Should crimes that were committed many years ago simply be forgotten? Crimes had meant actions that breach the laws prescribed by the state and the usefulness of punishing the offenders extends beyond just seeking valid justices for the victims. It is necessary for social control and deters future violations. A justice system ensures through punishing the offenders, the society is constantly reminded of the due consequences for their own actions. If leniency should be shown to crimes because they had committed many years ago, then the consideration for the laws would be about manipulating the justice system instead of building civil and just societies. I wouldn’t want my children to grow up in a world which encourage amoral cynics to get away scot-free from hurting others to get ahead. However, I do believe in second chances and agreed that certain clemency should be shown to remorse offenders whom were evenly punished for their crimes.
This is surely a familiar tale; a boy thief was apprehended for stealing medicine for his ailing mother. His mother was dying, he was poor and desperation had resort him to steal. Should the boy be punished without mercy in accordance to the state law which was supposed to be impartial and equal to all? Or should he be forgiven because he was just trying to save his mother? The judicious procedure of crime and punishment will be much complex if fought on moral intuitions, that’s how courtrooms have become an impersonal assembly line in melting swift deserts a la ‘an eye for an eye’ logic. The downside of such linear equating of justice is the impersonal authority that sees both the perpetrators and the victims as objects of discrimination. And its adversarial combat in the process ironically host more antagonistic postures. Most of the time the victims would cared more about participating in the criminal justice of their offenders than maximizing punishment. They want to confront their offenders, understand how the crimes have happened and guilt the offenders on how the crimes have affected them. They want the offenders to walk in their shoes and realized the grievousness of their crimes which no amount of jail time could offer as a better punishment.
Although seeking forgiveness is social ritual, a feat that all of us would attempt in the course of our lives, however have little or no place in the modern criminal justice system. Forgiveness has no bearing on the wrongfulness of crime committed or on the social expectation of retribution. When one commits a crime against another, it is personal until he is apprehended by law. Then his personal debt to the victim would become a debt to the society. Therefore showing mercy would undermine the equal treatment thus prohibiting deterrence. Paying dues through law orientated punishment such as prison sentences and remorseful about the committed crimes could earn social mercy and sometimes forgiveness from the victims and their families. Forgiveness doesn’t only benefit remorse offenders, granting it allow the victims to recover self esteems, lose bottled emotions such as anger, shame or rage, restore a sense of control and move on with their lives. Forgiveness detaches the offenders from their crimes, allowing them reintegrate into the society and working for their second chance at life.
There are of course instances of brutal crimes that even with long rehabilitation in prison that society cannot come to reconcile. They were often murderers, rapists and serial pedophiles; and in the recent light of Austrian monster Josef Fritzl who imprisoned his own daughter in a cellar for twenty four years, fathered her seven children and was linked to a murder was a horrific example of brutal offender. Heavy offenders showed no remorse and little or no signs of rehabilitation would likely to repeat their offences in the future. While leniency should render to rehabilitated offenders with caution, those who commit capital felonies or multiple offenders should be punished heavily by the state without mercy.
On a larger scale there are war crimes that involve genocide of millions of lives, violation of human rights, ethnic cleansing and torture, should they simply be forgotten because they happened generations ago? Take the brutal invasion of the Japanese in Southeast Asia during World War Two for instance, it had became merely a lesson in a chapter in history classes with their atrocities now dramatized in mainstream fiction. It would seem that our generation had clearly forgiven the race that brought to the region ‘Railway Of Death’, ‘Comfort Women’ or ‘Nanjing Massacre’ had embraced the Japanese culture, culinary, music and fashion passionately. What had caused the death of millions has become a yawn in an afternoon history class and will be forgotten if measures were not prescribed to remember it. Why is there a need to remember such crimes at all? Wouldn’t it be fitter if they are forgotten, erased from the memories so that the victims will not be haunt by them and feuded countries could mend their ties and cooperate for better economical success? Because the human race despite its ingeniousness is a much fallible one. As if combating the loss of human lives through natural disasters are not enough, Man had to conjure disasters such as wars and violent political upheavals that claimed even more lives. They need constant reminders from their own bloody history on how to progress more carefully and peacefully. They need to domesticate their selfish bloodlust with education of the values of life through historical experiences. As philosopher George Santayana said, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’
Conclusively in my opinion, I think that when just deserts were melted out and criminals had paid their dues, it is ideally that both offenders and victims would want to move on with their lives and forget the crimes eventually. Just like the boy thief who stole medicine for his mother, we are all not saints and could one day break the law, perhaps in a moment of folly, desperation or against our own wills. It would be nice if a chance at redeeming ourselves could be extended after our punishments. The society could be merciful towards remorseful offenders by not damning them with criminal records and offers a second chance in life. If a society could not forgive and work to reintegrate ex-offenders, they would most likely return to a life of crime simply because it is the only way to survive. Russian novelist Dostoevsky had once said, ‘The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.’, but I would like to add that it can be judged equally by how it treats its reformed offenders. We should forgive the wrongdoers if they are genuine in their rehabilitation and value a second chance at life, however we should not simply forget the crimes, no matter how trivial or how long it has been because like Danish philosopher Kierkegaard had said, ‘Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.’
