Retributive or reparative justice? Explaining post-conflict preferences in Kenya

Journal of Peace Research, vol. 60, pp. 258–273

Abstract

Abstract In states emerging from mass violence and human rights abuses, do individuals prefer retributive punishment of perpetrators through trials, or do they wish to be compensated with land or monetary reparations for their injuries? How does the concrete option of prosecutions by the International Criminal Court (ICC) moderate these preferences? Using unique survey data from 507 Kenyans collected in 2015, we build on and add nuance to the empirical literature that interrogates the link between exposure to mass violence and post-conflict justice preferences. We find that while some individuals prefer reparative justice, victims and witnesses generally want perpetrators to be prosecuted. Even for those who are co-ethnics of government leaders – who allegedly instigated widespread killing, sexual assaults and displacements – direct exposure to those acts leads to greater desire for prosecutions. We further find that one’s personal experience with violence also leads one to reject domestic justice in favor of international justice: victims and witnesses who favored retributive justice are highly likely to believe that the ICC is the best option for prosecuting perpetrators.

Authors 3

1. Eamon Aloyo corresponding Aachen Institute of Security and Global Affairs

   Leiden University

   Affiliation as printed

   Institute of Security and Global Affairs (The Hague), Leiden University

2. Geoff Dancy

   Tulane University

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Political Science, Tulane University

3. Yvonne Dutton

   Indiana University

   Affiliation as printed

   Robert H McKinney School of Law, Indiana University