Staci Muraske

Sociology 455

2 May 2014

How is law and, by extension, justice challenged in the aftermath of political violence, disaster,

and mass killing? What are the special problems disaster and catastrophe (political and

“natural”) pose for the law? How might law and justice better attend to the concerns of those

most affected by political violence, crimes of atrocity, and catastrophe? Do these problems

remind you of other issues and readings in the course? What will it take for bereaved individuals

and communities to engage in meaningful “memory work” and build a new life?

It has been said that law is there to speak through people’s passions. But what happens

when the fine line between speaking through people’s passions and protecting people through

justice is blurred? What does one do when the law no longer can help speak for them and justice

is no longer there to protect those who need it? The eyes of the law are different amongst all

those who look at it. Law is challenged; it ratifies problems, and is attentive. But, on what level?

Law and justice are viewed very differently once the aftermath of political violence, disaster,

catastrophe, and crimes of atrocity come into play. People want to believe the law is there to

speak for them, to support them, and show them the justice they deserve. However, law and

justice are much more complex than that, especially after the acts of political violence, disaster,

catastrophe, and crimes of atrocity. The aftermath of these events are when the true colors of the

law are shown. It’s when people start to recognize what the law does and does not do for them.

It’s when people recognize whether or not justice should be served, whether or not there should

be accountability and blame, whether or not people should forgive and forget, or forgive and not

forget and move on in order to build a new life. There are several readings and two

documentaries I will be referring to in order to support the role of law and justice within the

events previously mentioned.

To begin, the law and justice are challenged in several ways due to the aftermath of

Hurricane Katrina, the Ugandan genocides, and the political violence faced in Peru. The

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina left the city of New Orleans in deep devastation. Spike Lee’s

documentary, When the Levees Broke, gives viewers an inside look at the catastrophe that was

Hurricane Katrina. The people of New Orleans were outraged that the levees, supposedly

protecting their city, were designed so poorly by the United States Army Corps of Engineering

that they were not able to withstand anything more than a category 3 hurricane (Lee). Because of

this the levees easily broke, causing the entire city to flood tremendously. One of the main

reasons the government did not build levees that could withstand a higher category hurricane was

because they believed it would be too expensive (Lee), but what the government did not account

for was how much more expensive it would be to rebuild a whole city after a devastation like

Hurricane Katrina. The problem that arises and challenges the law is why did the government not

spend the money to protect the people of New Orleans against high category hurricanes? And

after the devastation, why did the government not account for the flood damage as hurricane

damage? Instead, everything that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina was initially only

accounted for if a person had flood insurance, and if they did not then their possessions and their

homes could not be properly taken care of and fixed. This was a main concern for the residents

of New Orleans because most of them did have hurricane damage insurance, but not flood

insurance. Failures were committed at all levels of government before and after this disaster, but

mostly at the Federal level (Lee). Due to this, the law and the justice people believed they

deserved was then challenged by the people of New Orleans, who thought their cities laws were

there to protect them from instances such as this.

When it comes to the Ugandan genocide, Kamari Maxine Clarke’s paper, “Global

Justice, Local Controversies: The International Criminal Court and the Sovereignty of Victims”

shows us how law and justice were challenged through amnesty. Amnesty is defined in three

different ways. One being the formal act of liberating someone, another being a warrant granting

release from punishment for an offense, and the last being a period during which offenders are

exempt from punishment. All three definitions point towards basically allowing a perpetrator not

to be punished for crimes they have committed. Law and justice are challenged in this way

because how does one decide what crimes are and are not eligible for amnesty? Also, why

choose the path of amnesty in the first place? Uganda decides to use amnesty acts and statues

due to their violence ridden past, and as the best way to rebuild their nation (Clarke 142). This

takes us right into the Amnesty Statute of 1987 which the National Resistance Council (NRC)

encouraged various fighting groups and sponsors of insurgency to cease their activities, and

building on this statute was a second Amnesty Act in January 2000 for Ugandans which involved

‘acts of war-like nature in various parts of the country’ to be added into amnesty (Clarke 143).

This means that the crimes against humanity that were committed during the Ugandan genocide

are now added to amnesty. In more detail, the 2000 Act provides that ‘an Amnesty is declared in

respect of any Ugandan who has at any time since the 26th day of January, 1986 engaged or is

engaging in war or armed rebellion against the government of the Republic of Uganda by actual

participation in combat collaborating with the perpetrators of the war or armed rebellion;

committing any other crime in the furtherance of the war or armed rebellion; or assisting or

aiding the conduct or prosecution of the war or armed rebellion (Clarke 143). Now, this is where

the law is challenged, because one would like to think that people who commit crimes like this

should be ultimately punished, and the victim of these crimes should receive justice, somehow.

The problem that occurs is whether or not the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal

Court should pursue investigations and arrests prior to the end of the war in Uganda, or whether

‘in the interest of justice’ he should deem his findings inadmissible and instead support the bid

for peace that would enable the Ugandan government to apply its national legislation, the

Amnesty Act, and indefinitely grant amnesty to these perpetrators of crimes against humanity,

while still applying traditional justice mechanisms to Ugandan paths to justice (Clarke 147).

Either way, law and justice are challenged through whether or not crimes against humanity, and

the people that committed these crimes should receive amnesty.

Furthermore, with the political violence in Peru, Kimberly Theidon’s paper, “Histories of

Innocence” shows readers how law and justice are challenged through memory projects.

Memory projects were put together by assemblies in each community, and were held to discuss

what would be and would not be said to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) when

they arrived to take testimonies on the killings done (Theidon 101). Theidon goes on to say, “I

attended numerous assemblies in which authorities reminded everyone what they had decided to

talk about- which deaths would be discussed and which ones silenced in the interest of yielding a

collective history of innocence” (102). The law and justice are challenged through these memory

projects because the community is deciding what should and should not be discussed based on

how the outcome will make them look as a whole. This puts the victims of these political

violence’s in jeopardy because the whole truth is not coming out in order to help them get justice

for what has been done. Instead, the memory projects focused on “innocent victims”, and the

women were consistently told to be quiet for dear they would “vary the information” (Theidon

104). The women involved in these political violence crimes were raped and often killed; yet

they were never allowed to speak up about it. Because of this, women never got the justice they

deserved due to the trials of these memory projects going awry. Overall, it is seen through the

devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the Ugandan genocides and the political violence in Peru that

law and justice are indeed challenged in the aftermath of these events due to corruption in the

law, and justice not being served properly.

In addition to law and justice being challenged by the aftermath of certain events, there

are also special problems, both political and natural, that disaster and catastrophe pose for the

law. The political problems that are posed for the law are that of accountability and blame. Who

or what should be blamed for this disaster? Who or what should be held accountable? Is it the

government that people should blame? Is it the laws that are suppose to protect people from

catastrophe and disaster that should be blamed? Or is it a natural problem, something that cannot

be controlled, like an act of God. We can refer back to Spike Lee’s documentary; When the

Levees Broke to help us look at whom the victims of Hurricane Katrina wanted to put blame on.

In one sense, Hurricane Katrina can be classified as an act of God because no one could do

anything to prevent that storm from hitting New Orleans. However, the government, both local

and federal, could have built the levees to withstand a higher category hurricane. They could

have spent that extra money to make levees that will protect the people, who live past them, but

instead they took the cheap and easy way out in building them, and for that reason as problem

arises in the law regarding protection.

In Kai Erikson’s book, “Everything in Its Path”, the Buffalo Creek disaster poses

problems for the law based on the conditions of minor and structural force that led to the disaster,

itself. The main problem that caused this flood disaster in Buffalo Creek was how the mine waste

was being disposed. Every time one would dig four tons of coal out of the ground, one would

also dig up a ton or so of “slag” or “gob” and would dispose of these wastes wherever the law of

gravity might suggest, and more often than not, it was the stream at the top of the holler that

received all the waste (Erikson 25). Because they thought they could solve the disposal problem

by pouring the mess into streams, this eventually led to the use of impoundment structures to

help dispose of the excess waste, but all this did was create a dam that not only housed waste, but

now fragments of rood, timber, wedges, ect. All of these problems, and the improper use of the

stream, caused the damn to collapse during a heavy rainfall. A massive stream of black water and

waste that tore through the area then flooded the whole entire town. The problems that this

disaster posed for the law are both political and natural. The political problem that is presented is

why were the miners allowed to dispose of waste in this way? Were there no laws to protect the

streams and the natural reservoirs in the Buffalo Creek area? The natural problem presented to

the law is whether or not this disaster can and should be considered an act of God as well,

something that cannot be controlled by humans. But, because of the way the waste was housed in

the dam on the stream- due to the minors disposing it that way- is what caused the dam to

collapse and flood the town. Regardless, accountability and blame are always going to be

problems posed towards the law whether it is due to political reasoning’s, or natural reasoning’s.

Due to the way law and justice are challenged in the aftermath of political violence,

crimes of atrocity, and catastrophe, as well as the special problems these events pose for the law,

there is always the question of how might law and justice better attend to the concerns of those

most affected by these events? We have seen amnesty acts come into play to protect those who

have wronged others through unspeakable ways, we have seen memory projects control what can

and cannot be said during testimonies, and we have seen the government try to find a way around

protecting its citizens. But, more should be done through the law and justice that can better

attend to the concerns of those affected. For example, in the documentary, Enemies of the

People, the director Sambeth goes to Cambodia to interview some of the people who were

involved in killing fields during the Khmer Rouge. He interviews these people not telling them

of his own family connections to the killings, in hopes of finding out what really happened

during this time. His main concern is that he wants people to know how the killers feel about the

situation now, and how it still affects people who either experienced it, or took part in the

killings. The way that law and justice could better attend to the concerns the victims and their

families have to these killings is to see these people put away, and justice be served to those who

deserve it. With the help of the ICC, the perpetrators who committed these crimes against

humanity should be sentenced, and justice should be served to those who want to put these

crimes behind them.

In addition to perpetrators being rightfully sentenced due to their wrongdoings, trials,

truth commissions, and reparations should be demanded of the law as well. In Martha Minow’s

paper, “Facing History” she talks about how trials for war crimes and atrocities convert the

impulse for revenge into state-managed truth-seeking and punishment and yet depend for the

most part upon symbolism rather than the effectuation of the rule of law (122). Basically, the

effect of the rule of law is not taken into account, and people are not given the rightful

punishment for their actions. She states that the claim, and the hope, is that trials create official

records of the scope of violence and the participants in it, and that guilty verdicts afford public

acknowledgement of what happened, and its utter wrongfulness (Minow 123). If the law and

justice were able to attend to the concern of what actually happened, rather than focusing solely

on memory projects, and only those who are innocent, they would be able to punish these

wrongdoers, rightfully. She states, “Where trials do occur, one hope is the creation of transparent

court records that simply speak the truth to the relevant audiences. This hope depends of the

fairness throughout the proceedings” (Minow 125). This statement helps us realize that trials for

crimes of atrocity are often done in an unfair way. Victims and those affected by these events

should be able to have the law and justice rightfully back them and their concerns up. Minow

says, “For the victimized deserve the acknowledgement of their humanity and the reaffirmation

of the utter wrongfulness of its violation. And bystanders must see a response, and face their own

choices about action and inaction” (146). Kamari Clarke goes on to say in her paper, “Global

Justice, Local Controversies: The International Criminal Court and the Sovereignty of Victims”

that we need to think more precisely about the meaning and enactment of justice and politics in

local contexts- how it should work, whom it should include and whom it excludes. We must

rethink the conditions within which we envisage justice in the first place, and expand the basis

within which we locate political beings (Clarke 158). Basically, in order to attend to the concerns

of those affected by political violence, and crimes of atrocity we need to think more in detail

about what needs to be included, and what does not.

Finally, the way law and justice can better attend to concerns of those who were most

affected by catastrophe is entirely different that the way law and justice attends to the concerns

of political violence and crimes of atrocity. Political violence’s and crimes of atrocity are dealt

with through trials and testimonies, while catastrophe and disaster are dealt with on a more

personal level. Law and justice can only be attentive to the concerns of these victims through

help, whether it is the help of the community, or the help of the government. People that

experience catastrophe, like those of the Buffalo Creek disaster, also experience serious trauma.

Kai Erikson states that there are two types of trauma these people likely experience: individual

and collective. He defined individual trauma, as a blow to the psyche that breaks through ones

defenses so suddenly and with such brutal force that one cannot react to it effectively (Erikson

153) and he defines collective trauma as a blow to the basic tissues of social life that damages the

bonds attaching people together and impairs the prevailing sense of communality (Erikson 154).

Basically, the survivors suffered deep shock due to the death and devastation; they felt alone,

vulnerable, and numb. The community no longer exists as an effective source of support for one

another, because they are all feeling the same way. The way the law and justice could better

attend to their concerns due to the catastrophe would be to provide a way for these people to

move on from their trauma and devastation, perhaps send people out there to help rebuild what

has been lost.

With that being said, it clearly can take a lot for someone to move on from tragic events

such as these, and more often than not people are struggling with how to build a new life, to

forgive and forget, or to forgive and not forget. In Martha Minow’s paper, a journalist named

Tina Rosenberg says, “Nations, like individuals, need to face up to and understand traumatic past

events before they can put them aside and move on to normal life” (Minow 118). Minow goes on

to say that living after genocide, mass atrocity, totalitarian terror, however, makes remembering

and forgetting not just about dealing with the past. The treatment of the past through

remembering and forgetting crucially shapes the present and future for individuals and entire

societies (119). So, in order to build a new life and move on from these events, one has to

understand what happened. It must remain the choice of the survivors whether to grant

forgiveness, or to accept apologies or reparations. The role to accept or reject avenues is

uniquely theirs (Minow 136). It is only up to the survivors to determine how they will engage in

meaningful memory work and build a new life. Some of the memory work might be that of a

monument, where memory is safe in the present and can transmit the memory across generations

(Minow 138). Regardless of how a bereaved individual or community learns to move on, it has

to be done in order to build a new life.

In conclusion, we have gone through every which way law and justice is challenged, the

way events pose problems towards it, how to better attend to concerns, and how to build a new

life based off of living through political violence, disaster, and crimes of atrocity. We have seen

how law and justice are viewed differently in the aftermath of these events, and we have seen

how law does and does not speak for the people who need it. The true colors of the law are

definitely shown in hindsight of these events, once people recognize what the law does and does

not do for them, whether or not justice should be served, whether there should be accountability

and blame, and whether or not people should forgive and forget, or just forgive. Regardless, the

law is there to speak through people’s passions, and justice is there to protect people, and

whether or not the line between the two is blurred, the law remains definite.