Amnesty and Retribution

Lenta, P

Amnesty and Retribution

Lenta, P

Permalink

Publisher:: University of Illinois Press
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018, 32 (2), pp. 119 - 139
Issue Date:: 2018

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	PAQ_32_2_Lenta.pdf	Published Version	1.46 MB		View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Lenta, P https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4061-4376	en_US
dc.date.available	2020-05-25T19:08:22Z
dc.date.issued	2018	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Public Affairs Quarterly, 2018, 32 (2), pp. 119 - 139	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0887-0373	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130724
dc.description.abstract	This paper addresses the relationship between amnesty granted to perpetrators of serious human rights abuses and retributivism. It rebuts arguments advanced by Dan Markel and Lucy Allais in support of their claim that the granting of conditional amnesty – amnesty in exchange for perpetrators’ confessing to, and disclosing the details of, their wrongdoing – by the South African Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) was consistent with retributivism. Markel contends that conditional amnesty was perfectly in line with recipients’ desert, while Allais submits that the TRC secured as much retribution as was possible in the circumstances of South Africa’s democratic transition. The argument of the paper is that, while retributivists have good reasons to view conditional amnesty as justified, the reasons provided by Markel and Allais are not among them.	en_US
dc.publisher	University of Illinois Press	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Public Affairs Quarterly	en_US
dc.title	Amnesty and Retribution	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	32	en_US
utslib.location.activity	USA	en_US
utslib.for	1801 Law	en_US
utslib.for	2203 Philosophy	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Law
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	true	en_US
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	32	en_US

Abstract:

This paper addresses the relationship between amnesty granted to perpetrators of serious human rights abuses and retributivism. It rebuts arguments advanced by Dan Markel and Lucy Allais in support of their claim that the granting of conditional amnesty – amnesty in exchange for perpetrators’ confessing to, and disclosing the details of, their wrongdoing – by the South African Truth and Reconciliation (TRC) was consistent with retributivism. Markel contends that conditional amnesty was perfectly in line with recipients’ desert, while Allais submits that the TRC secured as much retribution as was possible in the circumstances of South Africa’s democratic transition. The argument of the paper is that, while retributivists have good reasons to view conditional amnesty as justified, the reasons provided by Markel and Allais are not among them.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/130724