AFTER VIOLENCE: 3R, RECONSTRUCTION, RECONCILIATION ...

esponsible; starting with democracy and human rights.
6. Truth & Reconciliation in South Africa: A New Jurisprudence?
Permit me to start on a personal note, reflecting on the fact that
I once did six months in prison, in my own home town Oslo, Norway,
in connection with objection to military service for refusing to
be kill. An unforgettable experience was meeting murderers
telling me how they related to their killing:
[1] I wish I could do something good for that family, squaring
the wrong I did to them, giving them whatever I might earn - -
[2] There is nothing I am so afraid of as meeting that family. I
am so happy these prison walls keep them out, and me in.
These two statements could very well come from the same person.
At the same time as they are both very meaningful, they are also
contradictory in the sense that it is difficult to enact both.
Contradictions abound in criminal violence and its aftermath. Or
just in crime. Or just in violence. Or just in law.
The statements may be read many ways. One reading points to
a basic problem of the legal system: the focus is on the relation
between the Perpetrator (P) and the Law, represented by the State
(S); not on the relation between P and the Victim (V).
Adjudication takes place in the P-S relation, ending with
acquittal or conviction. In the latter case S administers pain to
P with the double intention of deterring P from doing it again
(individual prevention, and of deterring others (general).
V is placed on a side-track, irrelevant except for launching
the process through an act of accusation, and as a witness. What
V suffers is important in deciding the sentence, but is for V and
V's nearest kin and friends to bear; like some kind of natural
40