This week in Uruguay the debate about impunity was prominent. What happened is that some former members of the junta militar from 1973-1985 were convicted of crimes that they were previously given amnesty. You can read the BBC Mundo story about it here (sorry, but I couldn't find the article in English).
I find the topic complex because on the one hand I feel people quilty of past crimes should have to pay for them. On the other hand, countries have moved towards democracy (such as Uruguay), and often deals have been made for amnesty for the culpables as part of the package to move towards said democracy. If the deals aren't honored, then future deals would be unlikely if unfortunately dictatorial elements were to take over. With the current leftist movements in Latin America, a right-leaning backlash isn't entirely ridiculous.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hola.
Yeah, I agree with the idea that people need to be held accountable for past crimes but also appreciate the fine balance needed to stabilize countries. Cheers.
Dom
Hola Dave!
I understand when you say that amnesty can be justified when a society filled with past injustices wants to heal the wounds of the past. "Something's got to give" in the first place and amnesty is certainly one way to go. Impunity in such cases could be justified, but in reality where can one draw the line? Do ends justify the means? Up to what extent is a society such as the Chilean for example, willing to allow impunity over crimes commited by Pinochet? As you said, this is rather complex.
Saludos!
RuizSKBO
Thank you all for the comments. Let me start off by saying that I don't like the idea of amnesty at all. I was throwing the idea out there kind of in the context of the Whitmore kidnapping here in Canaada in the summer. Here's a little summary:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/02/standoff-over.html
Whitmore negotiated with police to give himself up. On local radio there was a heated debate whereby many people were saying that even thought the police made a deal, they should renege on it because Whitmore deserved nothing. Others argued that if the police were to do thay, who in the future would negotiate with the police?
How I relate it to the Uruguay case is that if the deal was made in good faith, and there was legal and democratic support behind it, perhaps there would be a case to honor it for future negotiations. Not to validate amnesty as a negotiation, but perhaps to solidify a tradition of honor for the government. What I'm maybe getting at is that negotiations should be honorable and accountable.
I'd have to think of a definition of a deal with "good faith and democratic support", but depending on the particulars of an amnesty deal, I'm open to the idea that in some, rare, cases amnesty could be an option.
So in sum, I threw the topic out as a controversy. I don't like amnesty, and most certainly many deals are not made in good faith or with the peoples support. Therein is where most of the problems lie. In many cases, I believe, they are deals made amongst the powerful with little or no democratic input. I'm not sure what the deal is with Uruguay, other than there seems to be considerable object to the recent court ruling.
Post a Comment