A reader messaged to ask for a Confucian answer to this question: what does society owe people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes?
She asks because she is working with people in Taiwan on the issue of legal exoneration, along the lines of the Taiwan Innocence Project.
Looking into the Lunyu and Mengzi we can find some passages that speak to this question, though only rather indirectly. Perhaps the best place to start is with a reminder that Confucius holds a certain mistrust for highly routinized systems of administration, both political and legal (Analects 2.3; Analects 12.13). He believes that justice is best achieved by wise and humane leaders crafting decisions based on a careful consideration of particular social and familial circumstances. Some legal theorists have developed an interpretation of "Confucian Virtue Jurisprudence" to capture the distinctiveness of this perspective.
It might, then, be reasonable to look at how Confucius and Mencius describe noble-minded leaders (junzi - 君子) when they realize they've made a bad decision, and use those passages to answer the broader question of legal exoneration for people wrongly convicted.
In this regard we find Analects 19.21:
子貢曰：「君子之過也，如日月之食焉：過也，人皆見之；更也，人皆仰之。
Zigong said: "Mistakes of the noble-minded are like eclipses of sun and moon: they make a mistake, and it's there for everyone to see; they make it right, and everyone looks up in awe." (Hinton)
This suggests that if a miscarriage of justice occurs, it should be recognized and rectified. Indeed, the error cannot but be noticed: it is as obvious as an eclipse. How could it not, then, be made right?
That, at least, is what a good person, and by extension a good legal system, would do. This sentiment is repeated in Mengzi 2B.9, with a bit more detail. There, Mencius is asked about an apparent misjudgment made by the Duke of Zhou, one of the revered founders of the Zhou Dynasty. It seems the wise Duke appointed his elder brother, Guan Shu, to keep the remnants of the previous Shang Dynasty under control. Guan Shu, however, sided with the Shang and attacked Zhou, an irruption that was eventually put down by the Duke but not without raising some questions about his decision-making. Mencius tells us, referencing Analects 19.21, that the Duke made things right, and he did so in a way we all can learn from:
且古之君子，過則改之；今之君子，過則順之。古之君子，其過也，如日月之食，民皆見之；及其更也，民皆仰之。今之君子，豈徒順之，又從為之辭。
"...when the junzi of old committed an error, he corrected his course. When a ruler errs today, he persists in his error. The error of the junzi of old was like an eclipse of the sun or moon: the people all observed it, and when he changed course they all admired him for it. Nowadays rulers not only persist in their errors, they make excuses for them." (Enos, pdf)
It appears that the good behavior of the Duke of Zhou had been forgotten in the age of Mencius ("nowadays"). But look at the key point: to persist in an erroneous decision, and to make excuses for it, is deplorable. The right thing to do is to change course, to correct the error in a public and transparent manner.
To return to the question at hand - what does society owe people who have been wrongly convicted of a crime? - the first part of an answer would be: a public and transparent process of exoneration, as noticeable as the aftermath of an eclipse of sun and moon.
But how do you make up for the loss inflicted by wrongful conviction: perhaps years in jail, loss of livelihood, family disintegration? Confucius, as usual, would not have a strict formula of recompense, but he would be sympathetic and generous. Look at how he treated one of his followers who had been wrongfully convicted in Analects 5.1:
子謂公冶長，「可妻也。雖在縲絏之中，非其罪也」。以其子妻之。
The Master said of Gong Ye Chang that he might be wived; although he was put in bonds, he had not been guilty of any crime. Accordingly, he gave him his own daughter to wife. (Legge)
Obviously, these days we do not treat women in such a manner: daughters have the freedom to choose to marry whom they want. But think of the sentiment behind the act here: Confucius is expressing a supreme trust and respect for someone who had been wrongfully convicted. He is establishing an on-going and valuable relationship with him. The spirit of this gesture suggests that, extrapolated to modern circumstances, society, as represented by its government and legal system, owes wrongfully convicted persons sufficient social recognition, and perhaps economic means, to allow them to reconstruct their lives with dignity and honor.
We might also keep in mind again here that Mencius emphasizes the importance of helping people gain a "certain livelihood" so that "they shall have sufficient wherewith to serve their parents, and, for those below them, sufficient wherewith to support their wives and children; that in good years they shall always be abundantly satisfied, and that in bad years they shall escape the danger of perishing." This would point to a policy that would help the wrongfully accused find jobs and maintain a stable incomes after their re-integration into society.
Beyond these rudimentary notions of what Confucius and Mencius might advocate in cases of exoneration, there is also a response they would firmly reject: the cold, brutal Legalist treatment meted out to poor Mr. He, as recounted by Han Feizi. (pp. 224-225).
Mr. He was a double victim of wrongful punishment. He twice brought what he knew to be a valuable piece of jade to the king, and twice the king's jeweler failed to see that it was indeed genuine, and twice the king had Mr. He's foot chopped off. After hearing of Mr. He's grief (he cried until his eyes bled!) over the injustice he was dealt, the king sent an aide to investigate. The heartless message to Mr. He was: "Many people in the world have had their feet amputated - why do you weep so piteously over it?" (天下之刖者多矣，子奚哭之悲也?). Mr. He replied that he wept because his integrity had been impugned. The wrongful imputation of a deceitful character was harder to bear than even the loss of both feet.
Han Feizi makes Mr. He's story into an allegory for the travails of the proponents of Legalism: their political philosophy is like the the unappreciated jade, valuable yet spurned. What is missing, however, in this Legalist rationalization is a recognition of the victim's plight. No sympathy, no redress, no chance of exoneration. Mr. He is simply collateral damage in the king's battle to maintain political power against potential deceivers.
This inhumane ideology is clearly at odds with the views of Confucius and Mencius. That, at least, is the stance of Han Feizi, who relentlessly attacks Confucians for being, among other things, idealist dupes, destined to lose political struggles.
Chinese tradition includes both a clear Confucian justification for exoneration and a strong Legalist rejection of the same. Activists at the Taiwan Innocence Project, should they want to, can find some solace in the Lunyu and Mengzi. The Han Feizi, not so much.
Comments