Implications of forgiveness in relation to terrorist violence

In order to carry out a detailed analysis of the effects of forgiveness in relation to terrorist violence, it will be necessary to answer some questions, starting by determining whether forgiveness produces positive effects, who benefits from them, and finally whether the process of forgiveness corresponds to the victim, to society or to the authorities.

In discussing the implications of forgiveness in relation to terrorist violence, it is necessary to begin by first discussing that between the actors in question, victim and perpetrator, there is an asymmetrical moral¹ relationship between victim and perpetrator².

It can be determined that forgiveness is a voluntary act, through a process of levelling or structuring. It is therefore a choice about how each person decides to deal with past events, allowing the person to free themselves from negative feelings³.

When we talk about forgiveness from the victim to the perpetrator, it is essential to clarify that forgiveness is person-oriented, i.e. it separates the person from the actions committed, because we are not forgiving the acts suffered, but the people who committed them. So it is a process in which it is understood that the person is more than the act they have committed, seeking their transformation, but being aware that the act is reprehensible⁴. It is a mechanism by means of which to unblock such understandable feelings in these cases as hatred or resentment⁵. 

It is very important to point out that forgiveness is an option that victims have and that under no circumstances can they be forced or demanded to undergo this process, as this could provoke a new victimisation; it has to be an act that is born from their person, in which they must be helped. Therefore, it is essential to respect the processes of deciding on forgiveness⁶.

In this case, related to the granting of pardon to terrorists, it can be considered from a legal-political perspective, as a result of some negotiation process leading to the application of measures of grace. However, if this negotiation takes place, the victims are being deprived of being the ones to grant pardon⁷.

So far we have only talked about forgiveness being the exclusive responsibility of the victim, and this is partly true, but it must be qualified, because this is a process in which the perpetrator has to admit to himself as guilty in order to be able to accept such forgiveness from the victim. This is because it is impossible to forgive someone who does not take responsibility for their actions or even admit to having committed them⁸. The consummation of forgiveness refers to a relationship between victim and perpetrator, and it is impossible for this phenomenon to take place if either party does not agree⁹.

In this sense, the need for repentance on the part of the perpetrator is evident, where it is necessary for him to recognise the knowledge he has about the harm he has caused, the intention of never committing it again, as well as facilitating the reparation of the victim¹⁰.

However, it is necessary to comment that there is another line of thought, in which repentance on the part of the perpetrator is not necessary, because this is an act that must be born from his own being, even without obtaining the victim's forgiveness, therefore, he does not do it as a response to anything. 

We have seen how forgiveness is a mechanism that can be used on certain occasions, contributing to peaceful¹¹ coexistence. However, it is a difficult process, in which not everyone chooses to participate.

Within the penal system in which this problem can be framed, we can speak of different conceptions or modalities of justice¹²: 

1. Retributive justice, which seeks retribution for the offender by making him or her suffer a punishment that is proportional to the harm he or she has caused. In this case, the actors are the state and the offenders, with the victims not taking part.
2. Preventive justice, the aim is that the penalties serve to prevent future crimes and guarantee social peace, here again the main actors are the State and the offender, leaving aside the victim.
3. Rehabilitative justice, limits are set between crime and punishment, in order to guarantee respect for dignity, and on the other hand, the aim is for punishment not to be mere retribution, but an opportunity for social integration.

In the three models previously exposed, we can hardly frame the importance of the victims, or the inclusion of an element such as forgiveness, so it is here that we can speak of restorative justice, where forgiveness does seem to find an intrinsic place in justice, when this is opposed in a restorative mode¹³. 

It is necessary to differentiate restorative justice and pardon from measures of grace, as they are not the same. Actions such as amnesties or pardons are granted by the authorities, but not by the victims, although it is desirable that they are heard in such procedures¹⁴. 

Restorative justice opts for dialogue between victim and offender, with the help of a mediator¹⁵, taking into account the moral asymmetry that occurs between the subjects and aiming to help in the personal restoration of the victim¹⁶. 

For the offender, this means not only acknowledging the unjust damage caused, but also collaborating and doing everything possible to help the victim to restore him/herself. In this sense, the offender obtains through this process the restoration of his moral identity and his restorative reorientation. In order to carry out this process, it is necessary that a transformation of the remembrance of the past takes place, without forgetting that the event as such is still there, where feelings are very intense¹⁷. 

In this sense, it is worth considering whether restorative justice would be a viable solution to the problem we are facing, whether it is an option to traditional punitive justice, as long as it is oriented towards producing the greatest possible benefit for the victims¹⁸.

The forgiveness of the offended party, as an extinction of criminal responsibility, is possible only in those crimes that can be prosecuted by means of a complaint or accusation by the aggrieved party, and when the law expressly foresees such an effect of forgiveness. Therefore, care must be taken because, if an attempt is made to impose state pardon, it would be usurping the right of the victims to grant or deny it¹⁹.

As we have commented, pardon does not cancel the judicial debt that the guilty party has contracted through his or her actions, so what was first called restorative justice has been used as a replacement for retributive justice, which is not satisfactory for all victims²⁰. 

Although it is true, as we have seen, that forgiveness in the case of terrorism can generate positive benefits not only for the victim, but also for the terrorist and society as a whole, this mechanism should be reserved solely and exclusively for situations in which all parties agree to carry it out. 

Likewise, it seems difficult at the present time to choose to open up the range of situations in which it is permissible to replace punitive justice with restorative justice.

Perhaps the integration of this alternative solution into traditional justice processes should be encouraged, because the benefits that it can bring are evident. This has been evidenced in various meetings between victims and perpetrators of ETA to bring positions closer together, which could lead to an approach to this model of conflict resolution as a viable alternative in the future.

In this way, mechanisms for forgiveness should be promoted as long as they are born of the parties involved, without pressure or inducements from external agents, provided that this does not imply producing a new victimisation of the victim and therefore having negative repercussions. 

Jairo Sánchez Gómez/ Criminologist and terrorism analyst/ Criminology Area Coordinator Sec2Crime.

1. Tomás, J. M. S., Pérez, L. L., Álvarez, M. P. S., Zarrabeitia, X. E., Rodríguez, E. P., Bernabé, J. L. S., Linares, M. Á. C. G. de, Guirao, R. A., Martín, J. R., Escamilla, M. M., Espina, F. L., Rodríguez, C. S., & Valcárcel, R. S. (2011). Justicia restaurativa, mediación penal y penitenciaria: Un renovado impulso. Madrid, Editorial Reus. p. 185.
2. Etxeberria, X. “El perdón y la reconciliación en la convivencia cívica”, Barcelona, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau. Disponible:http://icip.gencat.cat/web/.content/continguts/publicacions/llibres/eines/Eines23/EINES23_interactivo.pdf consultado el 4 de abril de 2020. 
3. Hope, D. (1987). The healing paradox of forgiveness. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 24(2), 240–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085710

4. La víctima y el perdón en la Justicia Restaurativa | VIU. (21/11/2017). Disponible: https://www.universidadviu.es/la-victima-perdon-la-justicia-restaurativa/ [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020]

5. Etxeberria, X. (2018) “El perdón y la reconciliación en la convivencia cívica”, Barcelona, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau. Disponible: http://icip.gencat.cat/web/.content/continguts/publicacions/llibres/eines/Eines23/EINES23_interactivo.pdf [consultado el 4 de abril de 2020].

6. Lillo, J.L. “Sobre el perdón y la reconciliación: una perspectiva psicoanalítica”. Temas de Psicoanálisis. Núm. 7 – Enero 2014, disponible: https://www.temasdepsicoanalisis.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/JOSE-LUIS-LILLO.-SOBRE-EL-PERDON-Y-LA-RECONCILIACION.-UNA-PERSPECTIVA-PSICOANALITICA.pdf [consultado el 5 de abril de 2020].

7. Blanco, M. B. (2006). Víctimas del terrorismo y política del perdón. Cuadernos de pensamiento político FAES, 10, 9-22. Disponible: https://fundacionfaes.org/file_upload/publication/pdf/20130423145800victimas-del-terrorismo-y-politica-del-perdon.pdf [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020].

8. Rueda, C. (2012). Perdón y arrepentimiento: La experiencia de Jean Améry. Ideas y Valores, Volumen 61 Nº148, 79-99. Disponible: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/idval/article/view/36797/38804 [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020].

9. Aguirre, R. “La verdad, la justicia y perdón ante la victimización”, Eguzkilore, San Sebastián. Núm. 12, pp. 77-88. Disponible: https://www.ehu.eus/documents/1736829/3342827/Eguzkilore+12-9.+Aguirre.pdf [consultado el 5 de abril de 2020].

10. Rueda, C. (2012). Perdón y arrepentimiento: La experiencia de Jean Améry. Ideas y Valores, Volumen 61 Nº148, 79-99. Disponible: https://revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/idval/article/view/36797/38804 [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020].

11. Marín Hinestroza, I., Triana Osorio, L. A., Martínez Saldarriaga, M. G. y Alzate Berrio, S. M. (2016). Perdón, convivencia y reconciliación en el proceso de paz, desde una mirada psicológica. Revista Poesies, 245-256. Disponible: file:///C:/Users/Jairo/Downloads/2114-8240-1-PB%20(2).pdf [consultado el 3 de mayo de 2020]

12. Ramírez, D. A., Guzmán, E. A. D. la R., & Valencia, N. M. (2018). Justicia retributiva y restaurativa: Análisis comparado a través de estudios de caso en el Valle del Cauca. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología: Ciencia y Tecnología, 11(1), 55-64.

13. Domingo, V. (s. f.). ¿Por qué la Justicia Restaurativa es buena para las víctimas incluso de delitos graves? Disponible: https://cj-worldnews.com/spain/index.php/es/derecho-31/la-otra-justicia/item/2776-por-que-la-justicia-restaurativa-es-buena-para-las-victimas-incluso-de-delitos-graves [consultado el 4 de mayo de 2020].

14. Ríos Martín, J. C., & Olalde Altarejos, A. J. (2011) Justicia restaurativa y mediación. Postulados para el abordaje de su concepto y finalidad. Revista de Mediación, Número 8. Disponible: https://revistademediacion.com/articulos/justicia-restaurativa-y-mediacion-postulados-para-el-abordaje-de-su-concepto-y-finalidad/ [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020].

15. Llop, P. V. (2018, octubre 19). ¿Es posible la justicia restaurativa en España para que las víctimas no queden en el olvido? UNIR. Disponible: https://www.unir.net/derecho/revista/noticias/es-posible-la-justicia-restaurativa-en-espana-para-que-las-victimas-no-queden-en-el-olvido/549203652314/  [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020]

16. Etxeberria, X. “El perdón y la reconciliación en la convivencia cívica”, Barcelona, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau. Disponible:
    http://icip.gencat.cat/web/.content/continguts/publicacions/llibres/eines/Eines23/EINES23_interactivo.pdf consultado el 4 de abril de 2020.

17. Etxeberria, X. “El perdón y la reconciliación en la convivencia cívica”, Barcelona, Institut Català Internacional per la Pau. Disponible:
    http://icip.gencat.cat/web/.content/continguts/publicacions/llibres/eines/Eines23/EINES23_interactivo.pdf consultado el 4 de abril de 2020

18. Gómez Bermúdez, M., & Coco Gutiérrez, S. (s. f.). Justicia restaurativa: “Mediación en el ámbito penal”. Revista de Mediación, Número 11(3). Disponible: https://revistademediacion.com/articulos/justicia-restaurativa-mediacion-en-el-ambito-penal/ [consultado el 6 de mayo de 2020].

19. Blanco, M. B. (2006). Víctimas del terrorismo y política del perdón. Cuadernos de pensamiento político FAES, 10, 9-22. Disponible: https://fundacionfaes.org/file_upload/publication/pdf/20130423145800victimas-del-terrorismo-y-politica-del-perdon.pdf [consultado el 5 de mayo de 2020].

20. Rogelio Alonso & Javier Díaz Bada (2016) What Role Have Former ETA Terrorists Played in Counterterrorism and Counterradicalization Initiatives in Spain? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 39:11, 982-1006, DOI: 10.1080/1057610X.2016.1154365