Boston College Law Review Volume 47 Article 1 Issue 4 Number 4
7-1-2006 Fixing A Hole: How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory Eric L. Muller
Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Criminal Law Commons
Recommended Citation Eric L. Muller, Fixing A Hole: How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory, 47 B.C.L. Rev. 659 (2006), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol47/iss4/1
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FIXING A HOLE: HOW THE CRIMINAL LAW CAN BOLSTER REPARATIONS THEORY
ERIC L. MULLER*
Abstract: High-profile popular-press authors recently have challenged the mainstream consensus that certain historical events should be con- demned as injustices. These authors argue that such condemnation un- fairly imposes modern standards on historical actors. Until now, the re- dress movement has largely ignored these partisan revisionists who have sought to justify the harmful decisions made by past generations. Such re- visionism, however, threatens the very foundation of reparations theory by persuading the public that redress is unnecessary because historical figures actually committed no injustice by merely acting appropriately, given the historical context in which they lived. This Article seeks to initi- ate a dialogue regarding how to approach the task of defining a historical injustice. The Article draws an analogy to the criminal law's "cultural de- fense," proposing a framework by which legal scholars may fairly judge the wrongdoing of historical actors. Although the analogy between for- eign cultures and historical eras is imperfect, it presents a useful starting point to stimulate critical discussion about how best to address the grow- ing structural weakness in the foundation of reparations theory.
h p t, th , n th r ntr . —Rhys Isaac'
INTRODUCTION Over approximately the past twenty years, scholars have built an elaborate theoretical structure of reparations for historical injustices. These scholars have paid careful attention to issues of causation, methods of compensation and restitution, the problem of privity be- tween wrongdoers and victims, the necessity of apology, and the viabil-
* 2006, Eric . Muller, George R. Ward Professor, University of North Carolina School of Law. I had helpful conversations about many of the ideas in this Article with Bill Marshall, Kay Levine, Deborah Weissman, Joe Kennedy, Melissa Jacoby, Maxine Eichner, Scott Baker, Andrew Chin, Richard Myers, Leslie Branclen-Muller, Abby Muller, and Nina Muller. RIM ISAAC, LANDON CARTER'S UNEASY KINGDOM: REVOLUTION AND RF,RELLION ON A VIRGINIA PLANTATION 105 (2004).
59 660 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 i y o eco ci ia io as a a e a i e o su eme o e a a io .2 a u a y, isag eeme s a ou e esig o e s uc u e emai , a co si e a e co s uc io wo k emai s o e o e. u e e is o ou a a si a e sc o a y s uc u e ow s a s i w a was o ce a em y ie . a s uc u e, owe e , as a u see o e i i s ou a io w ic ea e s e i eg i y o e e i e s uc u e a si s a o i . e o e as ee o e e y a isa is o ica e isio is s w o e i e a e y ma i u a e a mis e ese is o ica e i e ce o o i i ca u oses. e mos o o ious e am e o is so o e isio ism is e co i ui g e o s o some o u e mi e se e accou s o e e is e ce, a u e, a sco e o a i a oci ies i Eu o e u i g Wo Wa .4 ece y, ig o i e a isa e isio ism as c osse e A a ic a egu o oke a e ou a io s o Ame ica is o iog a y. I e as se e a yea s, o ewe a three wo ks o a isa e isio ism a e c im e ig o e ew Yo k imes es se e is : A Cou e s 200 ook, Treason,5 w ic a em s, amo g o e i gs, o us i y e e cesses o McCa yism Mic e e Ma ki s 2004 ook, In Defense of Internmen46 w ic seeks o us i y e acia i ca ce a io o some 0,000 a a ese a ie s a some 0,000 U.S. ci i e s o a a ese a ces y u i g Wo Wa II a omas E. Woo s s 200 ook, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History,7 w ic ies, amo g ma y o e i gs, o es a is e i ue o Sou e seces sio ism a o e e e owe o s a es o e mi s a e y.8 I eac i s a ce, e au o as a c ea a isa u ose o is o e e e i g o e e iso e i ques io : Cou e seeks o es a is e emo
2 O e e ce e summa y is A e . o y, Some Conceptual and Legal Problems in Reparations for Slavery, 8 .Y.U. A . SUM . AM. . 4 (200 . a isa is o ica e isio ism mus e is i guis e om e ea y ocess o e isi g is o ica u e s a i g o ake i o accou ew y isco e e e i e ce. es o si e a is assio a e co si e a io o ew e i e ce is e esse ce o goo is o ica ac ice i e su es a e s u y o is o y emai s es a i a . 4 a i I i g is o a y e es k ow e ese a i e o is mo eme . See E O A I S A , E YI G E O OCAUS : E G OWI G ASSAU O U A MEM o Y 8 ( 4 . See generally A COU E , EASO : I E A EAC E Y OM E CO WA O E WA O a ok (200 . 6 See generally MIC E E MA KI , I E E SE O I E ME : E CASE O " ACIA O I I G" I WO WA II A E WA O E O (2004 . See generally OMAS E. WOO S, ., E O I ICA Y I CO EC GUI E O AME I CA IS O Y (2004 . 8 See id. a 4 . 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 661 cratic Party as a party of traitors to the United States, Malkin seeks to advance an agenda of aggressive racial and religious profiling against Arabs and Muslims, and Woods seeks to further the efforts of radical libertarians to undermine all federal power. Scholars might prefer to ignore these popular-press books and their authors, but they do so at their peril. Not only do these revision- ist works draw more public attention and a larger readership than any work of mainstream scholarship could hope to attain, but, in the name of current political goals, these authors also bash away at the foundations for recognizing three of the most important episodes of historic American injustice: slavery, the Japanese American intern- ment, and McCarthyism. For scholars who focus on reparations theory, these works could not be more threatening; they tear open holes in the foundation of reparations theory by seeking to persuade millions of Americans that what we commonly take to be episodes of historical injustice were not, in fact, unjust. All of the carefully wrought theories of restitution, re- covery, causation, reconciliation, and apology that scholars have devel- oped in recent decades will surely be for naught if Americans come to believe that American history includes no episodes of true injustice. This Article calls for repair of this critical hole in the foundation of reparations theory. It seeks to' initiate discussion about how best to repair the hole by proposing an approach to defining historical injus- tice derived from principles of American criminal law. The method proceeds by analogy: it compares the problem of judging the wrong- doing of historical actors with the familiar criminal law problem known as the "cultural defense." The cultural defense is a legal strat- egy in which a defendant presents evidence of his or her cultural background to attempt to avoid criminal liability. In a typical cultural defense case, a recent immigrant from a foreign culture argues that it is unfair to judge her here for an act that was permissible, or at least tolerated, under her foreign culture's legal, ethical, or social norms. 19 The cultural defense might first appear to have little to do with the problem of defining historical injustice. But the problem of defining historical injustice typically arises as a debate about whether it is fair to judge the actions of a historical figure by current legal and ethical
See Nancy S. Kim, The Cultural Defense and the Problem of Cultural Preemption: A Frame- work for Analysis, 27 N.M. L. REV. 101, 102-03 (1997); Leti Volpp, (Mis)ldentiting Culture: Asian Women and the "Cultural Defense,"17 14A ay. WOMEN'S . . 57, 57 (1994). 10 For a full definition of the term "cultural defense," see Volpp, supra note 9, at 57. 662 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 standards, rather than the standards of her earlier era." Seen this way, the analogy emerges: just as we might consider excusing a person be- cause of where she is from, we might also consider excusing a person because of when she is from. It is an analogy between the culture of a place and the culture of an era. The fact is, however, that American criminal law very rarely ex- cuses a person because of culture. 2 Indeed, no American jurisdiction has recognized a complete, free-standing cultural defense to criminal liability." By and large, the cultural defense has failed as an innovation in American law, and immigrants are usually judged by the same stan- dards as non-immigrants." Only in the rare circumstance where the overwhelming influence of an immigrant's culture completely vitiates his mens rea does the law relent and excuse the immigrant's act. The criminal law's near-total repudiation of the cultural defense suggests that we ought to be similarly wary of its temporal cousin. That is, just as we have good reasons to decline to excuse a person simply because of his cultural background, we have similarly good reasons to decline to excuse a person simply because of his historical background. We should not shy away from labeling slave ownership, racial internment, or McCarthyism as historical injustices simply be- cause their wrongfulness is clearer to us today than it may have been to the perpetrators at the time. Instead, as with the cultural defense, we should excuse a historical actor and find no historical injustice
" See generally, e.g., MA KI , supra o e 6. 2 See a cy A. Wa e e & Ca e i e . Co o s, Culture and Crime: Ka ga and the Existing Framework for a Cultural Defense, 4 u . . E . 82 , 8 2 ( ( o i g e i eque cy o a ica io o e cu u a e e se a e a e a e e e . Is See ie e E a s i c a & A iso u es e e , The Interpretation and Distor- tion of Culture: A Hmong "Marriage by Capture" Case in Fresno, California, 4 S. CA . I E ISC. . . , ( 4 see also o , supra o e , a . 4 S MASO U ES E E , E CU U A E E SE 6 (2004 ("[ ]u ges o e e c u e e i e ce a ou cu u a ackg ou o e g ou a i is i e e a . " . See o y Maguiga , Cultural Evidence and Male Violence: Are Feminist and Multicultural- 1st Reformers on a Collision Course in Criminal Courts?, 0 .Y.U. . w. 6, 0 86 ( . o e su e, a e cases a ise i w ic a o e owe i g cu u a i ue ce e e s a e e a om o mi g e me s ea a e aw equi es. Suc a case was a gua y People v. Chen. See Kim, supra o e , a 2 ( esc i i g eo e . C e , o. 8 4 ( .Y. Su . C Ma . 2 , 8 . A o e suc case was State u Kargar. See Wa e e & Co o s, su a o e 2, a 8 6 42 (a a y i g a e g S a e . Ka ga , 6 A.2 8 (Me. 6 . Mo e com mo y, u ges co si e mi iga i g e i e ce o a e e a s cu u a ackg ou i eci i g w e e e e e a ese es a mo es eak a se e ci g. o mo e o is a oac , see amia W. Siko a, o e, Differing Cultures, Differing Culpabilities?: A Sensible Alternative: Using Cultural Circumstances as a Mitigating Factor in Sentencing, 62 O IO S . . . 6 (200 . 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 66 o y w e e e a i u es a u ge cies o a ac o s is o ica e a i i a e is me s ea. A oug i is a mi e y o o i k o is o ica ac o s a i g o o a i g a me s ea, is A ic e i e i ies se e a ac o s e a i g o e chosenness o e ac o s co uc a ca e us is i guis as ac s a s ou e w o y o a y e cuse om ose a s ou o . e i qui y wi ocus o e o i ica a socia c ima e, mo a o ms, a e a io a e ec a io s o e ac o s ay. We e ey u y mo o i ic? i e ac o s socie y k ow a i a a i io ? i e ac o a e access o a i a a i io ? I o e wo s, o we ook ack o e ac o s e a io a see i as a choice, a ac o i e e e mo a age cy, a e a a i e i a i i y? O y o e e e a we see e a io as i e i a e s ou we i k a ou a e i g i as some i g o e a a is o ica i us ice. is A ic e oes o mai ai a e a a ogy e wee o eig cu u es a ea ie e as is e ec , o a i si g e a e y so es e o em o e i i g is o ica i us ice. a e , i is me e y a i i ia e o o i a o e i e ou a io o e a a io s eo y a sc o a s a e ig o e u i ow, w ic is g owi g a ge a mo e a ge ous wi e asce sio o eac ew a isa e isio is ome u e ew Yo k imes es se e s .i O e me o s o i i g e o e s ou —a o e u y wi —come om o e a eas o e aw a om isci i es ou si e o aw e i e y, mos o a y is o y a i oso y. is A ic e wi a e mo e a se e i s ask i i aws a e io o is g owi g s uc u a weak ess i e ou a io o e a a io s eo y a s imu a es c i ica iscussio a ou ow es o i i —w e e y a a ogy o e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se, o y some o e me o . a I o is A ic e emo s a es a ea i g wo ks o e a a io s eo y a e o a equa e y e i e w a co s i u es a is o ica i us ice. 6 a II uses e e am e o e a a ese Ame ica i e me u i g Wo Wa II o i us a e e o ems a ca e su om e ai u e o e i e a is o ica i us ice ? a III i o uces a a a ogy e wee e c imi a aw s "cu u a e e se" a a " em o a e e se," sugges i g a amewo k y w ic e a a io s sc o a s may egi o a ess e c a e ge o assig i g cu a i i y o is o ica ac o s. 8 is a e co si e s se e a ossi e aws i
6 See infra o es 2 2 a accom a yi g e . See infra o es 86 a accom a yi g e . 8 See infra o es 8 a accom a yi g e . 664 Boston College Law Review [Vol. 47:659
e a a ogy a e ami es ow suc c a e ges may e a esse . a I e ami es e sc o a y e a e ega i g e a ge s a a a ages o a owi g cu u a e i e ce o e cuse e ac io s o c imi a e e a s, a iscusses ow ese e a es ca o i e gui a ce o assig i g cu a i i y o is o ica ac o s." a iscusses ow cu u a e i e ce ca ega e e me s ea e eme o a imi a ac , a aws u o is o ica e am es o ecomme a simi a " ack o me s ea" e e se o is o ica ac o s.2, i a y, a I a ies is ame wo k o e ami e e cu a i i y o is o ica ac o s es o si e o e a a ese Ame ica i e me o e e mi e w e e is e iso e s ou e ega e as a is o ica i us ice me i i g e ess.22
I. E A GE OUS O E I E OU A IO O E A A IO S EO Y I is i icu o oi ou some i g a is a se . u some i g c ucia —i ee , ou a io a —is missi g om e si a e i e a u e o e a a io s. W a is missi g is a eo y o ow o e i e a o e ia y e a a e is o ic i us ice. Co si e se e a ea i g wo ks o e a a io s. I Politics and the Past: On Repeating Historical Injustices, e i e y socio ogis o o ey, a a ay o sc o a s i aw, socio ogy, is o y, a a o o ogy iscuss a e a e a a ie y o o ems i e eo y a ac ice o e a a io s, es i u io , a a o ogy.2 Ye a a e a commo oi o e a u e: a assum io a w a ee s iscussi g is ow es o es o o "c aims o me i g as w o gs a a e ... e eme y a ie , u i g e gamu om s eci ic uma ig s a uses agai s i i i ua s suc as u us im iso me a o u e o suc i e se socia sys ems as a a io s a e y, a a ei , a co o ia ism."24 a is, e e is e ce o ese " as w o gs" is e s a e emise o e e i e o ec . Eac sc o a sim y assumes a i s a ces o o u e, u us im iso me , s a e y, a a ei , a co o ia ism a e "w o gs," a e mo e i e es i g ques io is ow sc o a s wi a ocus o a si io a us ice, e a a io s, a o ogy, a eco ci ia io
See infra o es 92 96 a accom a yi g e . 20 See infra o es 2 a accom a yi g e . 2 See infra o es 0 a accom a yi g e . 22 See infra o es 8 2 4 a accom a yi g e . 2 See generally O I ICS A E AS : O E AI I G IS O ICA I US ICES ( o o ey e ., 200 [ e ei a e ou ics A E AS ]. 24 Id. at 5-6. 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 66 respond to these "wrongs."2 Nowhere in the volume does any scholar attempt to explain what makes these historical episodes the sorts of "wrongs" that potentially merit redress." Martha Minow's excellent volume, Between Vengeance and Forgive- ness: Facing History After Genocide and Mass Violence, proceeds from the same premise. 2 "This book explores how some nations have searched for a formal response to atrocity, some national or international re- framing of the events," explains Minow in the book's introduction. 28 The book's very subtitle makes her premise clear: its two factual predicates—"genocide" and "mass violence"—leave no space for dis- agreement over whether a wrong occurred. Injustice is simply (and, in the cases of genocide and mass violence, undoubtedly correctly) as- sumed; Minow's question is how to steer a path "between vengeance and forgiveness" in reconciliation efforts in injustice's wake. The same premise supports Jeremy Waldron's influential and challenging essay, Historic Injustice: Its Remembrance and Supersession. 29 Unlike many other scholars who write about reparations, Waldron is not particularly supportive of non-symbolic compensatory reparations for historic injustices." But Waldron's reason for opposing repara- tions is not that he questions the existence or the definition of under- lying historic injustices. 8 ' Quite the opposite is true. "Historic injus- tice" is not merely the premise but the title of his essay, and he begins
2 O e s ig e ce io o is s a eme is A a Cai s s co i u io o is o ume. See A a Cai s, Coming to Terms with the Past, in O I ICS A E AS , supra o e 2 , a 6 0. Cai s w i es oa y o e ee o "come o e ms wi e as ," w ic e ai s "seei g e e a io o ou e ecesso s, a some imes o ou ea ie se es, i e ms o i s co seque ces o co em o a y ge e a io s." Id. a 66. e a so em asi es e im o a ce o " e sc o a y eco e y a i e e a io o is o ica ac s, i c u i g e i e i ica io o w o i w a o w om"—" e osaic, ye o e, goa o i i g ou w a a e e ." Id. a 0. Cai s oes o , owe e , sugges a y so o me o o suc a i qui y, o a y way o is i guis i g is o ica w o g om ig . See id. a 6 0. 26 See generally OI ICS A E AS , su a o e 2 . 2 See generally MA A MI OW, E WEE E GEA CE A O GI E ESS: ACI G IS O Y A E GE OCI E A MASS IO E CE ( 8 . 28 Id. a 2. 2° See e emy Wa o , Historic Injustice: Its Remembrance and Supersession, in US ICE., E ICS, A EW EA A SOCIE Y , 0 (G a am O ie & oy e e e s., 2 . ° Wa o oes, owe e , su o e o s a e ess a e eems sym o ic a e a com e sa o y. e e e a go e me s oke e ess ayme s o $20,000 o su i i g a a ese Ame ica i e ees is a e am e o e so o sym o ic e a a io s a Wa o su o s. Sa id. a 4 . Wa o a gues a c a ges i e ci cums a ces o e esce a s o e w o g oe , e ic im, a i a ies esu i e su e sessio o e u e yi g w o g, a a com e sa o y e a a io s a e e e o e u us . See id. a 66. 666 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6
y w i i g: "I e iewi g ou is o y, we come ac oss e e s that can only be described as injustices." 2 is is o a essay a e e ai s ou a ou w a co s i u es a o e ia y com e sa e w o g. " eo e, o w o e eo es, we e a acke , e au e , a e o ia e ," Wa o e o s " ei a s we e s o e a ei i es we e u i e ?" Wa o s ques io is o w e e ese we e i ac i s a ces o i us ice i s ea e asks, "As we ecome awa e o ese i us ices, w a a e we o do a ou em?" 4 Ma i Ma su a s semi a ea me o e a a io s, Looking to the Bottom: Critical Legal Studies and Reparations simi a y s ig s e ques io o ow o e i e a com e sa e is o ica i us ice. Ma su a co em a es e a a io s o " acis ac s, " 6 u oes o e i e em u e . S e a so w i es as i a io a y o " ysica i e y om co s ai o e e so " " ee om om i e ea e i g a use as we as e ig o seek e u u a ce a i e i oo uma ei gs ee o su i a " ig s o " e so oo a a ici a io — e ecog i io o o e s e is e ce as a uma ei g, ee a equa , wi owe a co o o e e o i ica ocesses a go e o e s i e" " ee om om u ic a i a e acism[ ] ee om om i equa i ies o wea is i u io [ ] a ee om om omi a io y y as ies." ow e e, owe e , oes Ma su a es a is a e i e io a o u i e io a e ia o ese i i eges a ee oms a a y a icu a oi i Ame ica is o y was (o wi e a e iso e a wou cause a e essa e i u y o acc ue. 8 o i s c e i , e mos com e e si e e i e o ume i e ega i e a u e o e a a io s ecog i es a a is o ic i us ice ca o e assume , u mus e o e ." oy . ooks, e o ume s e i o , i e i ies i e equi eme s o "a me i o ious e ess c aim," e i s
2 Id. a (em asis a e . " Id. 4 Wa o , pr o e 2 , a . S n r ll Ma i Ma su a, n t th tt : Cr t l l St d nd p r t n , 22 m . C. 2. C. . . e . 2 ( 8 . " Id. a 0. Id. a 8 0. " W i i g i e mi 80s, as e mo eme o a a ese Ame ica e ess was ga e i g s eam, Ma su a may a e assume a g owi g co se sus a ou e i us ice o a eas some e iso es i Ame ica is o y, suc as e a a ese Ame ica i e me . Sa y, owe e , Mic e e Ma ki s o u a ook us i yi g e i e me s ows a a y suc o imism was mis ace . S n r ll MA KI , pr o e 6. " S oy . ooks, Intr d t n o WHEN SORRY ISN'T ENOUGH: THE CONTROVERSY OVER APOLOGIES AND REPARATIONS FOR HUMAN INJUSTICE 1, ( oy . ooks e ., [ e ei a e ooks, Intr d t n o WHEN SORRY ISN'T ENOUGH]. 2006 How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 66 two of which are that "a human injustice must have been committed" and that "it must be well-documented?" Brooks does not leave mat- ters there; he defines his terms.'" But perplexingly, Brooks anchors his definition of a historical "human injustice" in the present day. Brooks begins with Article 55(c) of the Charter of the United Nations (the "U.N."), which commits the U.N. to the promotion of "universal re- spect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." 42 He adds to that the "various multilateral and bilateral conventions, cove- nants, resolutions, and treaties" that "more sharply define the rights of all humans," as well as the prohibitions of customary international law.4 In sum, he states that a historical human injustice is simply "the violation or suppression of human rights or fundamental freedoms recognized by international law."" Brooks deserves credit for attending to the problem of defining historical injustice, something other scholars ignore. But surely the definitional problem cannot be as focused in the present as Brooks makes it out to be. Debates about reparations are typically about past, not present, wrongdoing." This is certainly true in the American con- text. Our great reparations debates are, and will continue to be, about conduct that is generations old: slavery, Jim Crow, the eviction of American Indians from their native lands, and the decimation of the American Indian population and culture." Various devastating effects of these old American policies linger to the present day, but the pri- mary human choices that created them and nourished them in their
40 Id. (ci i g Ma su a, supra o e , a 62 . 4 Id. 42 Id. (quo i g U. . C a e a . , a a. c . 4 Id. 44 See ooks, Introduction o W E SO Y IS E OUG , su a o e , a . I a s ig y mo e ece wo k, o esso ooks mo i ie is a oac , co e i g a e a a io s "a y o y o ce ai y es o w o gs, o wi , gross io a io s o u ame a i e a io a uma ig s, suc as s a e y, ge oci e, a A a ei ." oy . ooks, Getting Reparations for Slavery Right—A Response to Posner and Vermeule, 80 O E AME . e . 2 ], 2 (2004 (em asis a e [ e ei a e ooks, Getting Reparations for Slavery Right]. C aims o e a a io s, ooks a gue , "c a ac e is ica y a ise o y i e co e o a a oci y." Id. e ea i g Ame ica e am e o e a a io s, owe e , is e a a ese Ame ica i e me —a ee i us ice a a ci i i e ies isas e , o e su e, u o w a e wo "a oci y" y ica y co o es., 4. e su e, some w o g oi g , e ge oci e i wa a, o e am e—is su icie y ece o e co o e y cu e ea ies, uma ig s aw, a mo e cus oma y i e a io a aw. See Mulow, , supra o e 2 , a 22 ( iscussi g mo e use a s o comi gs o i e a io a wa c imes i u a s a u commissio s . 46 is is is i us a i e, o e aus i e, 668 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6 i a cy a e eca es, e e ce u ies, o . I is, o say e eas , • ee y co es a e o mai ai a e i e a io a uma ig s aw o e yea 2006 s ou go e ou i qui y i o e e e o w ic , o e am e, se e ee ce u y s a e ow e s i o i e ee ce u y Ame ica I ia o icy was a i us ice i i s ow ime. a u a y, we mig c oose o c ea e sys ems o e ess o ese e iso es wi ou ega o w e e ey we e u us i ei ow ime. We mig c ea e suc sys ems o w a e emy Wa o ca s e "sym o ic u c io o em o yi g ... emem a ce,"4 o we mig o so o a a ie y o esse ia y ese ocuse o o wa ooki g ea so s.48 We mig c oose o e ess as su e i g o make a s a eme a ou w a ou ese a ues a e, ega ess o w a ou e eces so s a ues we e, o o os e o i ica eco ci ia io . u o e e e a ou easo s o c ea i g suc sys ems a e esse ia y ackwa ooki g— a is, o e e e a ey a e com e sa o y a e i ca e o a e o o iga io a acc ue i e as a su i es o is ay—we mus co o e ques io o w e e a e e a o s co uc was w o g i i s ay. o is ask, cu e ay uma ig s aw wi o e e esi e e oi . o e am e, ooks i c u es e o owi g o is is o o e ia y e essa e is o ic i us ices: ge oci e s a e y e a u icia ki i gs o u e a o e c ue o eg a i g ea me a i a y e e io a e e e ia o ue ocess o aw o ce e ugee mo eme s e e i a io o a mea s o su sis e ce e e ia o u i e sa su age a isc imi a io , is i c io , e c usio , o e e e ce ase o ace, se , esce , e igio , o o e i e i yi g ac o wi e u ose o e ec o im ai i g e ec og i io , e oyme , o e e cise, o a equa oo i g, o uma ig s a u ame a ee oms i e o i ica , so cia , eco omic, cu u a , o a y o e ie o u ic i e." I is ou i g e oug a a ew o e is e e a io s, es ecia y ose owa e o om o e is , a e o co em e u e current
4 S Wa o , pr o e 2 , a 4 . 48 o esso ooks e u y is i guis es amo g a ious ackwa a o wa ooki g a oac es o e ess i G tt n p r t n f r Sl v r ht S ooks, G tt n p r t n f r Sl v r ht, pr o e 44, a 26 86. 4° ooks, Intr d t n O W E SO Y IS E OUG , su a o e , a . 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 669
aw. 0 u ma y mo e o e i ems o e is wou o a e aise co ce s o i us ice i cou ess socie ies oug muc o uma is o y. A a eas o e im o a i em o e is —" e e ia o ue ocess o aw"— as mea as y i e e i gs a i e e mome s i Ame ica is o y. A " e ia o ue ocess o aw" e ies u e s a i g as a is o ica i us ice e ce y e e e ce o e is o ica e a i w ic i occu e . 2 O cou se, e me e ac a ea ie ge e a io s may a e e o se o co o e ce ai ac ices s ou o y i se e e us om seei g em as is o ica i us ices. I is ecise y e goa o is A ic e o s imu a e i ki g a e a e a ou w ic is o ica ac ices a oug co o e i ei ay, oug o e e ess o qua i y as o e ia y e essa e i us ices. u ca e u a a ysis a e a e a e ecessa y— a e a me e y i oki g mo e ega s a a s—i e a a io s e o y is o a oi e isks o ese ism a i sig u gme a ca skew ou assessme o e ac s o ea ie ge e a io s.
II. E A GE I US A E : E E AM E O E A A ESE AME ICA I E ME e a se ce o a e i i io o is o ica i us ice is o a me e co ce ua aw i e a a io s eo y. I is a s uc u a weak ess a ea e s e i eg i y o e e i e o ec o com e sa o y e a a io s. o e iso e o Ame ica is o ica i us ice i us a es e a ge as i i y as e i ca ce a io o a a ese Ame ica s u i g Wo Wa II a e success u — u ew y ques io e —mo eme o o ai e a a io s o su i i g i e ees. 4 e u e yi g s o y o is o ica i us ice is we k ow . I ea y 42, a e i e se o yi g y Wes Coas acia a i is s, eco omic
5° o e am e, i ma y i s a ces Ame ica aw oes o o i go e me s om aki g ac io a o g i es o ace, ge e , o e igio , wi a is a a e e ec u o is c imi a o y u ose. See, e.g., Was i g o . a is, 426 U.S. 22 ,2 40 ( 6 . See Jane u e o , The Myth of Due Process, 2 S.U. . E . , 2 ( 2 . 2 See id. 59 is A ic e wi i e c a gea y e e o e wa ime e e io o a a ese Ame i ca s y i s o u a , a ei i accu a e, ame—"i e me —a y e accu a e e m "i ca ce a io ." o a e ce i e iscussio o e im o a ce o accu a e ome c a u e i s eaki g a w i i g a ou is e iso e, see oge a ie s, Words Do Matter: A Note on Inappropriate Terminology and the Incarceration of the Japanese Americans, in IKKEI I E ACI IC O WES : A A ESE AME ICA S A A A ESE CA A IA S I E WE IE CE U Y 0, 0 2 4 ( ouis ise & Gai M. omu a e s., 200 . 4 See OGE A IE S, ASIA AME ICA: C I ESE A A A ESE I E U I E S A ES SI CE 8 0, a 4 ( 88 ( esc i i g e e o me o e a a ese Ame ica e ess mo eme . 6 0 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 com e i o s o a a ese a me s, ys e ica ews a e co um is s, a e ec e o icia s, e e e a go e me e ic e a eo e o a a ese a ces y om ei omes i a wi e s i a o g e aci ic Coas a o ce em i o e e io e i a e wi e. ea y 20,000 eo e we e is ace , wo i s o w om we e U.S. ci e s. 6 o ega ocess o a y so accom a ie is mass e c usio o e mu i yea i ca ce a io a o owe . e go e me s s a e eo y was a eac a e e y o e o ese eo e—ci i e a a ie , c i a a u , e o a e , e isa e , a e e mi a y i —we e mem e s o a "e emy ace" a , e e o e, o e ia s ies a sa o eu s. 8 I was o u i e mi 0s— ee eca es a e e as o e i e ees eme ge om e i a e wi e— a su i o s a ei c i e ega o ess o a go e me i qui y i o ow e o essi e wa ime o icy came a ou . a essu e esu e i e es a is me i 80 o e Commissio o Wa ime e oca io a I e me o Ci i ia s ( e "Commissio " , a ue i o a i a isa a e o o i ica ea e s, a mi is a o s, u ges, commu i y ea e s, a sc o a s a was o i es iga e e go e me s wa ime o icies a e o i s i i gs o Co g ess 6 0 e Commissio e we y ays o u ic ea i gs a e e ee y i o a c i a o i gs u i g a com e e si e i es iga io w ic as e a mos wo yea s. 6 I e ua y o 8 , e Commissio issue i s u a imous e o o Co g ess, co c u i g a e o icy o e c u i g a a ese Ame ica s om e Wes Coas "was o us i ie y mi i a y eces si y" a a e o g e m mass e e io a o owe was " o
M E ce e accou s o e ecisio maki g ocess a e o e e c usio a i ca ce a io o a a ese a ie s a Ame ica ci i e s o a a ese a ces y i c u e OGE A IE S, CO CE A IO CAM S USA: A A ESE AME ICA S A WO WA II ( 2 E E I O S, US ICE A WA : E S O Y O E A A ESE AME ICA I E ME CASES ( 8 E SU E KAS IMA, U GME WI OU IA : A A ESE AME ICA IM ISO ME U I G WO WA II (200 G EG O I SO , Y O E O E ESI E : M A E I E ME O A A ESE AME ICA S (200 . 6 See KAS IMA, supra o e , a 4. See id. a 48 66. 8 See Memo a um om . Ce o . eWi o Sec y o Wa e y S imso ( e . , 42 , available at : www.u c.e u emu e is a ega eWi g, : www. u c.e u emu e is a ega eWi 2 g. " oge a ie s as summa i e e ackg ou o e e ess mo eme . A IE S, supra o e 4, a 4 . 60 See e su e Kas ima, Foreword o COMMISSIO O WA IME E OCA IO A I E ME O CI I IA S, E SO A US ICE E IE , a i, i ii (Ci i i e ies u . E uc. u e ., ( 82 . 61 Id. at xvii. 20061 How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 6
i e y a a ysis o mi i a y co i io s."62 e oa is o ica causes w ic s a e ese ecisio s," sai e Commissio , "we e ace e u ice, wa ys e ia a a ai u e o o i ica ea e s i ."6 e Commissio a so ecomme e a um e o eme ia ac io s o Co g ess "as a ac o a io a a o ogy." " ese i c u e egis a io " ecog i [i g] a a g a e i us ice was o e a o e i g] e a o ogies o e a io o e ac s o e c usio , emo a a e e io " esi e ia a o s o a a ese Ame ica s co ic e o esis i g e c usio a i e me i e a a mi is a i e e iew o a a ese Ame ica c aims o es i u io o os osi io s, s a us, o e i eme s e c ea io o a e uca io a a uma i a ia ou a io a a "o e ime e ca i a com e sa o y ayme o $20,000" o eac su i i g i e ee.° i e yea s a e , a e e e si e o yi g a e a e, e Commissio s i e ecomme a io s e came aw w e esi e eaga sig e e Ci i i e ies Ac o 88.66 I 0, esi e us issue a o ma a o ogy a e go e me se ou e i s $20,000 e ess c ecks.° e success o e a a ese Ame ica e ess mo eme ma e i a so o " os e c i " o Ame ica e a a io s eo y—a "mo u me a ," e e "u ique" o i ica ac ie eme ° a a , a co i ues o a e, e o e ia o se e as a mo e o e e ess c aims o o e ic ims o is o ica i us ices.° Ye a success as a so ace e mo eme o a a ese Ame ica e ess i e c oss ai s o e a isa is o ica e isio is s. o a ime, e e isio is e o s sa a e i ges o u ic iscou se, a ea i g mos y i a i y ess ooks" a I e e iscussio s. I 2004, owe e , o ews com me a o Mic e e Ma ki g a e ese i ge c i iques a us em e o e e eyes a ea s o mi io s o ea e s, e e isio iew
62 Id. a ii PERSONAL US ICE DENIED, supra o e 60, a 8. 6 E SO A US ICE E IE , supra note 60, a 8. I" Id. a 462. 6 See id. a 462 66. Commissio e a ie u g e , a U.S. e ese a i e om Ca i o ia, isse e om e as o ese ecomme a io s. See id. 66 u . . o. 00 8 , 02 S a . 0 ( 88 . 6 See KessmimA, supra o e , a 22 . 68 oy . ooks, Japanese American Redress and the American Political Process: A Unique Achievement?, in WHEN SO Y ISN'T ENOUGH, su a o e , a 62. 6 See generally E ic K. Yamamo o, Racial Reparations: Japanese American Redress and Afri- can A me ica Claims, 40 .C. . REV. 4 ( 8 . 0 See generally DAVID . LOWMAN, MAGIC: THE UNTOLD S O Y or U.S. INTELLIGENCE AND TIIE EVACUATION Or JAPANESE RESIDENTS FROM THE WEST Coaa DURING WWII (2000); KEIT! ROBAR, INTELLIGENCE, INTERNMENT AND Rle.I.00ATION: RoosEVELT'S EXECUTIVE OR- DER 066: ow o SECRET MAGIC" INTELLIGENCE LED TO EVACUATION (2000 . 6 2 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 e s, a a io is e e s wi e es se i g ook In Defense of Intern- ment" a e ma y ook e a e a io a e e isio a ea a ces. ose w o o ose e a a io s o is o ica i us ices y ica y a e a um e o a gume s a ei is osa : e e e a o s a e o g ea , o e ic ims a e o g ea , o o o a i a y c ass o ic ims ca e esig a e , o oo ma y eca es o ce u ies a e asse o a ow a a io a ca cu a io o com e sa io , o e w o gs we e i su icie y ocume e . 2 I e case o e a a ese Ame i ca i e me , ese usua a gume s ai : some e e a o s a ic ims we e (a a e s i a i e, e ess ayme s we o y o ose e so a y a ec e y e u us o icy, a e i u ies a e we ocume e a emai i e memo ies o eo e s i i i g." e e isio is s a egy mus e e o e e mo e i ec : i mus c a e ge e emise a a e essa e i u y e e occu e . I mus mai ai a e a a ese Ame ica i e me was us i ie . a is ecise y e a gume a Ma ki s ook makes. I s se esc i e missio is o " e u k[] e g ea my o e a a ese Ame ica i e me as acis a u us i iec ." 4 I s "ce a esis ... is a e a io a secu i y measu es ake u i g Wo Wa II we e us i ia e, given what was known and nol known at the time." 75 ese measu es we e " o ase ima i y o acism a wa ime ys e ia," 6 e ook mai ai s, u a e we e mi i a y eac io s o a a u o o sec e eco e a a ese i oma ic messages a sug ges e a a ese e o s o ec ui a a ese Ame ica s ies o e Wes Coas ." ey we e easo e ecisio s y "se ious me , awa e o e g a i y o o ei ac io s a i ac io "—me w o " i o a e e u u y o a ea iew mi o ?" is as oi is e ook s s i g oa om us i yi g i e me o assau i g e ess. Acco i g o Ma ki , e Commissio o Wa ime e oca io a I e me o Ci i ia s issue "a a se ac cou " o e is o ica e iso e." I i so ecause o i imi a io y
See generally MA KI , pr o e 6. 2 See o y, sups o e 2, a 0 2 . See A IE S, supra o e 4, a 40 (e ai i g a e a a ese Ame ica e ess og am o i e a o e ime e ca i a com e sa o y ayme o eac o e su i o s o e e oca io . 4 MA KI , OM o e 6, a . Id. at III. 6 d. a 80. " Id. a , 8 80. Id. a i . MA KI , su a o e 6, a .
2006 How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 6 the "America-bashing"80 Japanese American redress movement, a group of "civil rights absolutists and ethnic lobbyists ... with an intel- lectual arrogance that only 20/20 hindsight can instill."8 According to Malkin, the redress movement fell victim to "the danger of judging the wartime measures after the fact and out of historical context," 82 and ignored the "risks of sabotage and espionage" that "reasonable men" of that day "vividly perceived."8 For Malkin, the nub of the problem is hindsight: the exclusion and internment of 120,000 peo- ple were the justified judgments of their era's reasonable minds. 84 Such judgments reflected wisdom, not injustice—and wisdom needs no apology.8 It is not the concern of this Article to establish the incomplete- ness, the illogic, the deceptiveness, and the outright falsehood of Malkin's historical account. 86 What is important is the danger that Malkin's method poses for reparations theory and practice. Repara- tions theory sits atop an assumption that American history includes episodes of injustice—policies and behaviors that were wrong in their time, and whose traumatizing, stigmatizing, and impoverishing effects linger to the present day. Actual reparations movements depend upon something approaching political consensus that such episodes oc- curred. Even for such horrific chapters as slave ownership, the sup- pression of indigenous peoples and cultures, and mass racial intern- ment, the consensus that these were unambiguous instances of injustice is, in the context of American history, recent. Partisan his- torical revisionism of the sort preached in Malkin's In Defense of In- ternment tears a hole in that consensus, and accordingly, the structure built upon the consensus weakens. It is time for scholars to begin to fill that hole.
80 Id. a 6. 8 Id. a i . 82 M. a 8. 8 Id. (quo i g ames . Ki a ick, O E ., $1.2-billion Worth of Hindsight, S . E E S U G IMES, Ma . 8, 88, a A. 84 See MA KI , supra o e 6, a iii— . 8 See id. 88 a wo k as ee am y o e e sew e e. See os i gs o E ic . Mu e a G eg o i so o e o ok Co s i acy a Is ia e.ga ? ogs, u : www.is a ega .o g Mu e _a c _ o i so _o _Ma ki . m ( as isi e Aug. 24, 2006 . 6 4 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
III. YI G OU A A A OGY: E CU U A E E SE A E " EM O A E E SE" In which discipline should the hole-filling project occur? Thus far, the problem of defining historical injustice seems to have fallen through the gaps between disciplines. Legal scholars have been con- tent either to assume consensus about historical injustice or to use presentist definitions that ignore the considerable problem of hind- sight. 8 Historians are typically more concerned with explaining why people acted as they did than with condemning particular policies and choices 8 8 And philosophers have paid scant attention to the problem. Because the problem of defining historical injustice sits at the intersection of law, history, and philosophy, the project will best pro- ceed as a cross-disciplinary effort. This Article, however, seeks to begin the dialogue by positing an analogy between the problem of defining historical injustice and the well-known criminal law problem of judg- ing the wrongdoing of immigrants from foreign cultures. The analogy is admittedly imperfect, and does not single-handedly resolve the difficulties of defining historical injustice. It is, however, a provocative and helpful start. Consider the following story: John and his lover Sara are from a different culture from our own. John learns that Sara has had sex with another man. In John and Sara's culture, a woman's sexual infidelity is a grave insult to a man's honor. Their culture also tolerates corporal punishment for such betrayals. John therefore gives Sara ten lashes across the back with a whip. The trouble for John, however, is that he and Sara no longer live in their culture of origin; they live in the United States. Under twenty-first-century American law, John's actions constitute the felony of aggravated battery. 8 John's case starkly presents the problem of the "cultural defense" in the criminal law. Everyone called upon to assess John's culpabil- ity—from the police officer who arrests and charges him, to the prosecutor who negotiates with his lawyer for a possible guilty plea, to the jurors who determine his guilt or innocence, to the judge who ultimately sentences him—will have to decide whether and to what
8 See supra o es 2 2 a accom a yi g e . 88 S E O U A , MAS E Y, Y A Y, & ESI E: OMAS IS EWOO A IS S A ES I E A G O AMAICA WO (2004 ("As is o ia s, i is o ou e s o si i i y o a i u e e os ec i e ame." . 8 See S a e . e , 64 So. 2 4 8, 00 ( a. C . A . 4 ( ea i g wi a s ick co s i u es agg a a e a e y . 20061 How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 675
e e e o ms o o s socie y o o igi s ou e i guis o i mi is o s cu a i i y o w i i g Sa a. o we ea o ai y i we assess is co uc y e e e ce o ou cu u a s a a s a e a is? I , i ai ess o o , we use is cu u a s a a s a e a ou s, o we com omise ou e o s o e e c ime a e e y ace o e ia ic ims—es ecia y owe ess a u e a e ic ims— a g ea e isk? ow e us c a ge o e as ec o o s case: o s a i e socie y is o a o eig cou y, u a e eig ee ce u y Ame ica. ie is a a a io ow e , a Sa a is o us is o e , u a so is s a e. ei cu u e is e cu u e o a ay. W a as oug o a Sa a o us is o a s i o a ai a e, u a e e assage o ime. We a e is o ia s, ooki g ack o o a Sa a om ou ea y we y i s ce u y a age oi a yi g o e e mi e o s cu a i i y o w i i g Sa a o e se ua i i e i y 200 yea s ago. I igui g ques io s e y simi a o ose aise y e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se ow a ise. As we assess e co uc a ac ices o a ea ie ge e a io , o w a e e s ou we e ou y a ea ie socie y s o ms? o e ai o o , mus we c e i w a we mig ca is " em o a e e se"— a is, mus we assess is e a io y e e e ce o e s a a s o is ay? Ca we a oi u gi g o s ac s acco i g o ou ow s a a s wi ou u e mi i g ou e o s o e e e y e o mis ee a o commi e ? I s a i g o om u gme , o we make cu e a u u e ge e a io s o o e ia ic ims mo e u e a e o a ei ic io o e same y e o a m a io cause o g ago? o e ow owe u y ese ques io s eso a e wi e e e si e s a egies o e a isa is o ica e isio is s. Mic e e Ma ki s case o a k i oose e a is o mi i a y a ise s is a i s a ce o w a is A ic e e ms a " em o a e e se." S e mai ai s a we commi a i us ice agai s ou Wo Wa II ea e s w e we assess ei o icy o a a ese Ame ica e c usio a e e io om ou mo e a age oi . 0 We mus assess i om th r , a w e we o so, s e mai ai s, i eme ges as a easo a e mi i a y u gme a e a e o uc o acism a ys e ia. e a a ogy e wee cu u a a em o a e e se is s iki g, a is A ic e mai ai s a i ca eac us a g ea ea a ou ow o i k a ou is o ica i us ice. I ea s em asis, owe e , a e
S MA KI , supra note 6, at xxxiii—xxxv. DI See id. 6 6 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6
a a ogy o cu u e o ime is a om e ec . ee i icu ies quick y ese emse es, a ey a e a a a e i e s o y a ou o a Sa a. i s , Immig a o as esuma y c ose o oi ou cu u e a mig e e o e e mo e ai y sa e wi u gme y ou cu u e s o ms is o ica o ma e o suc c oice. Seco , Immig a o , y i ue o is ac ua ysica es e ce amo g us, as access o e e a io a a mo a o ms o ou socie y, ca ea a o ow em i e c ooses, a is ai y co em e i e oes o o so is o ica o is s uck i is mome i e as a ca o k ow o o ow e o ms o o ay s socie y. i a y, a message o o gi e ess o Immig a o (a is cu u a commu i y i e U i e S a es wi ose c ea a i ec isks o eo e i i g o ay—mos imme ia e y Sa a, w o wi e e a o s me cy i is co uc is e cuse . u o s eak o "se i g a message" o is o ica o a mem e s o is ge e a io is i co e e ey a e ea a go e. A y isk a e cusi g ei misco uc oses o cu e o u u e ge e a io s is e e o e emo e. ese o ec io s ase o c oice, access, a isk a e co si e a e, u ey s ou o oom is A ic e s goa o au c i g a is cussio a ou e i i g is o ica i us ice. O ca e u e ami a io , eac o e aws i e a a ogy e wee cu u e a ime is a i ess o ema ic a i i i ia y a ea s. Co si e i s e o em o c oice. A oug i is ue a ma y immig a s ee y c oose o come o e U i e S a es, immig a io is o a u e e e c oice o a immig a s. Some immig a s come e e ecause a ge e ec i e y o ces em o qui ei a i e a s. 2 Ma y o e s, a icu a y e e e s ouses, c i e , a e e y a e s come e e e cause a mo e owe u ami y ecisio make as eci e o o so. O
e o e a , a oug eo e , om ea ie imes o o ea y c oose o "a ea " a is (o a y a icu a mome i is o y, ey a so ea y a e o c oice but o o so. ime ma c es o . eo e u e s a a a e ge e a io s wi sc u i i e e c oices ey make a e ac io s ey ake. us, es ecia y i Immig a o as e o e U i e S a es o sa e is i e, o i e as ee oug e e y someo e e se, is osi io wi es ec o e o ms o o ay s omi a cu u e is mo e ike is o ica o s a i may i s a ea .
2 e mo g, w o a e e sou ce o ma y cu u a e e se cases, a e a goo e am e o is: y i ue o ei su o o e U i e S a es a Sou ie am u i g e co ic wi o ie am, i was a ge ous o em o s ay i ie am a e e Sou e . S im A , MO G I AME ICA: OU EY OM A SEC E WA 4 6 ( . 2006] th Cr n l C n l t r p r t n h r 6
Co si e e e o ec io ase o cu u a access. o ma y immig a s om cu u es wi ac ices a i e ge sig i ica y om Ame ica e a io a o ms, e Ame ica ma o i y s cu u e is o e o es ecia y accessi e o i e igi e. Ma y i s ge e a io immig a s (a i some commu i ies, e e a e ge e a io immi g a s i e cu u a y i su a i es. Eco omic, e igious, i guis ic, a socia a ie s a e e e ces ca kee em we a a om e mai s eam cu u e. y co as , is o ica igu es om e e i ous o e o wo ge e a io s w ose ac io s a e a e c a e ge y i ca y s a we wi i e cu u a mai s eam ecause e mai s eam c a ges s ow y o e ime a usua y co o ms wi a eas ai y isi e e s. As e wee , say, a ie amese immig a w o as i e e i e y wi i Sa a cisco s C i a ow si ce a i i g ee mo s ago a a Ame ica o i ica igu e om e Wo Wa II e a, i is o a a c ea a e C i ese immig a is a e o e e o a c ea e se se o cu e Ame ica cu u a o ms a e Wo Wa II ea e mig a e ee a e o e a o a e. Co si e i a y e o ec io ase o isk. O ca e u e ami a io , e isk o e cusi g co uc a is a o e o co o e i a i e e cu u e is simi a o e isk o e cusi g co uc a was a o e o co o e a a ea ie ime. I o cases, e e cuse e a ge s ose w o mig agai e ic imi e y e so o e a io a i s cause i u y. I e case o e cu u a e e se, e e a e wo o e ia g ou s o e e a o s a ic ims, o e a ow a o e oa . e a ow g ou is e accuse e so imse a e e so o eo e e a ege y ic imi e . e oa e g ou i c u es o e o e ia e e a o s, w o mig e e cou age o ac i ey ea a Ame ica aw co o es a io e o a m u cu u a ac ice, as we as e a ge c ass o o e ia ic ims o a cu u a ac ice. Simi a y, e em o a e e se a so i o es o a a ow a a oa c ass o e e a o s a ic ims. e a ow c ass o e e a o s a ic ims as o cou se asse away. u e oa e c ass e mai s—a is is e e y ea o Geo ge Sa aya a s amous wa
S n r ll IC A A A & IC O EE, EMAKI G E AME ICA MAI S EAM: ASSIMI A IO A CO EM O A Y IMMIG A IO (200 (com a i g assimi a io a e s amo g mo e immig a g ou s wi ose o ea ie wa es o immig a s o e U i e S a es A K A O O ES & U E UM AU , EGACIES: E S U Y O E IMMIG A SECO GE E A IO (200 (a a y i g assimi a io o seco ge e a io immig a s u e G. u au , h Cr bl W th n: Ethn Id nt t , S llE t , nd S nt d A l t n A n Ch ldr n f I r nt , 28 we , MIG A IO E . 48 ( 4 (s u yi g e syc oso cia a a a io o c i e o ece immig a s o e U i e S a es . 6 8 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
i g a ose w o ca o emem e e as a e co em e o e ea i . 4 o say a some as ic imi a io was u e s a a e, o e e e a s us i ie u e e ci cums a ces, is o i i e a so o ic imi a io o ecu i a w e ose y es o ci cums a ces ea ea . W y e se we e A a Ame ica g ou s amo g e i s a ou es o com ai w e U.S. e ese a i e om o Ca o i a owa Co e sai , a e Se em e , 200 , a e oug e i ca ce a io o a a ese Ame ica s u i g Wo Wa II was us i ie ? 6 U ou e y, e isks e cu u a e e se oses o o e ia ic ims a e mo e imme ia e a a a e a e isks o e em o a e e se. e i e e ce, owe e , is o e o eg ee, o ki . o e su e, e a a ogy e wee e cu u a e e se a i s em o a cousi is im e ec u gme i a cou o aw is o e same as u gme i e cou o is o y. u e a a ogy oes o ee o e e ec . I is o e goa o is A ic e o mai ai a e s a a s o e c imi a aw s ou s ic y go e ou e ec io o is o y. a e , is A ic e s u ose is o i i ia e co e sa io a ou e u e eo i e o em o e i i g is o ica i us ice. I s c aim is sim y a e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se o e s oo s o wo ki g oug a se o o ems simi a o ose we e cou e w e we a em o assess e w o g oi g o ose w o we e o e us. e us e e o e e ami e e cu u a e e se a e og ess e c imi a aw as ma e owa so i g ose o ems.
I . E ISKS A E E I S O CU U A A EM O A E CUSES e cu u a e e se i e c imi a aw is e su ec o a ai y ic i e a u e, mos o i ess a we y yea s o . a i e a u e
See Geo ge Sa aya a, Reason in Common Sense (1905), reprinted in E I E O EA SO : O E ASES O UMA OG ESS 284 (2 e . 6 . See o s am.com , owa Co e Su o s I e me , : www. ois am.com e e _agai s _co e. u ( as isi e Aug. 24, 2006 (u gi g a Co e esig as C ai o ouse Su commi ee o C ime, e o ism, a ome a Secu i y . 6 See Republican Defends WM Internments, C S ews.com , e . 6, 200 , : www. c s ews.com s o ies 200 02 0 o i ics mai .s m . See generally ai a C. C i s, The Cultural Defense: Beyond Exclusion, Assimilation, and Guilty Liberalism, 82 CA . . E . 0 ( 4 o ia e am e e Co ema , Individualizing Justice Through Multiculturalism: The Liberals' Dilemma, 96 Coua. . E . 0 ( 6 as mi God, Can I Call Kimura C a y? Ethical Tensions in the Cultural Defense, 3 SEA E . O SOC. US . 44 (2004 Kim, su a o e A . am, Culture as a Defense: Preventing Judicial Bias Against Asians and Pacific Islanders, I ASIA AM. [ sc. IS A S . . 4 ( Maguiga , supra o e Ke y M. e , Removing the Blinders in Federal Sentencing: Cultural Difference as a Proper Departure Ground, 8 C KE . REV. 44 (200 A iso u es 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 6
is, e a s o su isi g y, ma ke y isag eeme . Some i g a oac i g ag eeme as eme ge , owe e , o a cou e o oi s. i s , mos sc o a s ow ag ee a a ew, u ow e e se o c imi a ia i i y g ou e i cu u a i e e ce is a a i ea. 8 A sec o , mos sc o a s ow ag ee a e i e ce o cu u a ac ices oug o e a mi e , o a case y case asis, o su o ce ai e is i g c imi a aw e e ses. e ou a ies o e e a e o e e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se we e ma ke i wo aw e iew ieces u is e i 86. O e, a s u e o e u is e i e Harvard Law Review, ese e a u a as e ea o e ecog i io o a o ma cu u a e e se a wou com e e y e o e a e eo e w o, oug ei cu u a ac ices, commi c imi a ac s. ° e o e s au o co e e a a e e se ase i cu u a i e e ce is a ecessa y a se si e way o o o i g e a io s commi me s o cu u a u a ism a o i i i ua i e us ice. "A ew immig a ," e au o e ai e , " as o ee gi e e same o o u i y [as a o g e m esi e ] o a
eme s, A Justification of the Cultural Defense as Partial Excuse, 2 S. CA E . . & WOME S & u . 4 ( a e ie . Sacks, An Indefensible Defense: On the Misuse of Culture i Crimi- nal Law, Am . . & COM . . 2 ( 6 S a a IC Si A Matter of Principle and Consistency: Understanding the Battered Woman and Cultural Defenses, Mie . . GE E & . 0 (2000 o , supra o e Wa e e & Co o s, supra o e 2 o e, The Cultural Defense in the Criminal Law, I mw. . E . 2 ( 86 Mic aö isc e , o e, The Hu- man Rights Implications of a "Cultural Defense,"6 S. CA . I Au sc, . 66 ( 8 "[a y s . Go s ei , Comme , Cultural Conflicts in Cou : Should the American Criminal Justice System Formally Recognize a "Cultural Defense"?, ICK. . E . 4 ( 4 ea A. Go o , o e, The Implications of Memetics for the Cultural Defense, 0 UKE . 80 (200 A ew M. Ka e , o e, The Yenaldlooshi in Court and the Killing of Witch: The Case for an Indian Cultural Defense, 4 S. Ca. u s u sc. . . 4 ( is e g i, Comme , The Nature of the Offense: An Ignored Factor in Determining the Application of the Cultural Defense, 8 U. AW. . E . 6 ( 6 A iso Ma sumo o, Comme , A Place for Consideration of Culture in the American Criminal Justice System: Japanese Law and e Ki a Case, 4 . I . & AC. 0 ( u ia . Sams, Comme , The Availability of the "Cultural Defense" as an Excuse for Criminal Behavior, 6 GA. . & Co s . . ( 86 Siko a, supra o e ames . Si g, o e, Culture as Sameness: Toward a Synthetic View of Provocation and Culture in the Criminal Law, 108 YA E . . 84 ( S a o M. omao, o e, The Cultural Defense: Traditional or Formal?, 0 CEO. [mimic . . 24 ( 6 Mic e e We C e W , Comme , Culture Is No Defense for Infanticide, A a. U. . GE E Soc. O Y & . (200 . 8 See generally Co ema , supra o e E a s i c a & e e , supra o e Kim, su a o e Mag iga , supra o e eme , supra o e Sacks, supra o e o , supra o e Go s ei , supra o e Siko a, supra o e Wm su a o e . gg See generally Co ema , supra o e E a s i c a & e e , supra o e Kim, supra o e Mag iga , supra o e e e , su a o e Sacks, supra o e iA , su a o e Siko a, supra o e W , supra o e . 00 See o e, The Cultural Defense in the Criminal Law, supra o e , a . 0 See id. a 2 8 0 . 680 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
so — oug e osu e o im o a socia i i g i s i u io s— e o ms u e yi g is a io s c imi a aws. 02 e au o co ce e a a cu u a e e se mig make i a e o e aw o a icu a e a co e e socia o e a o e e c ime, u cou e e a e e ec s mig we e e o osi e i immig a g ou s came o ecog i e a e Ame ica ega sys em is se si i e o ei cu u a a i io s. 0 e o e 86 iece, a s u e comme y u ia . Sams i e Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, ese e a u o e assau o e o io o a cu u a e e se. 04 Sams a gue a a com e e cu u a e e se o c imi a ia i i y wou e i icu o a mi is e ecause e ega sys em wou a e o eci e w ic im mig a g ou s qua i y o i a w ic o o , as we as w o amo g e qua i yi g g ou s ese e i a w o o o . 0 S e u e co e e a a cu u a e e se wou u e mi e e e e e e ec o e aw y emo i g a im o a i ce i e o immig a g ou s o ea Ame ica aws, 06 a wou u e mi e e i ci e o e ga i y y aci g " ewcome s ... o i io s a i eas a ou e aws ... a o e e aws as ec a e y e o icia s." 0 S e a so mai ai e a a cu u a e e se wou e u ai o mem e s o e cu u a ma o i y, o w om e e e se wou o e a ai a e.um A oug s e ecog i e a "immig a g ou s ... em e is socie y wi ei i e se cus oms a e ie s," s e co c u e a ose a a ages wou e " u i ie i U i e S a es esi e s a e ea e e y e c imes o ewcome s w o a e e cuse om u is me ." Si ce 86, muc as ee w i e a ou e cu u a e e se.i A oug e e ai emai s co es e , a mi e g ou as o e e u e wee e wo o es i e y ose ea y ieces. a mi e g ou oes o i c u e a ew, ee s a i g com e e e e se o
02 Id. at 2 . ° See id. at 04 . 04 See generally Sams, pr o e . 0 See id. a 4 48. °6 See i . a 48 0. 0 Id. a 2. °8 See id. a 0 . a° See Sams, pr o e , a . ° See generally Co ema , su a o e E a s i c a & e e , pr o e Kim, su a o e Maguiga , supra o e e , su a o e e e , su a o e Sacks, pr o e o , su a o e Wa e e & Co o s, pr o e 2 isc e , pr o e Go s ei , pr o e Siko a, pr o e Si g, pr o e omao, su a o e u, pr o e . 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 68
cu u a ac ices." Mos sc o a s ag ee a a i e e e com e e cu u a e e se is o u ecessa y a u wise. " I is u ec essa y ecause e is i g aw a ea y akes im o a cu u a e e mi a s o a e e a s me a s a e i o accou . " A i is u wise o a um e o easo s: e e e se wou , o e am e, u e mi e e ma im a ig o a ce o e aw is o e cuse, a wou u ge e ega sys em i o a messy a o e ia y o e si e se o ecisio s a ou w a cou s as cu u e a w o cou s as a ue cu u a ac i io e ." 4 u y a , e mos im o a easo sc o a s a e a a ce o e ec i g a ee s a i g cu u a e e se is a e e e se wou e e i ous o c ime ic ims, es ecia y wome a c i e . 6 A a ge e ce age o cases i o i g e cu u a e e se a e omes ic a use cases— osecu io s o a u me w o a e o ki wome wi w om ey a e i e a io s i s, a osecu io s o a u me a wome w o a use o ki ei c i e ." 6 o e o e a e a use s o e asis o a c aim a ei ow cu u e oes o co em ei io e ce wou make a io e ce a e o e e ." is oig a i sig was a a e i e quo e eac io o o e a e e C i ese woma o pl v. Ch n, a case i w ic a ma e C i ese immig a success u y i oke a ege C i ese cu u a ac ices o wi a se e ce o o a io o ki i g is a u e ous wi e. "
See generally Co ema , supra o e E a s i c a & e e , supra o e Kim, supra o e Maguiga , supra o e e e , supra o e o , supra o e Siko a, supra o e . "2 e ea i g e ce io is A iso u es eme , w o a gues o w a a ea s o e a ee s a i g cu u a e e se i e 2004 ook, The Cultural Defense. E E , su a o e 4, a 200 0 . say a s e a gues o "w a a ea s o e" a ee s a i g cu u a e e se ecause i ac ua i y s e e ie es a cu u a e i e ce s ou e, a some imes is, a mi e i su o o e is i g c imi a aw e e ses. I ee , e mai easo o i sis i g o a ee s a i g cu u a e e se is w a s e iews as e i a o ia e e uc a ce o u ges o acce cu u a e i e ce i su o o e is i g e e ses. See infra o es 4 4 a accom a yi g e . " See Wa e e & Co o s, supra o e 2, a 8 Si g, supra o e , a 86 0 omao, supra o e , a 24 6. "4 See Kim, supra o e , a 0 Maguiga i, supra o e , a 44 4 Wa e e & Co o s, supra o e 2, a 8 omao, supra o e , a 24 6. 118 See generally i a imo e, A Question of Culture: Cultural Approval of Violence Against Women in the Pacific-Asian Community and the Cultural Defense, 4 S A . . E . ( . 118 See Co ema , supra o e , a 0 Kim, supra o e , a 0 02 Wa e e & Co o s, supra o e 2, a 8 6 Siko a, supra o e , a 6 . 4 See Co ema , supra o e , a 6 4 imo e, supra o e , a 26 Sacks, su a o e , a 4 42 isc e , su a o e , a 6 0 Siko a, supra o e , a 0 . 118 See Kim, su a o e , a 2 ( e e e ci g eo e . C e , o. 8 4 ( .Y. Su . C . Ma . 2 , 8 . 682 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6
"E e i ki g a ou a case makes me a ai ," e a e e woma e ai e . "My us a as o me: I is is e ki o se e ce you ge o ki i g you wi e, I cou o a y i g o you. I a e e mo ey o a goo a o ey." 119 is a use woma a ma y u e a e wome a c i e ike e wou e e o es o ea e u o a com e e e e se o c imi a ia i i y g ou e i cu u e. o su isi g y, mos sc o a s ag ee a u e isem owe i g ose w o a e a ea y u e a e o io e a ack is oo ig a ice o e ec em o ay o a ega oc i e a wou e o e a e ei a use s. 20 u us as e weig o sc o a y o i io as e ec e a com e e cu u a e e se, i as a so e ec e e o io a cu u a i ue ces o a e e a s e a io oug o e i e e a o gui o i oce ce. Sc o a s a e ecog i e a i some si ua io s, e i e ce o cu u a ac ices a e ie s mig e e e a o o a ew, com e e cu u a e e se u o o a we es a is e o es, es ecia y mis ake o ac , ack o i e , a u ess. 121 Co si e , as a e am e, e case o a ie amese immig a a e c a ge wi c i a use o e gagi g i cao gio, o "coi i g"— e ac ice o massagi g a i c i s ack wi a me ica e oi , a e u i g e ack wi e e ge o a se a e coi . 122 I e c i a use s a u e equi es oo o a s eci ic i e o a m e c i , e e i e ce a e a e e gage i cao gio i o e o ea e c i wou e e e a —i ee , o a y c ucia — o e issue o i e . Simi a y, i a a e osecu io , e i e ce o cu u a ac ices su ou i g se ua i e cou se mig e o su o a e e a s c aim a e ma e a mis ake a ou e ac o e ic im s co se . " A a Yo u a immig a om ige ia w o makes i a ma ki gs wi a a o a e o e
112 A e is e e , r I f W f K ll n n Ch n t n, tt r d A n Sh d b b nd r b t n, EWS AY, o . 26, 8 , a 4. 120 S Co ema , su a o e , a 6 44 imo e, su a o e , a 26 Sacks, pr o e , a 4 42 isc e , su a o e , a 6 0 Siko a, pr o e , a 0 . 2 Kay . e i e s e ce e a ic e t t n th nd r f Cr nd C lt r es ecia y use u o is oi . S Kay . e i e, t t n th nd r f Cr nd C l t r : A S l l r p t v n C lt r l f n Str t , 28 AW & SOC. I QUI Y , 4 66 (200 . o y Maguiga a so as w i e a e ce e a ic e. S n r ll Maguiga , pr o e . 122 S A iso u es e e , I th C lt r l f n tr nt l t th lth f Ch ldr n?, n AW A A O O OGY: I E A IO A YEA OOK O EGA A O O OGY 2 , ( e e Ku e & ic a o e s., 4 . 123 is ac a e a u es o e Ca i o ia case o pl Moua S n r ll E a s i c a & e e , supra o e ( iscussi g a a a y i g a e g eo e . Mo a, o. 2 0 (Ca . Su e . C . e . , 8 . 2006 How the Cn inal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 68
son's face might be able to offer a defense of necessity or duress if she can offer evidence that her culture predicted far greater harm to the child if he was not so marked.124 To be sure, authors have emphasized that it is important for prose- cutors to make evidence available to the fact finder that counters or challenges defendants' cultural claims, in order to reduce the risk that fact finders will be tricked into mistaking willfully' misogynist or child- abusive conduct for innocent cultural practice.125 But the weight of scholarly opinion has rejected the claim that all evidence of cultural practice should be completely barred.126 Instead, it has settled around the idea that cultural evidence ought to be admissible to support estab- lished legal defenses based on the defendant's mental state.'" These insights from the literature on the cultural defense offer us guidance on the problem of defining historical injustices. On the one hand, we benefit from the literature's firm recognition that cultural context sometimes ought to temper judgment. That recognition reas- sures us that our concern for the unfairness of judging with the benefit of hindsight stands on something more substantial than a taboo against speaking ill of the dead or a worry about how we will ourselves someday be judged.128 The criminal law's recognition of the relevance of cultural context also highlights the importance of an actor's mental state at the time she acted. What that mental state might be for historical actors (as opposed to living criminal defendants) remains to be seen. For now, it is enough to note that the cultural defense offers support for the excus- ing instinct that is at the heart of its temporal cousin. That support, however, is drastically limited by the near-universal insight in the criminal law literature that a freely available cultural defense imperils the powerless by undermining the deterrent effect of
24 See e e , pr o e 22, a 2 0. I" See Maguiga , pr o e , a 0 2. 26 e a s e mos os i e o a y use o cu u a e i e ce is o ia e am e Co e ma . Ste Co ema , pr o e , a 0 04 .4 48 ( iscussi g i e e aws i e a gume a cus om cou im ai a e e a s a i i y o i k a io a y, a us e ga e e me s ea equi eme , u ack ow e gi g a e iscussio a a a ysis a y o y o si ua io s w e e cu u a e i e ce is use o e o e a e a "otherwise criminal e e a " .
I See Maguiga , supra o e , a 8 88 Sacks, pr o e , a 4 0 u, SU IY4 o e , a 020 22. 28 See omas a i g o Macau ay, Sir James Mackintosh ( 8 , reprinted in C I ICAI. A IS O ICA ESSAYS: OMAS A I C O , O MACAU AY 6 ( ug e o o e e ., 6 ("As we wou a e ou esce a s u ge us, so oug we o u ge ou a e s." . 684 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
e aw. 2 A simi a a ge u ks i e em o a co e . I e e y ge e a io e e a e u i g a u e c asses, a e is i u io o ese g ou s ac oss ace ge e , a ime i e Ame ica e e i e ce as o ee a om. e i i ege a owe u o o ay a e, o a a ce, a goo ea ike ie o e e oge y o yes e ay s e i es a o yes e ay s o esse . is is, i ac , ecise y w a makes e ask o u gi g e ac io s o ea ie Ame ica ge e a io s ea e s so i icu . E e oug we a e o e a e o em y oo , ey a e o e e ess i some se se ou a ces o s y i ue o e ea e s i osi io s ey occu ie , a ou u gme is com omise y e a egia ce we ee we owe em. u w e we oo quick y e cuse em o ei im osi io s o e owe ess o ei ay, we e i e e owe ess o o ay, a ei a oca es, o e im o a e am e o ei e e ie ce. We u e mi e e e e e e ec o is o y, a i so oi g, c ea e co i io s a a e mo e co uci e o e ewe ic imi a io . e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se us emi s us a sus e i g u gme o e w o g oi g o io ge e a io s is o a m ess ge e osi y o e e a e . I ca ies a cos , a a cos ike y wi e o y e owe ess.
. E MENS REA OF HISTORICAL ACTORS
e ece i g sec io mig ea a ea e o i k a e i e a u e o e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se as eac e co se sus o e e e a ce a a missi i i y o cu u a e i e ce. is is o so. A oug e mo e ece i e a u e oes o swi g wi y om a gu me s o w o esa e e cu a io o a gume s o ca ego ica i a mis si i i y as i i we y yea s ago, sc o a s ow u sue a a owe se o isag eeme s a ou e ecise o e a cu u a e i e ce mig e missi y ay a ia a i se e ci g. s° ose isag eeme s, owe e , a wo k om e s a e emise a e ce a egi ima e easo o a mi e i e ce o cu u e is o s e ig o e me a
I29 See Coleman, supra note 97, at 1136-44; Kim, supra note 9, at 111-12; Rimonte, su- pra note 115, at 1326; Sacks, supra note 97, at 541-42; Fischer, supra note 97, at 690-91; Sikora, supra note 15, at 1709-11. 150 Compare Kim, supra note 9, at 133-38 (proposing a framework for judges to deter- mine whether to admit cultural evidence at criminal trials), with Neff, supra note 97, at 468-75 (advocating use of cultural evidence as a mitigating factor during sentencing), and Siko a, supra note 15, at 1714-24 (arguing judges only should take cultural evidence into account in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial). 2006 How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 68
state of the accused. ' This focus on the mental state of the actor from a different culture will help us to develop a better understand- ing of what we mean when we speak of the culpability of an actor from an earlier day. In a recent article, Kay Levine presents a compelling explanation for the focus on mental state in the debate over the cultural de- fense. 2 She explains that the cultural defense raises a fundamental question about the relationship between culture and action.'" At one extreme, "soft" or "external" theorists of that relationship contend that people choose their actions freely, without cultural influence, and use culture merely to explain or justify what they have done.'" At the other end of the continuum, "hard" or "internal" theorists main- tain that culture "program [s]" actors to behave as they do, "eliminat- ing their sense of agency or responsibility for their actions." An in- termediate position suggests a sort of feedback loop between an actor and culture: an actor initially chooses his actions, but upon recogniz- ing that certain actions fit within a larger cultural schema, he internal- izes or appropriates that schema.'" The schema assumes an ever- more-powerful role in determining the actor's conduct, and earlier individual motivations recede. It becomcs intuitive, natural, and ulti- mately coercive.'" Levine argues that the cultural defense brings a claim of cultural coercion into conflict with the baseline assumption of American criminal law that people freely choose their actions and are individu- ally responsible for everything they do.'" At the practical level, this conflict between culture and autonomy plays itself out in disputes about a criminal defendant's mental state.'" Inquiry into the mens rea—the actor's allegedly culpable state of mind—is the logical place for a finder of fact to determine the extent to which larger forces out-
"I See Maguiga , supra o e , a 8 88 Sacks, supra o e , a 4 0 Wi , supra o e , a 020 22. See generally e i e, supra o e 2 . See id. a 42 4 .
4 ht at 4 . Id. a 44. Id. a . 4 46. See e i e, supra o e 2 , a 46. is i e me ia e osi io , w ic e i e seems o a o , comes om e wo k o e emi is a o o ogis S e y . O e . See S e y . O e , Patterns of History: Cultural Schemas in the Founding of Sherpa Religious Institutions, i COU U E OUG IME: A O O OGICA A OAC ES , (Emiko O uki• ie ey e ., 0 . See e i e, su a o e 2 , a 46. I . a 4 . 686 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6 si e e e e a s ow wi a awa e ess s a e o ic a e e a m u ac . 40 e i e co c u es a e i e ce o cu u e oug o e a missi e w e e i u e mi es e e e a s c imi a i e y " o i [i g] a ... o c imi a e a a io o e e e a s ac io s o w e e cu u a ema s ace e e e a u e e ao i a y s ess a o im o mea i g u age cy." 4 e i e co e s a o ee s a i g cu u a e e se o c imi a ia i i y is ecessa y o is u ose ecause ou we es a is e c imi a aw me s ea e e ses a e a equa e o e ask. 42 O e o e a , e i e a gues a cu u a e i e ce s ou o e a missi e w e e i oes o i g o is o e e e e a s i e o a m e ic im, u i s ea me e y e ea s a e e e a s cu u e e s o o e a e suc a m mo e ea i y a oes Ame ica cu u e. 4 W e eas e i e o oses a ee s a i g cu u a e e se o c imi a ia i i y, A iso u es e e su o s i . 44 I e e s iew, a i e e e , ee s a i g cu u e ase e e se is ecessa y o o e come e e eme e uc a ce o mos u ges o a mi e i e ce o cu u a co e i su o o a e is i g c imi a aw e e se." I e ece ook, The Cultural Defense, e e o es a a e so s cu u a co e o e su ies a e so s motive o e gagi g i a ac a a ms a o e , e e i i oes o ega e e e so s intent o o a m. a cu u a y ase mo i e, s e co e s, is a eas a ia y e cu a i g, e e i i oes o ega e c imi a i e a e e y su y a u y e cu a i g e cuse. W a e e as i mi is us a partial e cuse, a so o ge e ic esse i c u e o e se o a c imes a wou e a ai a e o a e e a w o ac e om a cu u a y i ue ce mo i e."6 W a is o a e a ou e isag eeme e wee e i e, a o o e o a ee s a i g cu u a e e se, a e e , a su o e , is a i e oi o ag eeme . o e ie e a o e e e a cu u e mi iga es o ca ce s c imi a ia i i y, i oes so ecause cu u e ca u e mi e e cu a i i y o a me a s a e. e e w i es c ea y a " e a io a e e i [a ee s a i g cu u a e e se]
40 S d. 4 S d. a 80. 42 S d. a .60. is is a so a ma o us o o y Maguiga s wo k. S Magui ga , pr o e , a 8 0. 4 S e i e, pr o e 2 , a . " S E E , pr o e 4, a 200 0 . S d. a 8 20 . 6 S d. a 2. 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 68
... is a a i i i ua s e a iO is i ue ce o suc a a ge e e y is cu u e a ei e ( e i i i ua sim y i o e ie e a is ac io s co a e e a y aws, o (2 e i i i ua e com e e o ac e way e i ." 4 e e wis es o e ce ai a e c imi a aw a o ia e y mi iga es e ia i i y o e so s w ose "cu u a co i io i g e is ose[ ] [ em] o ac i ce ai ways," " a w o e e o e ac e wi a " e e ice mo i e." " e i e makes mo e o ess e same oi i e wo k, u wi i e e wo s: e e e a s e i e o mi iga io a e ose w ose "cu u a ema s ace [ em] u e e ao i a y s ess a o [ em] o mea i g u age cy." " As wi e e , e i e s ocus is o cu u a p l n. S e o es a a success u e e se ase o cu u e i a c imi a case equi es oo o a e e e a o es y ac e o e c aime cu u a easo a e ime o e a m u ac a a e e e a s " e ia ce o cu u e ( a e a o Ame ica ega s a a s was easo a e." " e i qui y i o ea so a e ess ocuses o " e ac o s (i a i i y o (u wi i g ess o is ega cu u a esc i io s— o esis cu u a sc emas—i e s o se o e ic im s e a io o mai s eam socia essu es." 2 Cu u a sc emas a e o , a e a , i a ia y a i e e si y coe ci e: "A cu u a ame a as ee ake i o e se ca e ake ou agai —w e o e s ai o eac i e ec e ways, o e am e, o w e ci cums a ces c a ge, o sim y w e a e so ma u es." us, e i e a gues, e easo a e ess o a e e a s e ia ce o cu u e wi u o e eg ee o i s h nn . I e ac i e " e ie es a e e e a was a e o o e a e ou si e o e sc ema u sim y c ose o o o so, i wi ike y i e e ia ce o cu u e u easo a e." 4 I sc o a s ag ee a a m u ac s a e e cusa e o e e e a a e e a s cu u a amewo k com e e e o ac as s e i , e e a s some i g simi a mig e ue o e cu u a e e se s em o a cousi . e a a ogy is a mi e y o easy o aw ecause is o ia s, u ike awye s, o o a e oc i es (o e e
42 Id. a 8 . Id. at . 0 E E , supra o e 4, a 20 . ° e i e, supra o e 2 , a 80. See id. at 48. 2 Id. See id. (quo i g O e , supra o e , a 8 . e i e, supra o e 2 , a 48. 688 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
ea y muc o a oca u a y o cu a i i y. is o ia s a e sim y o accus ome o e ami i g e me s ea o is o ica ac o s. u e i e a u e o e cu u a e e se sugges s ai y c ea y a compulsion and choice a e im o a ac o s i assessi g e cu a i i y o e ac io s o as ge e a io s. o w a e e , we s ou ask, i e o i ica a socia c ima e, e mo a o ms, a e e a io a e ec a io s o e ac o s ay com e e o o w a s e i ? o w a e e was i ossi e o e e so o ac i e e y a mo e co sis e y wi w a wou eme ge as e s a a s o a a e age? o w a e e ca we ook ack o e ac o s e a io a see i as a choice o co seque ce, a ac o i e e e mo a age cy? 6 A um e o ac o s wi i o m is i qui y i o e is o ica igu e s age cy. A a asic e e , we mus ask w e e e ci cum s a ces o e ac o s ime a owe a y access a a o s a a s i e e om is ow . Co si e , o e am e, a y o e ica i gi ia a e i e yea 6 0 w o ma e a ecisio o swi c is c o om w ea o o acco. A mo e a i smoki g ac i is , w o k ows a o acco is a a ic i e age o i ess a ea o mi io s o smok e s, mig co em is ecisio . u a ac i is su e y ca o co em e a e s ecisio i i s ow is o ica mome . o acco s e a o e ies we e o k ow i e a e se e ee ce u y— " e e a io s i o o acco o ea ay ee i e s a ow o ig o a ce." " A acks o smoki g e o e e mi i e ee ce u y "we e couc e a ge y i mo a , e o o ic, a eco omic e ms," 8 o i e ms o ea . I ee , se e ee ce u y E g is me saw smoki g as a e e se agai s e ague. E e as a e as e 8 0s, e ea i g E g is a guage me ica ou a o i e a smoki g
See U A , SUPTa o e 88, a . is o ia Go o A. C aig eau i u y e esse is oi a ou e c oices co o i g is o ica igu es i is essay e i e History as a Humanistic Discipline
o o ge a e ese is e esu o ma y e e o me s a mig a e ake a i e e cou se a o ecisio s a mig o a e ee ma e, o o a e same ime o i e same way, is se ious y o o es o e ou is o ica e s ec i e a o i u ge i i ea i ki g o e mos es ic e ki . e u y o e is o ia ... is o es o e o e as e o io s i o ce a .
Go o A. Craig, History as a Humanistic Discipline, in IS O ICA I E ACY 4 ( au Gag o e ., 8 . IC A I UGE , AS ES O AS ES: AME ICA S U E YEA CIGA E E WA , E U IC EA , A E U A AS E IUM O I I MO IS ( 6 . 8 Id. at . M. a . 2006] th Cr n l C n l t r p r t n h r 68 could "be indulged in with moderation, without manifest injurious effect on the health for the time being." 6° Just as the law might be willing to entertain a claim in mitigation on behalf of a rainforest tribesman suddenly plopped down in the middle of early-twenty-first- century America, on the basis that the tribesman lacked any meaning- ful access to a tradition other than his own, so should we be open to such a claim on behalf of a temporally-remote ancestor. Now contrast this Virginia planter's farming decision with the decision of his hypothetical great-great-grandson to purchase slaves in 1840. A plea to suspend judgment of the nineteenth-century slave- holding planter in deference to his historical moment is surely weaker than the plea on behalf of his tobacco-harvesting forebear. Whereas the late-seventeenth-century planter lived in a time of ignorant con- sensus on questions of tobacco and health, the nineteenth-century slave owner lived in a time of intense debate on the propriety of own- ing other human beings. Change was afoot, and had been for some time. 6 The American and French revolutions of the late eighteenth century had upended the earlier understanding of the world as a di- vinely ordained hierarchy that assigned everyone—masters and slaves alike—fixed positions of social and political contro1. 62 Wilting in 1782, no less a figure than Thomas Jefferson had noted that "the whole commerce between master and slave is ... the most unremit- ting 'despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." 6 By 1807, the slave trade had been abolished in England, 64 and a slave revolt had won independence for what would become the Republic of Haiti. 6 In the decades that followed, an abolition move- ment took root and flourished in the United States even while South- ern jurisdictions passed laws designed to protect the institution of slavery and to make voluntary emancipation more difficult. 66 Slavery
60 Id. a 6. 6 S U A , su a o e 88, a 04 06. 62 S ISAAC, su a o e , a 46 4 , 0 , 80 8 . 6 . . a is, I augu a ec u e e i e e e o e e U i e si y o O o : Was omas e e so a Au e ic E emy o S a e y? ( e . 8, 0 , i Wks OMAS E E SO A AU E IC E EMY O S A E Y? 6, 6 ( 0 (quo i g OMAS E E SO , COM ME CE E WEE MAS E A S A E ( 82 . 64 S AMES WA I , ACK I O Y: S A E Y I E I IS EM I E 262 ( ackwe u is e s . 2 e . 200 ( 2 . 6 S GEO GE . YSO , ., OUSSAI OU E U . 2 ( . 66 S A I IO A IS, E O EM O S A E Y I E AGE O E O U IO , 0 82 , a 8 ( ME O . I O , S A E Y A sciam: SOU E S A ES A EI A IES 6 86 , a 48 ( 0 O E MCCO EY, S A E Y A E E SO IA I GI IA 2 4 ( 64 . 6 0 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6 i se (a o me e y e s a e a e was a o is e oug ou e i is Em i e i 8 4. 6 S a e acquisi io a ow e s i i e 840s we e i e i a y ac s o co scious mo a c oice i a way a ey a o ee i a ea ie ime. us, us as a ac i e wou e i e es e i k owi g w e e a ece mo g immig a came o e U i e S a es om a ace o ge ui e y mo o i ic cu u e ( is emo e ome i age i e ao ia mou ai s o om a ace o oa a mi e i ue ces (yea s o i e im esi e ce i a Asia me o o is , we s ou e i e es e i k owi g w e e ou a ces o i e i a ime o s asis o e ac ice i ques io o i a ime o u . A so e e a o w a I am ca i g e chosenness o as w o g o i g is e osi io o e ques io e ac ice i e cu u a s ec um o i s ay. We k ow, o e am e, a eig ee ce u y amaica s a e y was a u a i s i u io 68—mo e so a e co em o a e ous s a e y o e sou eas e U i e S a es. 6 Ye e e wi i a io e amewo k, we ca i e i y sa is ic socio a s. amaica s a e ow e omas is ewoo i o co i e imse o e oggi g a se ua a assme a we e e commo me o s o s a e co o . e e ise a u is me e ca e " e y s ose," i w ic e w i e a mis e a i g s a e, u e "sa ick e, ime uice a i e e " i e o e wou s, o ce a o e s a e o e eca e i is mou , a e gagge im o ou o i e ou s. " is ewoo a so o ce s a es o u i a e i o e eyes a mou s o o e s, a some imes u e s a es wi mo asses a e em ake ou si e o e ig o e e ou e y mosqui oes. us as e aw wou i sis o k owi g w e e a a icu a immig a s io e e a io is u y a a i ac o is cu u e o a e ia c oice o is ow , we s ou ask e same ques io a ou e a ms a ou a ces o s i ic e . " e y s ose" was a ou age e e i i s ime, a we s ou o a ow a gume s a ou i sig a is o ica co e o u ou a ecia io o a . us as e osi io o e w o g oi g i e s ec um o a e a s co uc is a im o a ace o e chosenness o as w o g oi g, so is e osi io o e wrongdoer. o e e y mem e o a ge e a io s a es equa y i e mai e a ce o i s socia a cu u a ac ices. ose w o seek o i e i osi io s o i ue ce a omi e ce
6 S WA I , pr o e 64, a 264. 68 S U A , su a o e 88, a 2 , 0, . e° S d. a 4 0. ° S d. a 04. S d. 2006J How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 691 bear special responsibility for those practices because they set an ex- ample for others and are in a position to effect change. In this sense, Thomas Thistlewood contrasts usefully with his contemporary, Lan- don Carter. Both men were slave owners—Thistlewood in Jamaican and Carter in Virginia.'" Thistlewood was notably more brutal with his slaves than was Carter, but was also a "nobody" in the society of his day—unknown outside his small Jamaican parish, and even there only for his beautiful garden.n His influence—terrorizing as it was— spread no further than the boundaries of his 160-acre fartmn Carter, by contrast, was an heir to one of Virginia's great fami- lies—the son of Robert "King" Carter, who owned more than 300,000 acres and more than 700 slaves and was, in the words of Rhys Isaac, "a grandee among the grandees."n Landon himself, even after sharing his father's estate with siblings, was one of Virginia's twelve richest men and the owner of more than 400 slaves.'" He was also a member of Virginia's House of Burgesses,n the presiding judge of his county court, the chair in 1774 of his county's committee to boycott British goods,' 80 a friend of the powerful Lee family, 8 and, although not a trained physician, a respected medical practitioner. 82 He was, in short, a man of influence in his county and his colony's social and po- litical life. Some such men chose to free some or all of their slaves. Landon Carter's nephew, Robert Carter III, an even wealthier man than his uncle, began emancipating his 452 slaves in 1791, not much more than a decade after his uncle's death, and continued the process through the rest of his life. 8 Fellow Virginian George Wythe 84 and
2 See id at 7. i ISAAC, pr o e I, a ii. 4 See U A , pr o e 88, a .
8 See a at 0. 8 ISAAC, supra o e I, a ii. i Id. a 60. 08 M. a 2 6 . I Id. a 24 . 8 I a iii— i . 8 See ISAAC, supra o e I, a 2 , 0 .40. 82 See id. a 0 20. 8 See A EW E Y, E I S EMA CI A O : E O GO E S O Y O O E CA E , E OU I G A E W O EE is SIA ES, a i (200 . A oug wea ie a is u c e a o , o e Ca e III was ess o i ica y i ue ia . See id. a i— ii. I" See i i . Mo ga , Interracial Sex in the Chesapeake and the British Atlantic World, in SA Y EMI GS & OMAS E E SO : IS O Y, MEMO Y, A CI IC CU U E 2, 8 ( a E e ewis & e e S. O u e s., . 6 2 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
e sy a ia o icki so 8 ma e simi a , i ess swee i g, eci sio s o ema ci a io . O e me , suc as i gi ia Geo ge Was i g o , 86 e o o ei s a es u i g ei ow i e imes u ema ci a e em a ea . y co as , a o Ca e — ike e ow i gi ia s omas e e so s ? a Geo ge Maso 88—ema ci a e o o e ei e u i g is i e o u o is ea . I ee , u ike e e so a Maso , e e e s oke u ic y agai s s a e y o e e egis e e esi a io s a ou e i s i u io i is i a e ia y. a o Ca e a a g ea e o o u i y a mos me o is ay o e e i ue ce o is soci e y s co i ue e o seme o e ow e s i o uma ei gs. Wi a o o u i y came es o si i i y. I is e i e y a o ia e o us o weig is ai u e o s ou e a es o si i i y as we assess is a ici a io i e s a e o i g cu u e o is ime. o some, i mig seem isce a y u ai o co em ce u ies o ac s a we e o u am iguous y immo a i ei ow ime u a e ecome so i ou s. e ques io a is A ic e e o es, ow e e , is w e e suc a ec a a io o is o ica i us ice is a y more u ai a e ecisio ou ega sys em makes o co em a ece immig a om a o eig cu u e o a ac a is o u am iguous y immo a i is ow socie y u is i ou s. e e is o owe u easo o i k a i is. I ee , u gi g a is o ica e e may we e less u ai a u gi g a immig a s co uc . A e so c a ge wi a c ime isks ai ime a a mo e a y i e i co ic e . is cu u a e e se is us g ou e i ue ocess co ce s e c aims a e s ou o a e o su e e i e y a o e y o co uc a was o ac ua y cu a e. I o e wo s, e co seque ces o co ic io a e se e e e oug o e e e a a e is i some se se owed co si e a io o is i i i ua i g cu u a ci cums a ces. y co as , w e we e ec o e co uc o a e so om e as , o i g we say o o ca a e a y im ac o is i e y o o e y. e is go e. I we u ge
8 See S a e o e awa e, John Dickinson: The Slave Holder, i : is o y. e awa e.go muse i is s a e. ( as isi e Aug. 24, 2006 . 86 See Mou e o Es a e a Ga e s, George Washington and Slavery, i : www. mou e o i.o g ea ee _geo ge i e .c m ss 0 I ( as isi e Aug. 24, 2006 . 8 S OSE . E IS, AME ICA S I : E C A AC E O IOMAS E E SO 44 2 ( 6 . 88 See Maso Mys e y, Im : maso .g i e u — me e maso ys e y. m ( as is i e Aug. 24, 2006 (s a i g a Maso Was o e o e i s Ame ica s a o e o e e y i s sou e a a io ow e s o e ou ce s a e y, ye e ow e s a es u i e ay e ie " . 2006] th Cr n l C n l t r p r t n h r 6 his conduct by the standards of his time rather than ours, we do so not because we actually owe him anything or because he might suffer the physical, emotional, or financial consequences of our judgment. Perhaps we feel that we owe his memory a certain sort of consideration. But surely living people who risk hard time in jail have a greater claim to careful and contextually sensitive judgment than do people who have passed on. It bears emphasis that this Article does not contend that prior generations are unentitled to contextually-sensitive judgment. Indeed, even as to actors from prior generations who can be said to have cho- sen to act in accordance with the wisdom of their times, rather than embrace a mainstream challenge to it, this Article does not argue against contextually-sensitive judgment. The Article maintains simply that those historical actors do not deserve to be wholly excused for the choices they made. It will usually turn out, however, that they do not deserve to be wholly condemned either. Again, the criminal law helpfully models the point. Where evi- dence of cultural influence on behavior does not substantiate a tradi- tional defense to criminal liability such as duress or necessity, that evi- dence is not simply eliminated from consideration. Rather, it reappears at the defendant's sentencing hearing, where the defen- dant's lawyer offers it anew to place the defendant's behavior in con- text and show how it is less culpable than similar behavior by a person from the dominant culture.' 8 The purpose of a sentencing hearing is to develop as complete an account as possible of the offender, her background, and the circumstances of her offense, so that the judge may tailor the offender's punishment to her culpability. 0 The in- quiry is "broad in scope, largely unlimited either as to the kind of in- formation [the sentenced may consider, or the source from which it may come." ' Thus, the defendant who fails in his effort at outright acquittal on grounds of culture nonetheless has the opportunity to argue for a lesser sentence on the same grounds. Moreover, such an opportunity should often succeed because a person who harms an- other in a way common to his foreign culture is, in fact, less culpable
8 S Maguiga , pr o e , a 62 6 ( iscussi g e use o cu u a ackg ou i o ma io i ea a gai i g a se e ci g ocee i gs e , pr o e , a 44 (a oca i g co si e a io o cu u a ackg ou i o ma io i se e ci g . S n r ll S r , pr o e (a gui g a e e a s cu u a ci cums a ces s ou e a owe o se e as a mi iga i g ac o i se e ci g . S U i e S a es . y c , 4 .2 226, 2 ( Ci . . U i e S a es . ucke , 404 U.S. 44 ,446 ( 2 . 6 4 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
a a o e wise simi a y si ua e Ame ica w o causes e same a m wi o cu u a su o . Some i g qui e simi a o ai s w e we co si e e case o a is o ica ac o w o c ose o em ace a e a c a e ge e a m u mo es o is ay. E e i we eci e a a mo o i ic mo a i y i is e a i o com e e y e e im om c oosi g i e e ac io s, we s i owe im ca e u co si e a io o e ci cums a ces o is ime. We mus ask ow muc e a e o e mo a ques io is socie y ac ua y k ew, a w e e e a access o i . We mus ask w a cos s e is o ica ac o wou a e ace o maki g a i e e c oice, a w e e e was a e o s ou e suc a u e . e a swe s o ese ques io s wi , a s ou , em e ou u gme o e c oice e ma e. u ey s ou o i ec us o sus e ou u g me e i e y. Suc co si e a io s s ou o ea o e w i ewas i g osi io o e a isa e isio is w o ismisses e e y c aime i us ice as a me e o uc o i s ime. A i a e am e wi i us a e e oi . Co si e a y o e ica i gi ia a e w o u c ase s a es i 6 0. We a ea y a e see a s a e acquisi io i e mi i e ee ce u y was a i e i a y co es a e c oice. 2 is was ma ke y ess ue i 6 0. " A e ig ious co em a io o s a e y was ce ai y eme gi g. I was, owe e , ew o y i 688 i a Ame ica e igious mo eme u ic y a icu a e a case agai s s a e y. " A a mo eme was e Quak e s—o e ce e e i e mi A a ic co o ies, wi w ic ou y o e ica i gi ia a e wou a e ee , a es , a e y ami ia . O e a i s a e y oices, mos o a y a o i is s a e y a o i io is omas yo , we e a so s a i g o e ea a e i e se e ee ce u y, u ey we e e a i e y ew a a o ye egu
2 See supra o es 6 6 a accom a yi g e . e a e se e ee ce u y, e ac ice o s a e y i e Ame ica co o ies was s i i e ocess o o ma io . S WIG OWE UMO , A IS A E Y: E C U SA E O EE OM I AME ICA 2 ( 6 ( iscussi g e e o i g ega s a us o e i s i u io o s a e y i Ame ica co o ies u i g e a e se e ee o ea y eig ee ce u ies . A oug i i e ose e g a gues owe u y a " e e e o me o a i s a e y o i io i i ai was coe e si e wi e i s i u io a i a io o s a e y i se ," i i e ose e g, Thomas Tryon and the Seventeenth-Century Dimensions of Antislavery, 6 WM. & MA Y Q. 60 , 640 (2004 , i is o e e ess c ea a a e se e ee ce u y a is a e y se ime was ei e oa ase o ou . 4 I 688, a g ou o e sy a ia Quake s issue e Ge ma ow e i io , w ic mai ai e a s a e y was i co sis e wi C is ia i ci es. See A I IO A IS, E O EM O S A E Y I WES E CU U E 08 & .2 ( 66 OMAS E. AKE, QUAKE S A S A E Y I AME ICA 4 ( 0 . 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 695
o aw sig i ica a e io i e co o ies. e e e o me o a o ga i e a o i io is mo eme i e co o ies was s i ma y ec a es o . " S a e ow e s i i e i gi ia o e 6 0s e e o e s oo i a i e e osi io om e s a e ow e s i a o owe 0 yea s a e . I assessi g e w o g u ess o a a e s s a e ow e s i i 6 0s i gi ia, we mus em e ou u gme o ake ac cou o a i e e osi io . "
I. I I G E O E: A E U O E E AM E O E A A ESE AME ICA I E ME o egi i i g e o e i e a a io s eo y o o e y a isa is o ica e isio is s, is A ic e as sugges e a a a ogy e wee em o a a cu u a e cuse as a o oca i e a e u s a i g ace o a eo y o is o ic i us ice. e A ic e ci e ece e isio is us i ica io s o e a a ese Ame ica i e me u i g Wo Wa II as e ea i g e am e o e e isio is ea . " I wi e e u ow o e u o a e am e, o see ow e esso s o e a a ogy o e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se e o s e e
See ose e g, supra o e , a 6 2. But see U AM , SU a o e 88, a 0 06 ("U i 0, a is a e y se ime was c ose o o e is e " . SeeDnioN, supra note 166, at 87-111 (discussing growing abolitionist sentiment in early-nineteenth-century United States). A difficult, perhaps intractable, problem remains. Must we say that slavery in a his- torical era in which slave owners had no access whatsoever to all antislavery discourse was not wrong in its time? Or has the entire human drama been played before a "natural law" backdrop that would condemn some practices as wrong regardless of the context in which they occurred? "Fhis question is beyond this Article's scope. Two observations are, however, in order. First, it is probably inaccurate to clai in there has ever been a slave owner at any time in history who had truly no access whatsoever to an antislavery discourse. Surely, there was always such a discourse among his slaves—a discourse from which the slave owner no doubt insulated himself. Second, a very careful inquiry into the true diversity of opinion and argument in a given historical period is essential before resorting to natural law. It is tempting to view an era's prevalent discourse as more monolithic than it actually was. Trevor Burnard, for ex- ample, asserts that "until 1750, antislavery Sentiment was close to nonexistent." U A , OM note 88, at 105-06. Yet Philippe Rosenberg, a scholar whose work focuses on the precise issue of pre-1750 antislavery discourse, asserts otherwise and identifies a significant number of published critiques of slavery in the British world in the late-seventeenth and early-eighteenth centuries. See Rosenberg, supra note 193, at 626, 640. If Rosenberg is cor- rect, and there never really was a period of institutionalized slavery in the British Atlantic without antislavery argument or agitation, then it may not be necessary to resort entirely to natural law to assess the wrongfulness of late-seventeenth-century slaveholding in its time. Mg See supra notes 70-85 and accompanying text. 6 6 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6
co c usio a e oose e A mi is a io s o icies we e a i us ice e e i ei ow ime. e ea o e a o ose w o esig e a a o e e o g am o a a ese Ame ica e c usio a e e io is a , i e co e o e icious a a ese su ise a ack o ea a o a e mi i a y ea a a a ese o ces ose o e U i e S a es mai a i e o owi g mo s, e mass o y ac ic e e io o a eo e o a a ese a ces y a o g e Wes Coas was ecessa y a u e s a a e. e a gume is a e Ame ica eo e we e us i ia y s ocke a ig e e y ea a o a e ie e is e e i e measu e was ee e . As A a Sim so s a e o e oo o e U.S. Se a e u i g e a e o w a wou ecome e Ci i i e ies Ac o 88, "a a ime, i mos e e y s uc u e o ou ci i e y, ou Go e me a ou u eauc acy, i seeme e e y ig i g o o." I is o se a io is accu a e, e i wou e e y i icu o au e a c i ec s o e go e me s og am o se i g u a s uc u e a was u i e sa y co si e e wise. o au em, i seems, wou us e, as Mic e e Ma ki a gues, a u ai co em a io o "se ious me ... w o i o a e e u u y o a ea iew mi o ." 2 ° e ou e wi is iew is a e is o ica eco oes o su o a s o y o mo o i ic su o a a o a o e go e me s og am. o e e y Ame ica e ie e i e mi i a y ecessi y o e ic i g a ai i g e Wes Coas s a a ese Ame ica o u a io . I ee , e y owe u a a icu a e eo e i e Ame ica mai s eam o ose e og am. A a k i oose e , w o ga e e o e a o i g e Wa e a me s e ic io a e e io o a a ese Ame ica s, a easy access o ese su s a ia o osi g iews. W e oose e sig e E ecu i e O e 066, e k ew a e o o icia s i is us ice e a me a igo ous y o ose i . 2° I e a es wi Wa e a me o icia s, ames owe a E wa E is, wo o e u ies o A o ey Ge e a a cis i e, a gue a e o ci e e oca io o Ame ica ci i e s o a a ese a ces y (as o ose o a a ese a ie s wou e i ega 202 owe 20s E
4 CO G. ec. 4 86, 4 2 ( 88 (s a eme o Se . Sim so , v l bl t : ss.s smec i e me Co g essio a 2O eco s 880420 . m sim so . 200 MA KI , pr o e 6, a i . 20 e e I o s s ook US ICE A WA is e mos e ai e accou o e i e e a me a w a g i g a ece e oose e s ecisio o a o e o e Wa e a me s o osa o e ic a a ese Ame ica s om e Wes Coas . S I O S, su a o e , a 2 4. 2" S d. a , 62. 20 S d. a 44. 2006] How the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 6
iS,2" Biddle,206 and Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") Direc- tor J. Edgar Hoover206 all maintained that a program of mass re- moval and relocation was entirely unnecessary. Biddle made this po- sition clear to Roosevelt in a meeting on February 7,1942, just four days before Roosevelt orally approved the War Department's plan. 207 In short, it is simply not true that eviction and incarceration seemed "the right thing to do" to everyone who had lived through the trauma of Pearl Harbor. It seemed the wrong thing to Roosevelt's own Attorney General and to the Director of the FBI. It also seemed the wrong thing to the two men who had pre- ceded Francis Biddle in the Attorney General's Office in the Roose- velt Administration—Frank Murphy (1939-1940) and Robert H. Jack- son (1940-1941)—both of whom had become Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court by the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Reluc- tantly concurring in the Court's 1943 decision upholding the consti- tutionality of a dusk-to-dawn curfew imposed on Japanese Americans, Justice Murphy described the race-based curfew as bearing "a melan- choly resemblance to the treatment accorded to members of the Jew- ish race in Germany and in other parts of Europe." 208 The curfew, Murphy said, went "to the very brink of constitutional power." 209 A year later, Justice Murphy dissented from the Court's 6-3 deci- sion upholding the Administration's program evicting Japanese Americans from their homes and indefinitely excluding them from the West Coast. 210 Murphy's condemnation of the program was stark. Citing his words of a year earlier, Murphy charged that the Admini- stration's program went "over 'the very brink of constitutional power' ... into the ugly abyss of racism." 211 It stemmed from "an erroneous assumption of racial guilt rather than bona fide military necessity," 212 and the justifications offered by the government were nothing but "an accumulation of much of the misinformation, half-truths and insinua- tions that for years have been directed against Japanese Americans by people with racial and economic prejudices."215 Justice Murphy called
204 S d. 222 S d. a . 220 S I O S, supra o e , a 2 2 . 222 S d. a . 222 i a ayas i . U i e S a es, 20 U.S. 8 , I ( 4 (Mu y, ., co cu i g . 222 Id. 2 0 Ko ema su . U i e S a es, 2 U.S. 2 4,2 42 ( 44 (Mu y, ., isse i g . 2 Id. a 2 . 2 2 Id. a 2 6. 2 2 Id. a 2 . 6 8 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6
e A mi is a io s og am a " ega i a io o acism, ... u a ac i e i a y se i g u ... u e y e o i g amo g a ee eo e w o a e em ace e i ci es se o i e Co s i u io o e U i e S a es." 2 4 us ice ackso , o us a o me U.S. A o ey Ge e a u a so a c ose ie a co i a e o esi e oose e , 2 a so co em e e e ic io a e c usio o a a ese Ame ica s o e a sis o e mi i a y s imsy c aim o ecessi y. I Korematsu v. United States i 44, ackso em asi e a e o y i g a ma e e Ko ema su s co i ue ese ce i Ca i o ia a c ime was e a ces y e i e i e om is a e s. 2 6 is co ic io o io a i g e mi i a y s e c usio o e e e o e io a e e " u ame a as sum io u e [yi g] ou sys em ... a gui is e so a a o i e i a e."2 o "a o e [w a ] e mi i a y ... eem[e ] e e i e ," sai us ice ackso , e Cou a o " is o e Co s i u io "2 8 a o " a i a e e i ci e o acia isc imi a io i c imi a oce u e a o a s a i g Ame ica ci i e s." 2 ei e is i e case a e Ame ica eo e as a w o e e ie e i e mi i a y ecessi y o i ca ce a i g e Wes Coas s e i e a a ese Ame ica o u a io . We es ec e Ame ica s u ic y a a icu a e y o ose e a . Co si e , o e am e, a e e a a g ou o omi e Ame ica e uca o s, o i icia s, usi ess e so s, a a is s se o esi e oose e o A i 0, 42. 220 A oug ey sai ey " ecog i e [ ] u y e i icu ies o e si ua io " i o i g a a ese Ame ica s o e Wes Coas , ey mai ai e a ey a see " o a equa e e i e ce ... a a o e gi i g com e e owe o e Sec e a y o Wa o o e comma e o eac mi i a y a ea o e c u e om esig a e a eas a ci i e s, o o es ic
2 4 Id. at 242. 2 See generally O E . ACKSO , A MA (200 . 2 6 Korematsu, 2 U.S. a 24 ( ackso , ., isse i g . 2 Id. 2 8 Id. a 244 4 . 2 Id. a 246. us ice o e s a so isse e i e Korematsu case, co em i g e og am o e ic io a e c usio as a c ea io a io o co s i u io a ig s. See i . a 22 26 ( o e s, ., isse i g (s a i g a e case was o e o " u is me [o a i i i ua ] o o su mi i g o im iso me i a co ce a io cam , ase o is a ces y, a so e y ecause o is a ces y, wi ou e i e ce o i qui y co ce i g is oya y a goo is osi io owa s e U i e S a es" . 22 e e om A e M. i g am e a . o a k i . oose e (A . 0, 42 , re- printed in os i g o E ic Mu e o Is a ega ?, The Hindsight Theory of the Japanese Ameri- can Internment Takes (Yet) Another Hit, : www.is a ega .o g a c i es 2006 0 e_ Iii sig _ i m (May 2 , 2006, 2:44 ES . 2006 lbw the Criminal Law Can Bolster Reparations Theory 6 their actions in any way he sees fit, is either constitutional or demo- cratic." Singling out "the Japanese alone" for these burdens, they ar- gued, "approximates the totalitarian theory of justice practiced by the Nazis in their treatment of the Jews."221 Signatories to this blunt and contemporaneous condemnation of the government's evacuation pol- icy included Alfred M. Bingham, the editor of the progressive journal Common Sense, George S. Counts, the well-known sociologist and edu- cational reformer; Countee Cullen, the African-American poet; John Dewey, the founder of Pragmatist philosophy and educational re- former; Sherwood Eddy, the national secretary of the YMCA; clergy- man Harry Emerson Fosdick; University of North Carolina President Frank Porter Graham; prominent Unitarians Mary W. Hillyer and John Haynes Holmes; James Wood Johnson, the co-founder and ex- president of the Johnson & Johnson Company; Christian intellectual Reinhold Neibuhr; Clarence E. Pickett, the executive secretary of the American Friends Service Committee; pastor and presidential candi- date Norman Thomas; Mount Holyoke ex-president Mary E. Woolley; and others.222 These were no fringe figures in American intellectual and political life, and they made their dissent known to the President at the very moment that the Administration was laying its plans for long-term exclusion and detention. Consider also an editorial by the highly regarded Washington Post editorialist Merlo Pusey entitled "War vs. Civil Rights," published in May of 1944.223 Pusey maintained that when the war was over, the na- tion would be "very much ashamed" of the "mistreatment of loyal American citizens of Japanese origin."224 Pusey pointed out that the nation had seen "no sabotage by a Japanese American in this war," and that "[a]ir overwhelming majority of those who were ousted from the Western States have never coriamitted a crime of any sort and have always remained loyal to the United States."223 Pusey demanded to know why "the Administration ... continues to punish loyal citizens solely because of their racial origin."223 Predicting that the courts would "compel the Administration to retreat from what many of its own officials recognize to be an indefensible position," the columnist called the exclusion and internment policies "black patches on an
22 Id. 2" See hi. 2" Me o Eusey, E i o ia , War vs. Civil Rights, WAS . OS , May , 44, a . 224 Id. 222 Id. 226 Id. 00 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 o e wise e y c e i a e eco i e o ec io o ci i ig s."22 ese a e o e wo s o e u a ic i ge ey a e e wo s o a we es ec e , a io a y sy ica e o i ica co um is . Me o usey a e sig a o ies o e A i 42 e e o e esi e we e a y a o e i ei c i icism o e go e me s o icies. A Ma c 4 a ic e i The Reader's Digest c i ici e e o i cies as a cos y mis ake, o i g a e su ose y a ge ous a a ese Ame ica o u a io a ee e mo e o ess u ouc e i awaii, a Ge ma Ame ica s a I a ia Ame ica s o e Eas Coas ose simi a su ose a ge s u a so we u ouc e , a a i i i ua i e oya y i qui ies wou a e ee ossi e o a ac io o e cos . 228 I u e o 42, C a es Ig e a w o e i e ages o The Nation a "e e as a wa measu e e acua io was u ecessa y."22 " e s um e i g em e s o u ic a ago ism o e a ie g ou ," e w o e, "we e ... e i e a e y a e y i e es e e so s a o ga i a io s u i a co ag a io was ea e e , u a a y ime i cou a e ee que c e i e au o i ies a s ow e o e i m ess."2 0 W i i g i Commonweal i Oc o e o 4 , a o . i sicke a gue a e mi i a y si ua io a o g e Wes Coas was "we i a " e o e e i s e acua io o e s we e is sue , a a a y o e ia a ge o e Coas was " ac ica y o e " e o e e ocess o e c usio was com e e. 2 A ic es c i ica o e a a ese Ame ica og am a so a ea e i The New Republic, Busi- ness Week, Christian Century, Asia, Collier's, Time, Newsweek, Harper's, For- tune, a The Saturday Evening Post maga i es, amo g o e s. 2 2 We es ec e igu es qui e ea e ce e s o Ame ica o i i ca owe a u ic i e oca y o ose e w o esa e e c usio a i ca ce a io o Ame ica ci i e s o a a ese a ces y u i g Wo Wa II. ese es igious o osi g oices su e y eac e e ea s o e me w o esig e a im eme e e og am, as we as o e esi e w o au o i e i a a owe i o o e a e o se e a yea s. e og am was o emo e y o eo ai e i was a e ei choice. I Kay e i e s wo s, ese we e me w o we e "a e o o e
22 Id. 228 SeeJ.P. McE oy, Our 110,000 New Boarders, EA E S IGES , Ma . 4 , a 6 66. 22 C a es Ig e a , Citizens Behind Barbed Wire, 23 E A IO , u e 6, 42, a 64 , 64 . 2 0 Id.
2 a o . e secke , Relocation Camps, COMMO WEA , Oc . , 4 , a 8, 8 80. 2 2 Memo a um om Ma . C. . Ca w ig & Ca . Ema ue Aa o so o Ci i A ai s i . (Oc . 2, 4 (o i e wi au o ( e o i g o e su ey o maga i es a um e o a ic es a ea i g i eac i o osi io o e a a ese e acua io o ec .
• 2006 th Cr n l C n l t r p r t n h r 0
a e ou si e o e sc ema [o ei ime] but simply chose not to do so."2 Their choice was a wrong one that shattered the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Americans. The historical moment in which they lived was not monolithic, and it does not excuse or minimize the injustice of the choices they made. 2 4 Neither does it undermine the extraordinary apology and redress that former internees and their children and allies managed to secu e in the 1980i and 1990s.
CO C USIO In June of 2005, Wachovia, the nation's fourth largest bank, made a stunning announcement. Research had revealed that two of its predecessor corporations had been involved in the market for
2 e i e, su a o e 2 , a 48. 2 4 ei e , i s ou go wi ou sayi g, oes ei is o ica mome j t f e c oice ey ma e. I e c imi a aw, a e e se o us i ica io i e s om a e e se o e cuse i a im o a mo a se se. Co uc a is e cusa e is co uc a is mo a y w o g u co e ua y u e s a a e. osi UA ESS E , U E S A I G C IMI A AW 20 ( e . 200 . Co uc a is us i ia e is co uc a is mo a y co ec — e ig i g o o i e ci cums a ces. S Mi c e . r n, t f t n nd Ex , nd M r l t , UKE . . , (200 . e c imi a aw s cu u a e e se is a e e se o e cuse: e e e a s c aim is o a e ac e ig y, u a is cu u a co e e ie es im o es o si i i y o e w o g c oice e ma e. S Co o , pr o e , a 8 0. Ye a imes, e mos e usias ic e e e s o e w o g oi g o io ge e a io s s eak e a guage o us i ica io a e a e cuse. W e U.S. e ese a i e owa Co e ece y e e e e go e me s wa ime ea me o a a ese Ame ica s, e i o co e a e mass i ca ce a io o e s o ousa s o Ame ica ci i e s was a co e ua y u e s a a e u gme . e mai ai e a i was a rr t u gme , us i ie o o o ec a a ese Ame ica s om igi a e io e ce a o o ec e U i e S a es om ose a a ese Ame ica s w o mea e cou y a m. S Associa e ess, .C. p.: Int rn nt C p W r M nt t lp, o ews.com , e . , 200 , : www o ews.com s o y 0,2 , 6 ,00. m . is so o e usiasm o e w o g oi g o e as is ou y a ge ous. o o y oes i ca y a o e isk o a ecu e ce o e age y a is A ic e as esc i e , u i a so e ai s a is u i g co c usio a ou eo e w o esis e e ac io a cause em a m. e c imi a aw s ows is c ea y: a e so w o esis s a us i ie agg essi e ac ac s cu a y, w e eas a e so w o esis s a e cusa e agg essi e ac oes o . S os ua ess e , h ht Ab t th C n pt f t f t n n th Cr n l : A Cr t f l t h r h n n nd e i ki g, 2 UC A . e . 6 , 6 62 .2 ( 84 . A e so may aw u y esis a i sa e e so w o ea e s ea y o ce, u may o aw u y esis a e so w o ac s i se e e se. S d. e co seque ce o us i yi g (as o ose o e cusi g e a m u ac s o a io ge e a io is e e o e o co em ose w o esis e em. See AMEs W. OEWE , IES Aci oss AME ICA 28 ( is a o esi e s o E ge ie o o o Ame ica s w o oug n t e ie am Wa so o g as ei ow ow mo ume c e i s ose w o oug i e wa o ei g ig ." . I e e ic io a i ca ce a io o a a ese Ame ica s was a us i ie og am, e e Ko ema su ac e w o g y w e e eci e o o e o o e e io as o e e . S n r ll K r t , 2 U.S. 2 4. 02 Boston College Law Review [ o . 4 :6 s a es i e i e ee ce u y: e Geo gia ai oa a a ki g Com a y a ow e 62 s a es e wee 8 6 a 842,2 a e a k o C a es o a acce e 2 s a es as co a e a o oa s a mo gages e wee 84 a 860.2 6 "We a e ee y sa e e y ese i i gs," Wac mia sai . "[We] a o ogi e o a Ame ica s, a es ecia y o A ica Ame ica s a eo e o A ica esce ."2 As com e sa io , e a k commi e o o a e $ mi io o c a i ies em asi i g A ica Ame ica e uca io a causes?" Wac o ia was, mo eo e , o e o y Ame ica a k o make suc a a ou ce me i 200 JP Mo ga C ase,2 a k o Ame ica,24 a e ma o e s" eac ma e simi a a ou ceme s a ou e ecesso e i ies a commi e o simi a com e sa o y sc emes u i g 200 .242 is i o si we wi e aco y, a sy ica e co um is o e Boston Globe. I a co um e i e The Slavery Shakedown, aco y e ea se e commo a gume s agai s e a a io s o s a e y: " i i g w i e Ame ica s ea o cu a i i y o s a e y," e a gue , "a i i g ack Ame ica s e e su e e om i ."24 aco y a e a ew wis , owe e : o o y was Wac o ia s a e i s a es oo emo e o e mi e a a io s, u "[ ] e s a es o w ic [Wac o ia] was so a o oge ic we e ow e eca es e o e e Ci i Wa , w e s a e y was
2 See Summa y o esea c o Geo gia ai oa a a ki g Com a y, : www.wac o ia.com i e Summa y_o esea c _Geo gia_ ai oa _mi _ a ki g_Gom a y. ( as isi e Aug. 2 , 2006 . 2 6 See Summa y o esea c o a k o C a es o , : www.wac o ia.com i es Summa y_o esea c _ a k_o C a es om ( as isi e Aug. 2 , 2006 . 2 ess e ease, Wac o ia, Wac o ia Com e es esea c o e ecesso Com a ies ( u e , 200 , available at : www.wac o ia.com i si e age 0 „ 4_ 0 E , 00. m . 2 8 See i yami A e aum, Bank Ups Giving to Black Causes, CUSA O E O SE E , u y 2 , 200 , a I . 2" Id. 24° National Legal and Policy Center Accuses Bank of America of Cowardly Conduct by Apologizing for Alleged Ties to Slavery, U.S. ewswi e, Aug. 2 , 200 , I : e easesais ewswi e.com Ge e ease.as ?i = 208 . 24 ess e ease, C, NLPC Criticizes Lehman Brothers' Slavery Apology (Se . , 200 , available at : www. c.o g iew.as ?ac io = iewA ic e&ai = 06 . 42 A o e co o a e sou sea c i g esea c was om e y a C icago o i a ce a equi es a a ks oi g usi ess wi e ci y o isc ose ei as ies o s a e y. See City of Chicago Reparation Ordinance Gets Support from Mayor Richard M. Daley, U.S. Co e e ce o Mayo s, Oc . 2 , 2002, : www.usmayo s.o g uscm us_mayo _ ews a e ocume s 0_2 _02 c icago.as . 24 Se e aco y, O E ., The Slavery Shakedown, OS O G O E, u e , 200 , available a I : www. os o .com ews g o e e i o ia _o i io o e a ic es 200 06 0 e_ s a e y_s ake owi . 2006 th Cr n l C n l t r p r t n h r 0 still lawful throughout the South." 244 That last clause bears repeating: "when slavery was still lawful throughout the South." The mind struggles to grasp the relevance of the fact that slavery remained technically lawful in the South in the two or three decades before the Civil War. Could it be that the syndicated columnist was subtly offering a substan- tive defense of the ownership of slaves? That is precisely what he was doing. A line or two later in the col- umn, Jacoby summarized his criticism of Wachovia's slavery apology: it was contrition "for something Wachovia didn't do, in an era when it didn't exist, under laws it didn't break." 245 This is not simply an argu- ment that Wachovia's predecessors' wrongs were too remote in time to redress. It is an argument that Wachovia's predecessors broke no law—that is, that there is no wrong to redress. 246 According to Jacoby, the argument for reparations is not just impractical or logically flawed. It makes "a mockery of historical truth"247—the historical "truth" that these banks' ownership of human beings between 1836 and 1860 was not an injustice, because it was lawful. 248 The supposed concern for "historical truth" and the insistence that slave owners be judged under the legal code of their time should look familiar. These are the strategics of partisan historical revision- ism—the germ of Michelle Malkin's justification of racial internment, now spread to American chattel slavery. Reparations theory is woefully unprepared to meet the challenge of partisan revisionism. It has a rich language for debating and speci- fying the remedies for historical injustice, but it lacks even a basic lan- guage for specifying what ought to count as a historical injustice. This Article has argued that the criminal law's cultural defense, focusing, as it does, on the extent to which a perpetrator consciously chose to inflict harm, offers an analogy from which a language of historical injustice might develop. It is not a perfect analogy. By itself, it cannot plug the growing hole in the foundation of reparations theory. That important repair job will require more than simply a single provoca- tive analogy from the criminal law—it will require a conversation
844 Id. 24 Id. (em asis a e . 248 A o e oi s i e co um , aco y s oke o s a e y as "w o g oi g," w ic is i co sis e wi is i sis e ce a e a ks a oke o aws. S d. 24 Id. (em asis a e . • 248 e a io a ega a o icy Ce e , o a y e ea i g o yis agai s s a e y e a a io s, makes is a gume as we . S E E ai Ei y & O CA IS E, E CASE AGAI S S A E E A A IO S (2004 , v l bl t : www. c.o g s i a _ C_ e a a io s. ("As agic as s a e y was, i was ega i e Sou e wee 8 a 86 ? . 04 t n C ll v [ o . 4 :6 among historians, philosophers, and legal scholars. But time is of the essence. Partisan revisionists are hard at work weakening the founda- tions of redress and of American historical understanding, and they are on the television, radio, and the best-seller lists. The conversation must begin promptly.