NationStates Jolt Archive

What would you choose, if peace and justice came into conflict with each other?

If to live in peace you would have to forgive oppressors and criminals, people who have hurt you directly or indirectly, done unspeakable and heinous acts...

Or if you could get justice for the crimes they have done, get some satisfaction for the blood they have on their hands, for the blood of children murdered - Could you demand that if that would mean that you and your people wouldn't get peace? That the conflict would continue?

As an example, you can see some of this in Uganda:

"Forgiveness is healing and it has a more lasting effect then revenge, the perpetuation of hatred, the perpetuation of war," Archbishop of Gulu John Odama told the BBC's Focus on Africa programme.

He is one of the people who has campaigned actively for forgiveness and reconciliation and he argues that with local and national levels of accountability "we don't see a role for the ICC".

Hiding

Ugandan journalist John Kakenda says many people from the Acholi tribe, who were main victims of the atrocities, feel the same.

"There many people who believe Joseph Kony and his top commanders should be tried but now they feel that this may not encourage them to come out from hiding," Mr Kakenda, an editor with the government-owned New Vision newspaper, told the BBC's Network Africa programme.

On Saturday, the LRA delegation met President Yoweri Museveni as part of their peace tour. LRA leader Joseph Kony remains at a rebel camp across the border in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

He has refused to take part in long-running Sudan talks unless the ICC warrants are dropped.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7080735.stm

"The government should not pursue these people into court. They should return to Uganda willingly and the government should just be open to them," he said.

Others still remain fearful that the conflict between the LRA and the Ugandan government is not over.

Patrick Obong, 28, tells me that "the ICC should have arrested those people months ago".

He worries that while Mr Kony and the other LRA leaders fear capture, they may decide to start attacking civilians in northern Uganda again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7081560.stm


This is used as an example more than a topic, only to illustrate how it could be.

So... It's a difficult question. What should one choose where justice and peace are in conflict?

You have a chance to stop a conflict, but you'll have to forgive and forget the most horrible atrocities. Your children would live in peace: Do you think that's a fair trade?

Could you live without getting satisfaction, and seeing the perpretrators get their just rewards after countless rapes, torure and numerous crimes against humanity? And would there be too much uncertainty if you just forgave them? Would the lack of accountability on the part of the criminals only encourage others (at least not deter them) and in itself be problematic?

i don't have to have kids. justice.

what? no pole?

On a national level, probably you have to choose justice for the sake of security. However, on a personal level, I try to live by peace. It's just much more relaxed.

Without justice there will be no peace.

To be honest, I'd tend not to pick justice even without the dilemma. "Justice" seems like little more than vindictiveness wrapped in self-righteous moral authority.

Peace, because peace is just and truth.

What is "justice" (whose "justice" is it) and why is "peace" good?

The dead are quiet and in peace.

i don't have to have kids. justice.

what? no pole?

Is it really an either/or question that should have a poll?

Mattorn;13197142']Without justice there will be no peace.
If the killing stops, would that be close enough?

Justice. Peace without justice isn't going to last for very long. All that does is allow the criminals to get away with their crimes and shows them it can happen again if they can only find a way to get back in to a position to do it. Justice is an integral part of forgiveness; it is the atonement for their actions that the wrongdoer has to undertake as penance for their crimes.

Does justice necessarily equate to punishment?

peace without justice is either a temporary armistice or straight up oppression.

Without Justice and Rule of Law peace can only be a temporary condition.

You can forgive previous acts; but there must be a system of justice to prevent those acts recurring, or they will.

No Justice, No Peace!

Know Justice, Know Peace!

I suspect that, in the long run, peace without justice will be short-lived.

snip*

If there was good proof my offenders would never commit the same act again, then yes I'd forgive them. I'm not bloodthirsty. I just hate to be bothered.

If, however, there was no proof, then no, I would not forgive. I firmly believe detrimental members of society must go via *makes finger motion across throat, whilst quacking*.

If there was good proof my offenders would never commit the same act again, then yes I'd forgive them. I'm not bloodthirsty. I just hate to be bothered.

If, however, there was no proof, then no, I would not forgive. I firmly believe detrimental members of society must go via *makes finger motion across throat, whilst quacking*.

But would you say the same thing of a person who attacked and brutally killed your family? If he was sorry and showed remorse, why even make him serve prison time?

The English word for "peace at any cost" or "peace in spite of right" is 'cowardice.'

But would you say the same thing of a person who attacked and brutally killed your family? If he was sorry and showed remorse, why even make him serve prison time?

I would probably be over-come with pissedness. I might try to kill him, which really wouldn't be a good idea. But logically speaking he shouldn't even serve time if: A: it's absolutely certain he wouldn't do it again, and B: it won't encourage others to try and pull the same stunt, and try and get off.

If so, he should go free. But you'd have to depend on the government for that; I might (like I said) try and kill him.

The English word for "peace at any cost" or "peace in spite of right" is 'cowardice.'

And what is wrong with cowardice, practically speaking? Anti-cowards like Genghis Khan killed 40 million people. When Peking surrendered to him thousands of women threw then selves to their deaths from the walls. His reputation for rape had spread much. He was no coward.

Peace

I would probably be over-come with pissedness. I might try to kill him, which really wouldn't be a good idea. But logically speaking he shouldn't even serve time if: A: it's absolutely certain he wouldn't do it again, and B: it won't encourage others to try and pull the same stunt, and try and get off.

If so, he should go free. But you'd have to depend on the government for that; I might (like I said) try and kill him.

It's no easy question. And how do you really prevent B from happening. If one person gets away with murder because they were sorry, how do you prevent someone else from trying the the same thing?

I think it can depend on the guilt of both parties too. On a larger scale you can look at any number of countries that are in an ongoing battle with another country/organization/culture/ect, I don't know how possible justice is in a case where both sides have committed atrocities. On the other hand anger at the other side for committing the atrocites against you and yours is a pretty natural reaction. I don't know if it's always possible to forgive and forget.

Peace, by far. Three reasons:

First, the world isn’t a very just place anyways, so I’ll plump for guaranteed peace. Secondly, I can see justice being subverted more than peace. And thirdly, guaranteed peace would seem to remove the need for a large amount of justice.

What would you choose, if peace and justice came into conflict with each other?

Justice and Peace are never apart. What you are proposing as 'peace' is nothing more than anarchy, anarchy and peace are unrelated. If someone kills a child he has determined the quesiton of whether there will be peace, or blood. It would not be destroying peace to bring him to punishment for his wrongdoing, he has already spat on the name of peace, and only by excercising justice can peace be restored, without justice the family of this child would seek him out perhaps, and kill him, that is vindictive, that is revenge, a jury sentencing to him to punishment due to his wrongdoing is not vindictivness, nor is it revenge, it is justice.

Again, without Justice, Peace cannot exist, lawbreakers are the ones who bear responsibility for ruining the peace, not those who advocate justice. Allowing criminals to go free in the anme of 'peace' not only is a horrible atrocity, but it also tells criminals that their behaviour, and their actions are ok.

Peace, by far. Three reasons:

First, the world isn’t a very just place anyways, so I’ll plump for guaranteed peace. Secondly, I can see justice being subverted more than peace. And thirdly, guaranteed peace would seem to remove the need for a large amount of justice.

But, if someone kills another person in a criminal fashion is peace not already gone? What i\comes after that? Everyone lives peacefully until the next person decides to act in a criminal way?

But, if someone kills another person in a criminal fashion is peace not already gone?
Yes, obviously.

But the question is about guaranteed peace, is it not?

What would you choose, if peace and justice came into conflict with each other?

If to live in peace you would have to forgive oppressors and criminals, people who have hurt you directly or indirectly, done unspeakable and heinous acts...

Or if you could get justice for the crimes they have done, get some satisfaction for the blood they have on their hands, for the blood of children murdered - Could you demand that if that would mean that you and your people wouldn't get peace? That the conflict would continue?


You know, difficult question. I'll give it a try.

Peace AND justice are one of the primary goals of civilized mankind.

The opposite of peace is war. War is, generally speaking, a suspension of the rules of common social behaviour - killing in war is ok, stealing and robbing (looting) in war is ok.
I'll assume that revenge isn't justice: I'll assume that justice can be served only through some sort of judiciary system.
If there is a suspension of the rules of common social behaviour, I see huge difficulties for a judiciary system to work (no, summary trials and lynching don't count).
So, I'd guess that to have justice, having peace is a prerequisite; justice cannot be served through war.

Hence, I'd say that peace is even more important that justice.

This, of course, is the reasoning of a person who's not being currently victimized by someone else - I guess that, were such the case, my gut feelings would scream for blood and revenge: but, were such the case, would I be a good judge? I don't think so. After killing my eventual oppressor, I don't think that the wrongs he did to me would be obliterated - I would still have the scars of my wounds, my dead relatives would still be dead etc.

So, yes, I think that having to forgive isn't a big price for peace.

i don't have to have kids. justice.

what? no pole?

I do have kids. Peace!

I'm half czech. Is that enough?

Peace, because peace is just and truth.
Even peace without justice?

Does justice necessarily equate to punishment?
No... But what would you call justice for people who have forced children to be soldiers and arranged the rape, torture and killings of thousands?

peace without justice is either a temporary armistice or straight up oppression.
How so?

If there was good proof my offenders would never commit the same act again, then yes I'd forgive them. I'm not bloodthirsty. I just hate to be bothered.

If, however, there was no proof, then no, I would not forgive. I firmly believe detrimental members of society must go via *makes finger motion across throat, whilst quacking*.
What about others? Other people might do the same act as your offenders when they see that they aren't punished?

I think it can depend on the guilt of both parties too. On a larger scale you can look at any number of countries that are in an ongoing battle with another country/organization/culture/ect, I don't know how possible justice is in a case where both sides have committed atrocities.
This is interesting too, and here you could draw lines to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
Peace, by far. Three reasons:

First, the world isn’t a very just place anyways, so I’ll plump for guaranteed peace. Secondly, I can see justice being subverted more than peace. And thirdly, guaranteed peace would seem to remove the need for a large amount of justice.
Who said it would be a guaranteed peace?

Justice and Peace are never apart. What you are proposing as 'peace' is nothing more than anarchy, anarchy and peace are unrelated.
How so? Can't the work of the Peace and reconcilliation comittee (or what they were called) in South Africa be seen as an example where forgivness has paved the way for peace, but where justice for transgressors in many cases has not been done?

And how is it anarchy if the government in Uganda offers an amnesty for the LRA, to ensure peace and to stop the killing? An amnesty wouldn't be the same as an anarchy, especially if it's the will of the vast majority.

*Don't say Revenge*
*Don't say Revenge*

uhh...Revenge...

*That's it, I'm outta here*

:p:p

Really, it depends on the situation. In some senarios, if you choose peace over justice, that might really just be a wierd form of appeasement, and you will get neither peace nor justice. In others, if you choose justice over peace, you might simply be perpetuating a war. Nothing is absolute, everything is relative to the situation.

Who said it would be a guaranteed peace?
I took your OP to mean, “if you could could sacrifice one [peace or justice] completely for the guaranteed other, which one would you choose?”

On a second reading, I see that’s not the case. Still, I think I stand by my previous post; peace trumps justice.

What about others? Other people might do the same act as your offenders when they see that they aren't punished?


It would have to be totally secret. If they told anyone about it, they would be put to death immediately. And the person they told would not be allowed the same option.

What would you choose, if peace and justice came into conflict with each other?

If to live in peace you would have to forgive oppressors and criminals, people who have hurt you directly or indirectly, done unspeakable and heinous acts...

Or if you could get justice for the crimes they have done, get some satisfaction for the blood they have on their hands, for the blood of children murdered - Could you demand that if that would mean that you and your people wouldn't get peace? That the conflict would continue?

As an example, you can see some of this in Uganda:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7080735.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7081560.stm


This is used as an example more than a topic, only to illustrate how it could be.

So... It's a difficult question. What should one choose where justice and peace are in conflict?

You have a chance to stop a conflict, but you'll have to forgive and forget the most horrible atrocities. Your children would live in peace: Do you think that's a fair trade?

Could you live without getting satisfaction, and seeing the perpretrators get their just rewards after countless rapes, torure and numerous crimes against humanity? And would there be too much uncertainty if you just forgave them? Would the lack of accountability on the part of the criminals only encourage others (at least not deter them) and in itself be problematic?

Justice, peace with bad people is bad and justice would be right.

Justice, peace with bad people is bad and justice would be right.

Maybe you're thinking in black and white, but I don't see how more innocent deaths is worth all this hypothetical "justice".

Maybe you're thinking in black and white, but I don't see how more innocent deaths is worth all this hypothetical "justice".

innocent? Are you saying that the oppressors and criminals, people who have hurt you directly or indirectly, done unspeakable and heinous acts are innocent? Why don't you go buy a dictionary your wishy washy commie.

innocent? Are you saying that the oppressors and criminals, people who have hurt you directly or indirectly, done unspeakable and heinous acts are innocent? Why don't you go buy a dictionary your wishy washy commie.

No, I'm saying the people who will die fighting against them are innocent. Get it? Read my previous posts on this thread.