Justice… and mercy

Happy New Year, everyone…

As we wriggled out of 2006 and plunged into the New Year, some interesting historical confluences occurred. The counterpoint of Gerald Ford’s passing and Saddam’s execution, coming as close together as they did, prompts some thoughts on the balance between justice and mercy.

Ford, of course, was eulogized for having done the “right but unpopular thing” by pardoning a President who had abused his power—a pardon that supposedly helped the country “heal” from the traumas of Watergate and Vietnam. Saddam’s execution, following his own conviction on charges of even more severe abuse of power, was also supposed to help his country heal from the traumas that it has suffered. Mercy, one might think, was served in the one case, justice in the other…

But Nixon’s free pass left the gate open for future lieutenants—folks with names like Rumsfeld and Cheney—to stay in or near the halls of power, and continue their abuses later. How telling was Cheney’s praise of Ford for the Nixon pardon—and how telling was Bush’s focus on Ford as having been exonerated by later history. One might think that Cheney (who is sure to be the recipient of a Presidential pardon himself in December 2008) and Bush (who at this point seems sure to escape the impeachment trial that he inarguably deserves) are oh-so-subtly hinting that the American public should follow Ford’s example, let their transgressions slide and let bygones be bygones.

You might guess that I don’t think that would be a particularly good idea. You’d be right — I’d prefer to see these folks be held accountable. In fact, to be honest, I would have to admit that I’d love it. But then again, don’t liberals and progressives talk all the time about the need to transcend the “eye-for-an-eye” style of retributive justice? Don’t we plead for some compassion for wrongdoers, some understanding of the circumstances that lead felons to commit their crimes and support for the idea of “restorative justice”?

Restorative justice, though, hinges on the transgressors accepting responsibility for their actions, and making some kind of restitution. Like Pinochet before him, Saddam never expressed any sense of regret or repentance that I’m aware of—and certainly neither Bush nor Cheney have shown any signs of even beginning to think in such terms. (Please let me know if I missed any admissions of guilt by any of those guys!)

Perhaps the best example to look to, both here and in Iraq, is that of South Africa, whose Truth and Reconciliation Commission enabled a society wracked by far worse abuses than we have yet seen to both acknowledge its painful history and prepare to move beyond the legacy of that history.

How might we have looked to the Islamic world, not to mention the rest of the planet, if Saddam had been granted not pardon, but commutation of his death sentence? What might it look like if Bush and Cheney are not impeached, but nonetheless held accountable through censure or other sanctions? (Personally, I’d suggest we dock their pay for the next two years.) Both outcomes would show a people that know how to temper justice with mercy, while not letting their desire to show mercy obscure their commitment to justice. It’s a tough balance to strike, but it can be struck. We bungled the one opportunity; let’s not let the other slip through our fingers as well.

P.S. If you’re not familiar with the concept of “restorative justice,” a web search on the term will bring you to a number of interesting sites, including www.restorativejustice.org. And maybe I shouldn’t have said Bush “inarguably” deserves impeachment—clearly, it is arguable, because a lot of people certainly are arguing about it, pro and con, for one reason or another. But you can read some proposed Articles of Impeachment at www.articlesofimpeachment.net (a site sponsored by the Center for Constitutional Rights) and make up your own mind.