Perspectives on Evil and Human Wickedness 5

Session 14: Judgement, Justice and Forgiveness
Chair: Norman Gabriel

Anger vs. Dejection vs. Avarice vs. Non-Resistance: Sin and Political Theory in the Vita of St. Vaclav of Prague
Stephen Morris
Independent Scholar, New York, USA

Good King Wenceslaus looked out,
On the feast of Stephen;
When the snow law round about, deep and crisp and even.
Brightly shone the moon that night, though the frost was cruel
When a poor man came in sight, gathering winter fuel.

Wenceslaus (or Vaclav), good prince of Bohemia, is known throughout the English-speaking world for his acts of Christmastime charity but is also venerated as the first of the “passion-bearers:” princes and political figures who gave themselves up to sure and certain death rather than engage in bloody civil wars to maintain their hold on secular power that would have killed thousands of innocents. Following his murder by his brother in 935 A.D., Vaclav's life was told and retold for many purposes – including the instruction of later rulers in how to govern well.
The three earliest catalogues of “deadly sins” give more-or-less the same sins, although the order in each catalogue varies. Thus, depending on which catalogue is consulted, the fifth of the deadly sins is either anger or dejection or avarice.
Each of these sins appears several times in the Vita of St. Vaclav as either motivation for his enemies or as societal wrongs that Vaclav sets out in his reign to rectify. He is the “savior of Bohemia ” who gives his life as well as his death to save his people from wickedness and evil.
His life is then presented later as the guide for kings and princes who would rule Bohemia well: his self-sacrifice becomes a political theory to be studied and emulated.
What might this political theory of self-sacrifice on the part of rulers have to say in modern, non-Czech contexts as well?

Taking a Stand Against Evil: When Good People Refuse to Forgive
Shelby Weitzel
Professor of Social Philosophy and Ethics, The College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA

Is it appropriate to forgive a wrongdoer who is, in some sense, “wicked” or “evil”?
American philosopher Margaret Holmgren argues that if someone makes forgiveness conditional on a change of heart by the wrongdoer, then that person has given power or control to the wrongdoer. Holmgren then argues that we ought to work to reach a point where we can forgive unconditionally out of a duty to respect ourselves. This means is that we ought to forgive even the most evil people once we feel able to do so.
I disagree. In this paper, I argue that Holmgren's argument conflates claims about being “under the power” of others or at the mercy of their beliefs with much more reasonable claims. One of these more reasonable claims is that one's beliefs (about oneself) may depend in part upon what others say or think. Another is that one can retain self-determination or control while deciding upon a course of action (such as forgiving or not) that in turn depends in part upon what others (wrongdoers) will do.
I agree with Holmgren that it is good for people to take measures to heal themselves after they have been wronged, but I argue that this tells us nothing about what we should or should not require of wrongdoers before we will forgive them. Holmgren mistakenly assumes that the refusal to forgive always hinges on fear of the wrongdoer or on a lack of self-confidence rather than on the strength of one's convictions about what we can rightfully demand. Not only can a good person remain unforgiving without thereby being cruel or judgmental, but it is also good to do so.

Addressing Past Evil: Timor Leste’s Two-track Approach
Wuiling Cheah
Research Scholar, Law Faculty, National University of Singapore

Transitional societies, having experienced great evil in times of war, are faced with the problem of addressing wartime atrocities. Images of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity, seared into the memories of a society inhibit its ability to move into the future.
Since Nuremberg , many post-war societies have used adversarial justice to address wartime atrocities. Recent times have however seen the growth of reconciliatory forms of justice in other parts of the world. This paper examines the role of reconciliatory justice as compared to the adversarial justice and the potential interaction of these two models of transitional justice.
This paper starts by examining the underlying rationale, origins and development of adversarial and reconciliatory justice as demonstrated in State practise. I then examine the tensions between adversarial justice and reconciliatory justice that has divided opinions on the ideal model of transitional justice. I argue that both adversarial and reconciliatory justice are necessary in transitional societies, focusing on Timor Leste's transitional justice system and my own upcoming internship experience at Timor Leste's Serious Crimes Panel to demonstrate this (December, 2003).
In 1999, during Timor Leste's referendum for independence, pro-Indonesian militia clashed with pro-independent Timorese groups, resulting in widespread killing, torture, rape and looting. Upon independence and the withdrawal of Indonesian troupes, Timorese society turned her attention to addressing crimes committed during the referendum. A two-track approach combining adversarial and reconciliatory justice was adopted. The Serious Crimes Panel was set up in 2000 by the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor (UNTAET) to try individuals charged with committing international crimes. Along side the Serious Crimes Panel, the Timor Leste Commission for Truth and Reconciliation was set up in 2001 to promote reconciliation and peace among the Timorese people.
Based on data collected during my upcoming attachment at the Serious Crimes Panel, I will show how the Timorese response to both these institutions demonstrate the necessity of both reconciliation and accountability in addressing past crimes. In particular I examine how the interaction between the Serious Crimes Panel and Truth and Reconciliation Commission show a thoughtful balancing of a society's accounting and reconciliation of past evil.