Context Link: https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-11/transitional-justice-south-africaWhat are some key differences between trials and truth commissions? How might you figure out when it would be best to have a trial and when a truth commission would be best? ...[Show More]
1 year ago
Differences Between Trials and Truth Commissions
Truth commissions and trials are both
transitional justice mechanisms meant to resolve historical violations of human
rights and encourage responsibility, but they operate differently and have different
aims (Zvobgo, 2020). Trials are legal hearings where a suspected individual is
put on trial and assessed for their conduct. They frequently feature an
official legal procedure involving a judge, juror, prosecution, and defence.
Trials are intended to hold people responsible for their offenses and to
inflict penalties if they are proven culpable.
Contrarily, truth committees are
non-judicial groups that investigate past cases of human rights abuses and
present a transparent account of what happened. Most of the time, a group of
individuals selected by the government, or a foreign organization is charged
with questioning victims and perpetrators, collecting their statements, and
writing a report detailing their findings and recommendations. By exposing the
truth about earlier offenses and providing victims a platform to share their
experiences, truth commissions hope to promote healing, repentance, and
societal change.
The gravity and character of the human
rights violations, the political and societal environment, the available
resources, and the objectives of the transitional justice process should all be
considered when choosing between a prosecution and a truth commission (Seul, 2019).
When there is substantial proof to back the accusations and the offenses are
serious and entail individual accountability, a hearing may be suitable. Trials
can also give victims a feeling of justice and help prevent further offenses.
Trials, however, can be expensive and time-consuming, and there is no guarantee
that the accused will be found guilty or punished. Trials may also increase
racial strife and be perceived as enforcing an outside judicial system.
When there is a need to create a historical
record of prior violations and when the objective is to foster social change,
peace, and mending, a truth commission might be more suitable. Truth committees
can give people a platform to share their experiences and can aid in creating a
general knowledge of the past. Trials may be more expensive and time-consuming
than truth boards. Truth committees may not, however, hold offenders personally
accountable or penalize them, and the government may not always follow their
suggestions.
References
Seul, J. R. (2019).
Coordinating transitional justice. Negotiation Journal, 35(1),
9-30.
Zvobgo, K. (2020).
Demanding truth: The global transitional justice network and the creation of
truth commissions. International Studies Quarterly, 64(3), 609-625.Demanding
truth: The global transitional justice network and the creation of truth
commissions. International Studies Quarterly, 64(3),
609-625.
By Shem Kipkoech 2 months ago . Marked as helpful (24). Marked as unhelpful (24)
Discuss Lowenthal’s examination of the evolution of environmental history. How does environmental history fit within the larger frame of histo...
By fastfreta75 · 1 year ago
economic structure and trade between middle east and east asia...
By Ngilliam.99 · 1 year ago
The textbook suggests the "dawn of religion" began in Mesopotamia. Trace this dawn through to the emergence of monotheism and even beyond to the matur...
By mdawson22 · 1 year ago
Discuss Castor’s analysis of the concept of a female monarch as seen through the reigns of Henry VIII’s two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth I. What ...
By CPA Guru · 3 years ago
Discuss Castor’s analysis of the concept of a female monarch as seen through the reigns of Henry VIII’s two daughters, Mary and Elizabeth I. What ...
By CPA Guru · 3 years ago