A Country's Guilt
I was at debate last Monday, and an interesting thought was presented. While I don't know the actual opinion of the team, they argued for the purposes of the debate round that the United States should front the bill for a new prison facility in Afghanistan in order to prevent instances of torture and other abuses. Their rationale was basically that the United States should pay for past mistreatment.
This got me thinking, should a country have the whole of its citizens pay for the damages of some? Should later generations have to pay restitutions for the harms of their forbearers, such as slavery restitutions? In thinking it through, I would argue quite simply "no."
The basic reason is that forcing restitutions, economic or otherwise, harms those who are themselves innocent of the crime. When punishing an offence, punishing the entire population of the country will cause more harm than good. Effectively, two wrongs don't make a right.
Take for example Germany after World War I. The payments required of Germany to war ravaged countries soon caused economic conditions in Germany to spiral out of control. Money printed by the German government became more valuable as a fire starter than as a currency. These conditions created an environment that prompted desperation and indeed, a measure of support for nationalist parties such as Hitler and the Nazis.
Now, I'm not arguing that forcing a country to pay for past grievances will cause a Fascist dictator to start a world war, but rather that the standard in determining the correct extent of legal damages is lacking. Even within the United States legal system, the criteria for determining the correct extent of damages owed is nebulous at best. Any measurement of harm done to a human being in dollars and cents is bound to be difficult to ascertain … especially if you don't want to cause harm to the payer for being compelled to give too much.
Germany also provides an example of how it is false to assume the entire country is guilty or in support of its government's actions. There was a German resistance group that culminated in the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. Furthermore, citizens themselves were involved in resistance groups that did not support Hitler and expressed themselves non-violently. Because not every German citizen supported Hitler, voted for Hitler, or followed Hitler's orders in committing atrocities, to say that the whole of Germany was evil is false.
The government is admittedly supposed to represent the people … but if the government commits a wrong, should the people have to pay for it? Should the actions of a governmental individual compel all of society to pay for that individual's crimes? In the slavery question today, should later generations be forced to pay the offspring of those that were harmed? Multiple generations of people came to this country in the 1900s … should they also have to pay for the harms of those before them? I say that punishment should rest where punishment is due … not some vague notion of a country's guilt.
So, the impact of these examples is that forcing economic restitutions is often itself wrong. It is wrong to take undue amounts of money as reconciliatory measure because often there is not a good standard for determining to what extent damage is owed. Even more important, however, is the fact that forcing citizens to pay restitution lumps them all into a general "guilty" category that is not only untrue but also causes even worse feelings of resentment and discord. The bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, I have given thought to an alternative. As far as I can see, rather than continuing a cycle of harming one group to "fix" the harm of another, the solution is to forgive, forget, and move on. Direct damages should certainly be paid, but money isn't everything. Unfortunately, I doubt this whole "forgiveness" thing will catch on before there are a lot more payments demanded and received.
This got me thinking, should a country have the whole of its citizens pay for the damages of some? Should later generations have to pay restitutions for the harms of their forbearers, such as slavery restitutions? In thinking it through, I would argue quite simply "no."
The basic reason is that forcing restitutions, economic or otherwise, harms those who are themselves innocent of the crime. When punishing an offence, punishing the entire population of the country will cause more harm than good. Effectively, two wrongs don't make a right.
Take for example Germany after World War I. The payments required of Germany to war ravaged countries soon caused economic conditions in Germany to spiral out of control. Money printed by the German government became more valuable as a fire starter than as a currency. These conditions created an environment that prompted desperation and indeed, a measure of support for nationalist parties such as Hitler and the Nazis.
Now, I'm not arguing that forcing a country to pay for past grievances will cause a Fascist dictator to start a world war, but rather that the standard in determining the correct extent of legal damages is lacking. Even within the United States legal system, the criteria for determining the correct extent of damages owed is nebulous at best. Any measurement of harm done to a human being in dollars and cents is bound to be difficult to ascertain … especially if you don't want to cause harm to the payer for being compelled to give too much.
Germany also provides an example of how it is false to assume the entire country is guilty or in support of its government's actions. There was a German resistance group that culminated in the 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. Furthermore, citizens themselves were involved in resistance groups that did not support Hitler and expressed themselves non-violently. Because not every German citizen supported Hitler, voted for Hitler, or followed Hitler's orders in committing atrocities, to say that the whole of Germany was evil is false.
The government is admittedly supposed to represent the people … but if the government commits a wrong, should the people have to pay for it? Should the actions of a governmental individual compel all of society to pay for that individual's crimes? In the slavery question today, should later generations be forced to pay the offspring of those that were harmed? Multiple generations of people came to this country in the 1900s … should they also have to pay for the harms of those before them? I say that punishment should rest where punishment is due … not some vague notion of a country's guilt.
So, the impact of these examples is that forcing economic restitutions is often itself wrong. It is wrong to take undue amounts of money as reconciliatory measure because often there is not a good standard for determining to what extent damage is owed. Even more important, however, is the fact that forcing citizens to pay restitution lumps them all into a general "guilty" category that is not only untrue but also causes even worse feelings of resentment and discord. The bottom line is that two wrongs don't make a right.
Now, I have given thought to an alternative. As far as I can see, rather than continuing a cycle of harming one group to "fix" the harm of another, the solution is to forgive, forget, and move on. Direct damages should certainly be paid, but money isn't everything. Unfortunately, I doubt this whole "forgiveness" thing will catch on before there are a lot more payments demanded and received.
posted by Matt Pitchford at 22:10
2 Comments:
"I say that punishment should rest where punishment is due … not some vague notion of a country's guilt."
On the subject of slavery restitutions, where *is* punishment due?
-"Pops"
Well, presumabely the slave owners. Which is a problem considering there are very few left alive ... That's the whole point of a generational guilt. Not every person was a slave owner, and none of the generations that would be taxed for restitutions were slave owners, so obviously restitutions would come from a place where blame is not due.
-Matt
Post a Comment
<< Home