Der Betreiber dieser Webseite ist der hoch-engagierte Martin Mitchell in Australien (ein ehemaliges “Heimkind” in kirchlichen Heimen im damaligen West-Deutschland) |
This
paper was prepared for the Law Commission of Canada under the title
Apologising for Serious Wrongdoing: Social, Psychological and
Legal Considerations. The views expressed are those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Commission. The
accuracy of the information contained in the paper is the sole
responsibility of the author.
[ Extracted by Martin
Mitchell, from: ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
Apologising for Serious Wrongdoing: Social, Psychological and Legal Considerations
Susan
Alter
Researcher, Law Commission of Canada
Final
Report for the
Law Commission of Canada
May 1999
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
An
apology made for causing serious harm to another person is a moral or
ethical act, as well as an act of good conscience and a demonstration
of respect. [ . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ . . . . . . . . . .
]
The overall goal of an apology is to restore dignity and
social harmony. These goals clearly are consistent with the goals of
justice. [ . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
When
people commit or permit serious injury to others who are in their
care -- wrongs such as the sexual abuse of children in their
institutions -- the terrible violation and betrayal of trust
experienced by the victims need to be addressed as effectively as
possible. Acknowledging the harm done and apologising for it are
critical steps in making proper amends. For a victim, an apology is
often considered to be the key that will unlock the door to healing.
In light of the importance of apologies to survivors of institutional
abuse, it is unfortunate and disturbing that traditional justice
processes foster intransigence, disrespect and lack of remorse on the
part of wrongdoers. [ . . . . . . . . . . ] Once the commitment is
made to apologise, the wrongdoer should ensure that the apology is
timely, sincere and appropriate. An apology, which the recipient
finds is insincere, insufficient or otherwise unacceptable, can deal
a crushing blow to an emotionally scarred survivor and re-open
wounds.
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
By admitting to the
harm that was done, the wrongdoer recognises that his moral compass
failed and he confirms that the injured party did not do anything
wrong. 6
Consequently, the shame is transferred
from the injured person to the wrongdoer. As well, by acknowledging
the harmful actions done to the injured person and asking for
forgiveness, the wrongdoer assumes a position of vulnerability and
places the injured person in control of the transaction. That
person's dignity is restored. The injured person ends up in a
position of strength.7
After
the shift in power occurs by way of the apology, the recipient of the
apology is left with the ultimate control. The recipient can choose
whether or not to accept the apology, whether or not to forgive the
wrongdoer.8
The
wrongdoer should neither expect nor demand forgiveness, [ . . . . . .
. . . . ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
When wrongdoers issue
or offer apologies, whether personal or official and public, they
will not necessarily satisfy the recipients or be vindicated. An
apology, even if accompanied by the best of intentions, may be
insufficient. Some apologies will be outright failures. In order to
produce apologies that are meaningful for the recipients and,
therefore, which succeed, certain ingredients are fundamental. Their
inclusion in the apology might not guarantee success but their
omission is likely to ensure failure. [ . . . . . . . . . . ]
[
. . . . . . . . . . ]
A. Fundamental
Elements of a Meaningful Apology
Studies
of the anatomy or ingredients of apologies, carried out by social and
behavioural scientists and other professionals, reveal five elements
that are key to making a meaningful apology. These basic elements,
which will be discussed below, are:
|
1. Acknowledgement of the wrong done or naming the offence; |
|
|
2. Accepting responsibility for the wrong that was done; |
|
|
3. The expression of sincere regret and profound remorse; |
|
|
4. The assurance or promise that the wrong done will not recur; and |
|
|
5. Reparation through concrete measures.43 |
|
[
. . . . . . . . . . ]
An apology, whether personal or public,
that does not involve survivors, consider their needs and reflect
their perspective, is bound to fail. Apologising must be an
interactive and responsive process.
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
[
. . . . . . . . . . ] an official apology is usually made by a
representative or agent of the offending institution who is not
personally implicated in what happened but who by virtue of the
office that he or she represents has a certain responsibility. [ . .
. . . . . . . . ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
When the
person who delivers the official apology on behalf of an organisation
or government is not considered to be the leader (the one
person who is most accountable in the eyes of the recipients), they
may feel they have not received a first-rate apology. An apology
delivered by someone other than this leader is less meaningful for
them.
In addition to paying close attention to who makes the
official apology, how it is made or presented can also contribute to
its success. [ . . . . . . . . . . ]
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
5. Reasonable Timing |
The
timing of an apology is critically important to survivors. Delays of
months, years, and sometimes decades in issuing meaningful apologies
can have serious consequences for victims of abuse who need this
closure to heal. The longer it takes for an injured person to get a
meaningful apology, once the call for an apology has been made, the
more likely that person will begin to feel resentful or, worse,
re-victimised. In addition, the longer the apologiser takes to
apologise, the harder it may be to find words that work.
[ . .
. . . . . . . . ]
In order to make a group apology, all the
individuals affected who make up the collective do not need to be
personally identified. As soon as it has been determined that abuse
took place that affected a group, and the general scope of all the
abuse is known, an apology can be made to the whole group. In
addition, an official, public apology to a group tends to describe
the wrongs done in more general terms than an individual apology.
Therefore, this type of apology is unlikely to serve as probative
evidence of liability in individual compensation claims and should
not be used as an excuse to delay the apology until the individual
claims are settled.
[ . . . . . . . . . . ]
The
language used in an apology must be plain, clear and direct. A
meaningful apology is crafted to help the injured person. An apology
must sound natural and sincere, as if it comes from the heart of the
wrongdoer and not from the pen of a lawyer or an indifferent third
party. It must describe the facts, such as the wrongs committed and
their impact, in a straightforward manner and not dance around the
truth.
Ordinary words must be used that can be fully
understood by everyone and appreciated without having specialised
knowledge. Using plain language also means avoiding flowery,
imprecise speech. Metaphorical flourishes may please the ear and the
mind's eye, but they will not please the heart if their message is
unclear. Vague statements frustrate the injured party's need to have
clear and direct acknowledgement of the wrongs done and their impact.
Vague expressions also risk being seen as deliberate or unconscious
attempts to avoid taking responsibility. They suggest the apologiser
does not really want to make an apology.
[ . . . . . . . . . .
]
a personal apology should include:
It should be addressed to the individual and not be a form letter;
It should acknowledge the wrong done to the individual and promise this will never happen again; and
It should ask for forgiveness (but not expect it, because they stripped away all my power and it must be my individual choice whether or not to forgive them).
[ . . . . . . .
. . .
]
_____________________________________________________________
[
. . . . . . . . . . ]
[ F o o t n o t e s ]
6
Obviously, a wrongdoer
could also be female. When referring to the "wrongdoer" in
this paper, however, only male adjectives and pronouns are used.
7 M. Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness - Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998) at 114 - 15. Minow expresses the shifting positions of power as follows:The apology reminds the wrongdoer of community norms because the apology admits to violating them. By retelling the wrong and seeking acceptance, the apologizer assumes a position of vulnerability before not only the victims but also the larger community of literal or figurative witnesses. ... Equally important is the adoption of a stance that grants power to the victims, power to accept, refuse, or ignore the apology.
8
N. Tavuchis, Mea Culpa
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991) at 23. Tavuchis describes
the last phase of the apology as follows: "The final term in
this moral equation is the response of the injured party: whether to
accept and release by forgiving, to refuse and reject the offender,
or to acknowledge the apology while deferring a decision."
[
. . . . . . . . . . ]
43
These five elements are drawn and compiled from various sources
(Lazare ibid.; Tavuchis, supra note 8; Minow supra
note 7; and Govier supra note 10; cited in the discussion
that follows, as well as from consultations with survivors. A
similar, but not identical, configuration of five elements is
proposed in H. Wagatsuma & A. Rosett, "The Implications of
Apology: Law and Culture in Japan and the United States" (1986)
20: 4 Law & Society Review 461 at 469:the hurtful act happened,
caused injury, and was wrongful;the apologizer was at fault and
regrets participating in the act;the apologizer will compensate the
injured party;the act will not happen again; andthe apologizer
intends to work for good relations in the future.
[ . . . . .
. . . . .
]
_____________________________________________________________
Important
Notices
[ . . . .
. . . . . . ]
Copyright/Permission
to Reproduce
Materials on this Web site were produced
and/or compiled by or for the Law Commission of Canada for the
purpose of providing Canadians with direct access to information
about the programs and services offered by the Government of Canada.
The
material on this site is covered by the provisions of the Copyright
Act,
by Canadian laws, policies, regulations and international agreements.
Such provisions serve to identify the information source and, in
specific instances, to prohibit reproduction of materials without
written permission.
Non-commercial Reproduction
Information
on this site has been posted with the intent that it be readily
available for personal and public non-commercial use and may be
reproduced, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or
further permission from the Law Commission of Canada. We ask
only that:
Users exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced;
The Law Commission of Canada be identified as the source; and,
The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the materials reproduced, nor as having been made, in affiliation with or without the endorsement of the Law Commission of Canada.
Commercial
Reproduction
Reproduction of multiple copies of materials on
this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial
redistribution is prohibited except with written permission from the
Government of Canada’s copyright administrator, Communication
Canada. Through the permission granting process, Communication Canada
helps ensure individuals/organizations wishing to reproduce
Government of Canada materials for commercial purposes have access to
the most accurate, up-to-date versions. To obtain permission to
reproduce materials on this site for commercial purposes please
contact:
Communication
Canada
Canadian Government Publishing Directorate
Constitution
Square Building, 4th Floor, 350 Albert Street Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0S5 or
[email protected]
©
2003 The copyright over this version and arrangement of extracts from
the text of the full report rests with Martin Mitchell in Australia
who will also supply an accurate German translation of these extracts
in due course.
Aufgesetzt und gepostet von Martin
Mitchell aus Australien, Eigentümer,
Betreiber und Webmaster von *DiakonieFreistatt.de.vu.* @
www.freistatt.de.vu,
*Bund der jetzt aktiven von den Kirchen in Deutschland in
Heimen misshandelten Kinder, 1945-1985*
*Union
of now activist adults abused as children in church homes in Germany,
1945-1985*
[
Kopie versandt an alle Zeitungen in Deutschland und auch an die
Medien im Ausland. ]
[ Ein Original wurde am 6.12.2003 auch
der Bundesministerin für Justiz, der Bundesregierung
Deutschlands, Brigitte Zypries, zugeschickt, mit einer Bitte um ihre
"sofortige Stellungnahme". ]
[
Erstveröffentlichung auf dieser Webseite: 9. Dezember 2003 ] [
Hauptüberschriften vom hiesigen Redakteur hinzugefügt ]
Bitte nicht vergessen auch "Ehemalige Heimkinder" @ http://heimkinderopfer.blogspot.com zu besuchen. |
Wichtiger Hinweis: Diese Seite wird ziemlich häufig aktualisiert. Damit Sie immer die aktuellsten Beiträge präsentiert bekommen, raten wir Ihnen, bei jedem Besuch dieser Seite auf Ihrem Browser den "refresh/aktualisieren" - Button zu drücken! |
Home | Impressum | Kontakt | Zurück nach oben |