The fatal risk of choosing reconciliation over consequences
I have thought more than most about what it means to punish crimes and what it means when we don’t — what denial, or ignorance, or conscious refusal to act can do to the very fabric of a nation, and what it does to victims.
I wrote a doctoral thesis on three countries that chose to largely ignore crimes committed by the government, the military and violent non-governmental actors. In doing so, Brazil, Chile and South Africa fundamentally undermined their fledgling democracies. Bad actors across the spectrum learned that there were no consequences for their horrific behaviour — and so they kept on behaving that way. They passed traditions of torture, corruption and authoritarianism to the next generations.
Countries also lost the opportunity to create an official record of what happened and, for those that wanted to deny what happened or write a more flattering history, they could.
So here is my warning to the United States. Ignore the acts of January 6 at your peril. The physical and societal violence committed by the right wing extremists will have echoes in the political discourse, but it will also leave lasting marks on the society.
In the aftermath of the riot on the United States Capitol building, there were almost immediate calls for reconciliation. Mostly from the right but also a few calls from the left. Some commentators argued that putting the would-be insurrectionists on no-fly lists smacked of revenge and arresting them would be a step to far.
But at the heart of the argument is the question of how you view punishment. If punishment is just to get your pound of flesh from someone you feel has wronged you, then yes, calls to bypass the punishment and head to reconciliation might make sense, and could be considered even nobel.
However, if you believe punishment for crimes serves other purposes then you might want to take a breath and look at suitable consequences for criminal actions.
For harmed communities punishment can validate the pain and suffering they have experienced, telling them that what happened was wrong and not part of the existing — or future — moral order.
Punishment also sets the bar for the wider society — establishing what is ok, and what is not ok. Take torture, for example. If those who are found guilty of torturing people face punishment for those actions, then it communicates to the wider community that this is not ok. If multiple people face punishment for torture, then that punishment can end up being a circuit breaker of long held institutional behaviour and beliefs. For those who stormed the Capitol building, and those who encouraged them to do it, facing punishment for those actions might be uncomfortable but it also communicates to everyone that this is not ok, that there will be consequences if you try it again. On the flip-side — no punishment tells people that this is an acceptable course of action to take. Without punishment, you can expect a similar attack to happen in the future.
Punishment also tells the individual that their behaviour is not ok, not accepted and there will be consequences. It goes without saying that that is an important element of justice. However, it is not the only element.
If there is no punishment, no consequences, then a very dangerous precedent is set. Victims will feel the need to take action into their own hands, or, more often, feel like they have no place in the wider society and check out just as democracy needs them, society will develop a new normal around what is acceptable behaviour, and individuals will feel no need to change their present or future actions.
Reconciliation is a wonderful idea and a worthy goal. But it needs to come as a byproduct of truth and justice, not an alternative to it.