, because it teaches them about right and wrong.
Nahor’s point about humility is crucial. We must recognise that the same capacity for evil exists in our own hearts, even as we judge the evil actions of others. And this is where mercy and understanding comes in: through such humble recognition. This carries through into HOW we punish and institute justice.
Very importantly, to forgive someone (whether or not they are sorry – and there is great power in this) and show mercy in this way, is not to absolve them of the consequences of what they have done. Indeed, it is to imbue such consequences with healing and redemptive power.
Well Jenny T, your happy theorising rather falls apart when confronted by harshest realities, doesn’t it?
Pity they didn’t cover the extremities of possibility in that comfortably liberal university you attended.
So how about you now write something to ensure those old ladies didn’t die in vain? Say something that draws all of us in this country together under the universal umbrella of comparable standards – whether of justice or of mercy.
As I see it, the purpose of justice is 1) recompense (as far as possible) of the victim(s), and 2) deterrance to prevent future infringements. Mercy should not undermine these two objects, but should be applied in all other cases. Retribution / punishment that does not address one of these ends is also vacuous.
A problem arises when we imagine that the only way in which we can be compensated for a crime against us, is by punishing the perpetrator. In fact, if I am a victim, I can often mitigate the ugly consequences of the crime against me far more effectively by forgiving, than by nursing my hurts and hoping that retribution will make the hurt go away.
Admittedly the above is somewhat idealistic, but I believe it is an ideal worth pursuing. If I refuse to forgive, I become a double-victim: a victim of the crime itself, and a victim of my own hurt.
Applying the above to the Reitz 4, I do not think the crime will happen again. The issue to be addressed is therefore appropriate recompense. That is a matter between the victims and the perpetrators to work through. Forgiveness on the part of the victims, and an offer of financial recompense on the part of the perpetrators would seem to be the way to go.
Banana Peel: I agree. It is totally shameful. Perhaps that is exatly what Prof Jansen realises: that these 4 are a product of a system that itself requires healing before judgement can be passed.
Cassey: the Reitz 4 was just an example for a bigger question – which is more useful – Justice or Mercy?
David: I think you might be onto something there. Justice without the consideration of each particular case e.g. blind justice just doesn’t seem to fit in the SA context.
Terence: I like the idea of community service but what I think could be mroe useful would be some sort of community healing. I.E. get all members of the community involved in assessing where actions like this evolve from.
Anne: I’m sort of wit you on that. I know I really struggle to forgive someone who hasn’t apologised. But is mercy the same as forgiveness?
MLH: “perhaps the white educated…” – Not sure when trying to resolve a critical social issue through vigorous debate and discussion became raced. I’m pretty sure educated people of all colours use their degrees to debate these topics.
I’m not really sure why you felt it necessary to criticise me, instead of my perspective. But for me that just indicates an argument weakness on your part. Either way, your comments offer nothing constructive or useful.
And your comment “Do thousands of black people feel utter embarrassment over every brutal farm murder?” Are you saying that only black people are farm murderers? Just checking.
Or are you saying that everyone should just accept these things happen, and move on without wanting to resolve the obvious tensions underlying them?
Jessop: I like it. That would have helped the other night.
Babas: I’m an African too.
Hendre: I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying the Reitz 4 should show mercy? I was asking about how we deal with them.
Jing: you and Terence are spot on.
Rory: I agree. But I think some sort of detailed statement should have been made. It would have been interesting to hear from the 4 andfrom the people who were the victims of the crime.
Geraldo: Firstly, My name is Jennifer. So being condescending and pulling ad hominem moves like MLF says more about you than it does about me. Avoid the “Jenny T” bullsh1t in future please.
I think part of justice involves looking at each situation for its particular context and recognising that making a decision and applying it in a blanket fashion to all future cases cannot work. Justice lies in giving each case the full weight of your consideration and assessing all factors. I think that these cases may be compared because they were both vicious crimes, and were terribly terribly wrong. But I think to assume that a decision made about one must apply to the other is flawed. They each have complex contexts which is why justice is not easily reached.
Aydin: I like the idea that the victims should be ok with the outcomes, because if the point of justice is not to recognise the harm that they have faced, then what is it?
But, what happens in situations where the victims want violent retribution?
What happens when the victims have died?
Is justice only applicable when the victims want it, or is it something that we should seek regardless (e.g. in the Polanski case – should we still seek a conviction because he was involved in statutory rape even though the survivor does not want to go forward with the trial?)
@ Dave Harris
Actually FFPlus’s Corne Mulder asked for the 4 youths to be ‘stoned and neclaced’ on View From the House on SABC 2 last week. He said thats what the ANC is doing here in South Africa. Asked where he said we all have seen the pictures of Winnie Mandela and the child….jaw drops
JUSTICE according to whose standards, MERCY according to whose value system? These two terms are relative in their application, thus the present impasse.
In the new RSA what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, our rainbow is too complex for such simplified analogy.
Let us avoid trivialising a complicated and complex scenario, FORGIVENESS should be the premise of whether the two can and/or have been achieved. If the victims have not forgiven their perpetrators no JUSTICE or MERCY can be achived!
Dave Harris: Your comments are always so boring. I think you should save yourself the time by ceasing to point out my race at the start of every single one of your posts. I am white – everyone can see it from my picture without you telling them repeatedly.
Secondly the Reitz 4 was just an example to illustrate the topic of the discussion. You could use it to deliberate any legal issue, or simple day to day interactions with people who have wronged you.
Finally: expelling the students without forcing them to explain their actions and express remorse is not a solution. All it does is scapegoat them when the problem goes far beyond these 4. And I am not sure it is justice for the victims. Is a simple expulsion equal to the torment that they caused?
A statement about this needs to be made and I am just so glad that it’s not you who is going to make it!
I remember well how in my younger years I have been following the “Truth and Reconciliation” trials in South Africa, finding it to be one of the most amazing ways to achieve JUSTICE and MERCI at the same time.
Have you forgotten your own history? The answer is there, the proof is there that it is a viable approach (although some may well disagree on that so take that as my personal opinion).
Just a thought from an outsider.
Chico: You are confusing separate issues. The purpose of justice is not to deter, it is to respond appropriately to a violation of another’s rights. Deterrance is successful if the criminal is deterred, but does not even speak to the issue of justice being done and of consequent rights being upheld. I will quote C.S. Lewis again:
“It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust…We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these last two questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a “just deterrent” or a “just cure”. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.”
Blackbravo: How relative really are such ideas as justice and mercy? I think we all feel a similar moral outrage at cases like the Reitz 4, farm murders, rapes and genocides. Doesn’t this speak to some kind of a common moral sense inherent in all of us?
I can’t decide whether mercy is possible without forgiveness. I’m in the very fortunate position of never having had to forgive anyone for anything extreme against me. But if I think about being burgled – if I met the robbers and heard their reasons for robbing me, if I felt there were extenuating circumstances, I think I could forgive and be merciful. I don’t know how I’d feel about a violent crime against me or anyone close to me.
For me so much depends on the perpetrator’s actions consequent to his crime. Showing no mercy for someone who genuinely regrets their actions and is prepared to accept the consequences – doesn’t that become vengence?
@Hanna Barry: Thanks for the CS Lewis quote. Very interesting. I respect his writings greatly, but I regard his argument here as shaky.
Suppose a sentence has no deterrent effect whatsoever, and brings no comfort/recompense whatsoever to the victim. I fail to see how such a sentence serves justice. I don’t see how you can decouple “deserve” from deterrence and recompense: the perpetrator “deserves” a sentence that will deter him/her and others, and that will maximally recompense the victim—no less, and no more. How else can one measure what sentence is “deserved”?
Note that I use deterrence in the widest sense. The best form for the individual is total rehabilitation. That generally entails treating the perpetrator with human dignity.
I suspect that Lewis uses his notion of justice to argue the case for so-called redemptive theology. Although I am a practicing Christian, I do not accept this theological metaphor. It has its roots in Pauline Christology, it dominated medieval and reformation protestant spirituality and IMHO, is the reason why so many in the secular world reject their Christianit roots. But that, I suppose, is another debate that probably does not belong on this blog site.
KwaZulu before this Roman-Dutch corrupt view of the ‘law’ – If my grandfathers cow destroyed the neighbours crop(which they often did everytime we went river swimming) The wronger would go to Induna- (Chief’s representative who can make ruling on cases) and it was known that the man whose cows destroyed the crop will have to compensate the man whose crop was destroyed and THEN him and his family plant the field, and often the wrongd would join him in replanting (thus forgiveness and a possible strengthening of friendship) – If the case is hard for induna, he would refer it to the chief.(Although this system was corrupted in some places by born agains refusing to appear before induna and some started bribing induna with bootleg market brandy/whisky. At the time one could give a man whose work makes the community better anything from a chicken to a cow, and it was not considered ‘BRIBE’ cos there was no need.
So the issue of justice and mercy had a clear place in the original arrangement which the people of KwaMthethwa in Zululand and other surrounding places (Ntambanan, KwaMbonambi, KwaCebekhulu) followed until the political violence of the late 80′s that spilled into rural KZN and the izinduna and chiefs were told that they belong to IFP(IFP being the apartheid government’s garden boy) Izinduna were forced(by IFP) to subscribe to the courts and uneducated police.
SO Merciful-Justice died with every paranoid king and colonisation and Christianity.