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

there an underlying, universal, quest for balance, for tit for
tat, quid pro quo, harm for harm, as there is for positive goods,
that has to be met to obtain closure, also for violence?
The English language uses the word "closure" in both cases.
Closure can come through V doing equal harm to P as revenge and
then stopping ("quits", like the Arab sulcha), or through S
administering equal harm, "justice" to P. Contrary to the US
saying "two wrongs do not make one right", two acts of equal
suffering may cancel each other, whereas imbalance may invite
violence compensation. Forgiveness in exchange for apology makes
sense. But so does punishment in exchange for crime. One does
not exclude the other; opening for an eclectic Model III.
After all, the court process is about the same, adding
priests and psychologists to jurists. But there are also some
dissimilarities, leading to both-and rather than either-or:
[1] Victim-Perpetrator. The Justice model is unrealistic,
based on the idea that the direct trauma will be healed, even to
the point of closure, by the satisfaction derived from indirect
administration of punishment by the state. There may be some
minor truth to this. But the major truth lies with the direct
relation in the T&R model, exchanging apology for forgiveness,
adding to that concrete, direct restitution. If direct relations
are impossible, the trauma being too deep, go-betweens might be
needed, with special training (religious/psychological). A
typical example would be sexualized violence, such as rape.
[2] Perpetrator-State: In both models the perpetrator has to
tell the truth, and is confronted with evidence uncovered by the
investigators. But how can the State both punish and give
47