Redemption for Wrongdoing

• DOI: 10.1177/0022002706286953
• Published date: 01 June 2006
• Author: Jon Elster
• Date: 01 June 2006
• Subject Matter: Articles

324

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This article brings together and elaborates on several themes in Elster (2004).

JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION, Vol. 50 No. 3, June 2006 324-338

DOI: 10.1177/0022002706286953

© 2006 Sage Publications

Redemption for Wrongdoing

THE FATE OF COLLABORATORS AFTER 1945

JON ELSTER

Collège de France and

International Institute for Peace Research,Oslo

The prosecution of wrongdoers in transitional justice differs from ordinary criminal justice in that

defendants can appeal to an argument from redemption: even if they admit to wrongdoing as agents of

the autocratic regime during one period of its existence, they may receive lenient treatment on grounds of

their later acts of resistance to the regime. Trials and purges of collaborators in France and Norway after

World War II provide many examples. The moral and sometimes the legal efficacy of this argument is

undermined, however, if the later acts were undertaken for the purpose of redemption. It may also be

undermined if the earlier acts were so grave that nothing can wipe them out.

Keywords: transitional justice; trials; World War II; redemption

An important part of transitional justice is the punishment of wrongdoers from the

earlier autocratic regime. Typically, these are accused of specific acts of wrongdoing,

such as treason, collaboration with an occupying force, informing on resisters to the

earlier regime, and so on. In response to such charges, the accused may offer a number

of different justifications, excuses, or legal defenses. One common justification is that

of the lesser evil: “If I had not done X, regime hardliners would have done it, resulting

in worse outcomes.” Another is the double-game argument: “I joined the regime in

order to learn and thwart its plans.” Counterfactuals can also serve as excuses,as in the

common claim that “if I had refused to do X, I would have been severely punished.”

A common legal defense is that “doing X was not a crime at the time I did it.”

The common feature of all these rebuttals is that they focus on the very act X (the

focal act) that is the basis of the accusation. Under normal circumstances, this goes

without saying. One cannot claim acquittal or a reduced sentence by citing other,

laudable acts that may compensate for an admitted wrongdoing.1A burglar would

1. The defendant might, of course, produce a character witness to show that he has performed laud-

able acts in the light of which he is unlikely to have done what he is accused of. Here I am assuming that

the defendant admits the focal act.

JCR286953.qxd 4/12/2006 3:19 PM Page 324