One way to think about this question is from the standpoint of a particular moral theory. Most moral theories provide some sort of measure of correct action. For example, a consequentialist theory will tell you to take the action that will maximize good consequences. So, what you are asking in this case is what are the consequences, or the effects of forgetting crimes in the past vs. holding those who committed them responsible.
Some considerations that could be brought to bear might be whether or not there are victims that would benefit from seeing justice served, whether the one who committed the crime is likely to continue to harm others, or what impact this would have on society. You should also consider what harm would be done to the one who committed the crime if they were punished
Ultimately, consequentialism tells us to choose the action that maximizes good results. If their are no victims left, and the person who committed the crime is not likely to cause further harm, then punishment would not be warranted since this would cause harm, and no good effects would result. If, however, the victim would benefit from seeing justice served, and supposing that the punishment were not overly severe, then it would be right to punish the offender, even after a long time.
This sounds like a great debate topic and strong arguments can be made either way.
One of the focal points of this argument would have to be to think about what the crime was. There is a big difference between somebody stealing a purse 20 years ago and a serial rapist who terrorized a community 20 years ago.
A great example of this debate can be seen in South Africa, where government is currently trying to introduce a program called land expropriation without compensation. Politicians are claiming that when white people arrived in Southern Africa, land was taken forcibly by means of genocide. Generations later, their argument is that this land should be given back—at no cost. The people who would benefit from this program are, of course, in favor of it, while those currently farming the land are raising many objections.
In legal terms, this debate is what led to the statute of limitations on certain crimes. This statute (which varies between states and countries) lays down a maximum time period after a crime at which criminal proceedings may begin. It's important to note that there is commonly no statute of limitations on murder, which would imply that a murder committed long ago can never be forgotten.
https://www.biznews.com/sa-investing/2018/07/25/land-expropriation-risks-breaching-international-law
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment