Comments on: Merciful justice

By: MuAfrika

MuAfrika — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:06:43 +0000

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.

By: Chico

Chico — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:08:46 +0000

@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.

By: Anne

Anne — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:20:03 +0000

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?

By: Hanna Barry

Hanna Barry — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:05:42 +0000

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?

By: John Dierckx

John Dierckx — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:55:19 +0000

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.

By: Jennifer Thorpe

Jennifer Thorpe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 12:05:48 +0000

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!

By: Blackbravo

Blackbravo — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:51:03 +0000

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!

By: MuAfrika

MuAfrika — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:56:10 +0000

@ 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

By: Jennifer Thorpe

Jennifer Thorpe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:52:35 +0000

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?)

By: Jennifer Thorpe

Jennifer Thorpe — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:45:58 +0000

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.