Posted by Benjamin on: 02.23.2009 /
Recently, for the first time ever, a court is prosecuting an individual who was highly placed in the relatively evil Khmer Rouge government of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. Kang Khek Ieu, also known as Comrade Duch, is charged in a special UN court in Cambodia with personally overseeing the systematic torture of more than 15,000 prisoners.
I find myself unsettled and unclear when I think about the prosecution. Can justice be served 30 years after a crime was committed? I can’t get clear on what actual good is acomplished by the prosecution and imprisonment of this man, who apparently has not done anything all that bad in the intervening 30 years.
Yet I am moved by the cry for justice from those who suffered and died under his government. In 2006 I had the opportunity to visit Seattle’s amazing Cambodian Cultural Museum and Killing Fields Memorial. The museum was founded by Dara Duong, who personally lived through the horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime. Inside, along with Cambodian art and exhibits on Cambodia’s history and culture, there were walls filled with photo after photo and name after name of individuals who were tortured and killed in the infamous S-21 prison, of which Comrade Duch was in charge.
Surely just having the international community, along with Cambodia’s current government, finally acknowlege out loud during a trial the truth of what actually happened in Cambodia in the later half of the 1970’s, and renounce it as altogether evil, will provide some tiny measure of comfort to the many Cambodians who lived through that time and who lost loved ones. This makes sense to me, and I can’t really imagine a context for that outside of a trial like the current one, although South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission does spring to mind.
Since his participation in the horrors of that regime, Comrade Duch has apparently been fulfilling his vocation as a teacher of mathematics and languages, something he is said to be good at. In 1995 after his wife was killed in an attack on his home, Mr. Duch started attended prayers services at a Christian church. He eventually became a Christian and then a lay pastor. Is there any way for justice to be met, and for victims to be heard, and yet for Comrade Duch to be forgiven, and allowed to continue to teach? Is there ultimately any way for him to make amends? If not, is there a way for him to work *toward* that end? Where is the redemption in his story–or is such a question even possible or bearable in light of the contex. What redemption or help is available, or can be made available, to the many Cambodians still suffering, both economically and emotionally, as a result of Mr. Duch’s, and the Khmer Rouge’s, actions?
Your thoughts?
Comment by: Andy
1You were just at my blog. I didn’t realize we were posting on similar topics at the same time. Please see my current post, and I responded to your question there.
I didn’t write about the question of forgiveness there. I was reading just a couple of days ago that there is no concept of forgiveness in Buddhism. The person who made that observation said that on Duch has ever expressed regret or asked for forgiveness, probably because of his conversion.
If this is so, then the Cambodian people cannot (or would not) “learn forgiveness” for the sake of Duch. But they may learn from the way he faces his sentence, whatever that may be.
They “may” learn. Or not. One of the survivors was quoted saying that Duch looked arrogant and commanding at his first trial appearance, as if nothing had changed. But surely others are hearing Duch’s expressions of regret and wondering.
Comment by: David H
2One story I read said Comrade Duch is the only of four defendants soon to face trial who has acknowledged the crimes that took place at his facility and taken some responsibility for them.
However, my tendency is to agree with Andy. The role of the Christian(s) is not to demand forgiveness (and any attendant leniency). It is to admit the wrong and accept the consequences. If a message is to be sent it is not by world Christians or the Christian in question here asking that there be limited or no punishment for what happened.
I remember the the Christian outcry in this country after recently converted Karla Faye Tucker was sentenced to death for her role in a grisly double-murder. Religious leaders as diverse as Pope John Paul II and Pat Robertson asked for clemency.
Robertson said on her behalf: “I am one who has supported the death penalty for hardened criminals. But I do think that any justice system that is worthy of the name must have room for mercy…In the case of Karla Faye Tucker, she is not the same person who committed those heinous ax murders…She is totally transformed, and I think to execute her is more an act of vengeance than it is appropriate justice.”
Robertson’s statement seems not only ironic, but also irrelevant. The state should no more warp it’s laws for religious conversion than it for any other religious reason. The state can’t let someone off the hook for such a reason and the convicted should not, by virtue of their supposed faith, expect that. The real test of their belief is how they take responsibility and face the consequences. In my experience that can have a profound effect on others long after the person seeking forgiveness is gone.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
3We have a Department of Justice. Do we need a Department of Mercy?
It is all that can be expected if the man truly sees that what he did was wrong. Sociopaths don’t get this far, viz Bush. All the same, the victims are suffering the consequences of his actions. Isn’t it just that the perpetrator suffer consequences as well?
There are many ways to make a teacher suffer. I welcome suggestions, as mine are unusual and cruel.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
4I guess I can’t wrap my head around how Duch suffering can *reduce* the suffering of his victims.
I mean it makes sense to me at one level. I’ve wanted to see my grandfather suffer for the crimes he committed. But I’m not really proud of the fact. I’d rather see him suffer in the sense that he begins to wrap his mind and his heart around the nature and extent of the suffering he caused. I’d like to see him weep in horror at the damage he’s done. I guess a trial *could* lead to such an outcome, in his case. But I rather suspect it wouldn’t. Perhaps being in a treatment program behind bars would help him come to such a place. If that’s the case, then I would like to see him in such a treatment program, perhaps as much for his own sake as mine.
I can’t really understand how Duch could come to fully appreciate the damage he’s done. But if he’s moving that direction, and interested in making amends and in confessing (saying out loud together), then that’s good enough for me. As it would be good enough for me with my grandfather. Perhaps the trial and then punishment will help him move toward that place.
Martin and Andy–thank you. you helped me realize that perhaps there is a proper way for a Christian to face trial and punishment for crimes he or she committed. I hadn’t thought in this vein before. I was just thinking about it as an outsider–trying to parse not so much how *Duch* should respond, but rather how *I* should respond to Duch’s prosecution. It matters not that much to me whether he’s a Christian or not, but rather whether he’s moving in the direction of confession and repentance. I mean these terms not so much in their Christian sense as in their etymological sense. =)
Martin
This is what I’m trying to wrap my head around.
One assumes “justice” must be a good thing, right? I don’t understand how the perp suffering reduces the victims’ suffering *per se*. I remember Tevye talking about how an eye for an eye simply leaves the whole world blind.
Andy–I’d been thinking about this Khmer Rouge thing since Duchs trial started over a week ago, and reading your blog helped me move into the place where I was ready to write about it. Thank you!
Comment by: Martin Gugino
5This isn’t an eye for an eye. This is a tooth for an eye.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
6That’s the thing, isn’t it? I mean if he’s presently dangerous, then by all means lock him up.
But if it’s about somehow meeting out a punishment to fit the crime, clearly that is an impossibility. Do the people who lost the eye *want* this tooth? I mean what are they going to do with it?
Is it loving toward Duch to require him to answer and pay for his crimes? Does the answer to that question even matter?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
7Well, Christ teaches forgiveness. Does he for the still dangerous? I think so. Can one forgive a person and still punish him? I think so. Your question is what is the point of punishment? The answer is - it does help others to do the right thing - psychology teaches this and animal trainers confirm it. You ask, but is this really the reason in this case? I am not sure. Do people desire to be punished for their deeds, because they understand and believe in justice? Well, yes. But I do think it helps him to identify with those he injured; it helps him by becoming a victim of his own actions; it helps them all be reconciled.
Why should a good man suffer? Ah, indeed.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
8Wow this has gone off in fascinating directions.
My understanding has been that animal trainers tell us that punishment *can* be effective, but that it’s not consistently effective, and indeed is incredibly dangerous in terms of getting to where you want to be with the animal because it can very often lead to other results altogether than the ones you are seeking.
I read a great book from a psychologist and animal trainer who works with people and dolphins called Don’t Shoot the Dog. Apparently positive reinforcement is far more likely to get one to the desired results than is punishment.
Were you thinking of any particular psychologist or animal trainer? One who has written recently?
Comment by: David H
9Benjamin, I think you are also confusing a legal system with a system of Justice. Societies — even those that are unjust — require a legal system. It supplies the rules that help people live together. A system of Justice doesn’t necessarily require rules, certainly not laws. With those one can get so lost in the letter that the intent of fairness, equality, having every one do right toward each other may never be found.
A metaphor I use when trying to explain this in Sunday School is that a legal system says that if you speed and aren’t caught there really isn’t a crime. If you commit murder and are acquitted you are, in fact, innocent. A system of Justice, in the sense defined by Jesus, says that if you think about speeding it is the same as if you did it; if you are angry at someone else then you are guilty of murder.
Legal systems are often very poor devices for providing justice. What people think they want or need (even if it isn’t an eye for an eye) often proves not only personally unsatisfying, but also of little use to the grander schemes of society (the death penalty isn’t much of a deterrent) but societies seem to need legal systems to avoid anarchy. Since the beginning of human history whenever two or three have gathered together they have instituted some sort of social order that involves rules (written or not).
In this case, I’m not sure it is necessary for the offender to suffer to achieve justice. However, the legal system dictates some suffering (incarceration at least). If the law can be suspended by a plea for forgiveness then everyone will claim they are sorry once they get caught. Acknowledgement of the crime and acceptance of the consequences can lead to justice, by contributing to a change in the offender but also witnessing to the offended and/or their survivors that I am not trying to game the system, I am not trying to get away with it, I am willing to accept the legal consequences as a step toward what may be justice.
In one of Tony Hillerman’s books police officer Jim Chee, once an aspiring shaman for his Navajo people, is faced with the choice between justice and legality. He finds a man who killed another while driving drunk. He finds the man because the perpetrator went to the local radio station, where they have an open mike, and declared his guilt and promised to take care of the dead man’s family as if it was his own. The killer said he would give a specific amount of money and do specific tasks for them in an effort to restore “hohzo” (Harmony or Walking in Beauty). If Chee follows the law, that man goes to jail and the family of the deceased gets nothing other than the satisfaction of knowing the killer is in jail. If he stays free he can attempt to bring his life and the lives of the dead man’s family back into balance. Chee elects to be the person who ensures the killer fulfills his promise.
When I read it, that story impressed me deeply regarding the depth and commitment required for justice by everyone involved. There is shared truth, multiple layers of responsibility and, perhaps, reconciliation at some point in the future. I’m not sure there is any way to consistently bring people to that place. What’s more, a legal system is a lot easier.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
10Wow. You kind of nailed something here. Would you say both simpler *and* easier?
So … the law must be about fear? It’s about avoiding something worse?
Or perhaps I mean to say–Is there not a spectrum–a sort of line along which one can place legal systems, which moves from less just to more just? I mean to say isn’t it reasonable to say that some legal systems are more just than others? Or that they more excellently promote justice (or is it prevent injustice?) than others?
If that is true, then is it possible than in thinking about these things, and then acting on them, we can help move those legal systems of which we are a part toward the just?
I wonder what I just said might mean in very practical terms.
Comment by: David H
11The law does seem to be about fear, however, that fear seems (predominantly) to affect the very people who are least likely to violate the laws. Many people believe that laws are predominantly to define punishments for those who break them. Unless those punishments are overwhelmingly harsh (and often even if they are, as with the death penalty for a whole list of crimes in the old American west) they have no affect on crime.
I wonder if legal systems can ever be more just or if the best they can achieve is to be more consistent.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
12I am not sure why you pick this sentence as the one to comment upon. But …
I take it that you question the idea that something other than reward can reliably modify behavior? Was it Pavlov or Skinner who talked about ‘extinction’ of behavior by not reinforcing it? Or both. That is behavior modification also. Ignore the child’s demand for attention. Police ticket speeders - is this unscientific? Elephants have their back leg tied to a stake until they stop resisting; then any flimsy rope connected to any flimsy stake will hold them.
I thought the idea that punishment places him in the group of people who have suffered from his actions - helps him identify with his victims by making him one - was more interesting.
In a later post you seem to wonder at the idea that the point of law is order, or that order is better than disorder? I don’t understand what you are thinking… Is it how to assess the justice to be found in a legal system?
Comment by: Benjamin
13David,
I wish I could get a lawyer’s perspective on these questions. My heart says *surely* a legal system can move in a direction, either toward justice or away from it. It seems like even greater consistency would be a movement towards justice.
Martin,
Sorry to take one sentence a bit out of contest. The following from the wiki article on behavior modification.
Which is to say, I guess, that reward has to overwhelm punishment, volume wise, or the punishment is going to lead to difficulties. This is, as I understand it, the general consensus among animal trainers and those work in behavior modification with people–for instance therapists who work with autistic children.
Gottman has found out that the same deal is true in marriage, and that indeed if a couple doesn’t have three times as much positive interaction as negative, then they tend to spiral toward divorce.
My kids teachers work at this amazing school called the EEU where half the student body is “atypical”, (which means they have various disabilities, including many on the Autism/Aspergers spectrum), and half the student body is “typical” (whatever that may mean). All the teachers down there either have their masters in early childhood education or are in that program working toward their degree. They’ve taught me over the last 3 years that my kids have been there that positive reinforcements *have* to consistently outnumber negative reinforcements by a ratio of three to one, or problems arise and develop. One of my favorite teachers down there, “Jason” (not his real name), was telling me about how he notice his relationship with one particularly troublesome student was deteriorating. The way he addressed this was he set a goal for a certain number of positive reinforcements with this one child every single day, and he made a system for himself to keep track. This stuff apparently works amazingly well.
Sorry to carry on. =)
One thing I learned when I was studying this stuff at Uni was that something is *defined* as being reinforcing or not very pragmatically by whether it *works* or not. Which is to say that clearly giving out tickets is *not* functioning as a punishment, since people continue to speed. A functional punishment would be one that actually led to the behavior stopping. But again, rewards work way more reliably than punishments toward these ends. It’s apparently much easier to change the behavior to what you want it to be via rewards than to stop the behavior via punishments.
You said
I’m having a hard time finding what you are referencing. Can you direct me?
Comment by: David H
14Interesting. A key issue with a legal system may be that there is no room for real rewards. The “reward” is the warm fuzzy feeling you get for having followed the law. With a legal system, punishment is the core and it occurs when the law has been broken.
I wonder what might happen if there was a reward system built in. The first thought I had was about the cameras that monitor intersections and then initiate an automated ticket for those who jump the light. What if you could get credits for following the law that would offset violations. Obviously there are problems with such a situation, but there might be all kinds of ways to make something like that work. Even, playing off the cap and trade system the Obama admin is offering for carbon emissions, maybe good citizens could trade their keeping the law to less conscientious people as a way to help those other people not face such high punishment or (perhaps) keep the vehicle insurance rates from skyrocketing.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
15Benjamin
Are you saying that you think that if police stopped giving speeding tickets that the speeding rate would remain constant? That police give tickets only for the quotas? I know you do not think this. Therefore, giving tickets is modifying behavior.
You didn’t comment on the elephant’s leg, either.
Re: autism - quite the condition. Did I mention the book (and audio cd) called “strange son” about an LA woman and her autistic son, Dov, and the mom and son from India?
Using negative reinforcement on autistic kids is out of the question.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
16This was the sentence that I was referring to, I think.
You want to remove injustice from the legal system, which I am all for of course, but I probably didn’t understand that thinking, in general, was the way to get us there; that is, thinking about where on the axis of Justice our legal system is.
Comment by: Benjamin
17Martin,
Of course. I stand corrected. Maybe there’s a big difference between modifying individual behavior, or modifying behavior on an individual basis, and modifying distributed behavior, or modifying behavior on a group basis.
I’m not saying that the speeding rate wouldn’t go *up* if you stopped giving out speeding tickets. I’m just saying that if speeding isn’t *eliminated* by speeding tickets, then clearly tickets are not effective as behavior modification. This is easier to think about on an individual basis. The problem is that the speeder is getting some kind of reward from speeding, whether it’s the sense that they are going to get there on time, or the pure rush of it. You have to figure out some way to get rid of that reward, then it would be a lot easier to modify the behavior. One thing that would make a lot of sense to me would be to just have all cars have actual speed limiters on them, so that you *couldn’t* go faster than the speed limit.
I’m not sure what to say about elephant legs. =). It seems to be more about control than behavior modification. Yes, you can keep the elephant from leaving. But can you get the elephant to pick you up gently and put you on it’s back? For this latter, I’m guessing rewards are going to work better than punishments. =)
maybe there is already a sort of rating of the relative justices in various legal systems somewhere, and we could set the goal of moving toward the top, or perhaps make those well above us a paradigm to follow?
Perhaps something like what these people are doing: http://www.worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index
Comment by: Martin Gugino
18Gak. It looks like I need to get you to kneel, bow, collapse - something more.
Well yea. For groups, strike the head, and the something will something.
?. Clearly not as effect as you would like in achieving the goal you are after: complete eradication of speeding. It is hard to get at the tail end of the standard distribution curve. The goal, apparently, is not to stop all speeders, but to keep most drivers from going more than 5 or 10 mph faster than a black numbers stuck on poles on the side of the road.
? Isn’t there a big overlap? Why do I want to modify your behavior? Cause I want to be in control. With the elephant, it starts out as physical restraint - like gravity modifies our behavior - no need to pass a law against jumping more than 15 feet high. But once the elephant is broken, any crummy stringy thing will keep the elephant tethered - you have modified his behavior by cracking his will, by creating internal restraint, not external: Clockwork Orange. Once you have tortured people, you find that they are very appreciative of a little kindness.
The group you cite is probably both good and earnest, and second opinions are often useful and helpful.
You, also, are a wonderful human being.