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

amnesty? By being lenient, soft with prison and fines, but hard
on the need to relate to the victim. Half-amnesty, in short.
[3] State-Victim: In both models the state gives the victim
a voice and offers a sympathetic ear. But under the T&R model
there is more focus on restitution to the victim, seeing the
trauma as a social responsibility, and less on retribution.
Nothing of this seems impossible. Starting with the justice
model, more and more elements of the reconciliation model could be
introduced, gradually. Basically what would be needed would be
personnel able to handle reconciliation, and judges able to
accommodate both kinds of knowledge and skills. And the public
will have to learn to reconcile and not ostracize if there is
progress in the perpetrator-victim relation.
Imagine we now superimpose Models I and II on each other, as
matrix and as graph. The presentation becomes somewhat messy, but
more important is how a sentence might read:
You P have committed crimes against the laws of ----, and you
have violated the general moral bonds tying humans together by
your heinous acts of violence against V. For breaking the law I
hereby, in the name of justice, sentence you to----.
In addition to serving this sentence you are obliged, after
mature reflection, to extend your deep apology to V and/or V's
family and try your best, directly and/or indirectly, to repair
the human relations you violated. In addition to this you are
obliged to repair the damage done through direct restitution to V
and/or V's family, in kind and/or money, over time.
Your case is closed when you have served your sentence and
justice has been done, and you have extended your apologies, done
your restitution, and reconciliation has been done.
The exact amount could then be negotiated in the Court-V-P
triad. P has a say, but no veto. And the relative weight of the
two models would be the crucial variable that could catch the
"circumstances" surrounding the case, such as cultural and
48