Columnist Mariana Martinez criticizes Colombia's justice system, in which leniency in guerrilla crimes has led to increased violence and political instability, undermining the justice system.
Credit: Anna VazhaeparambilI grew up in a country torn by guerrillas. I remember 2016 when the peace agreement referendum was up for election. 50.2% of the Colombian people voted against it. They were accused of rejecting peace and of holding grudges. I see it differently: Those who voted no refused to accept a system that would let murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and other terrorists — who had purposefully harmed the country for 50-plus years — get away unscathed.
The referendum would have created special courts to judge guerrilla members. Those who confessed would not have to serve time in traditional prisons. This proposal was backed by the notion of transitional justice, arguing for rehabilitation and reconciliation with victims of the armed conflict, instead of incarceration. For many, it was one “step closer” to reforming the concept of justice.
In spite of popular vote, the Santos administration proceeded to create the JEP (Justicia Especial para la Paz, or the Special Jurisdiction for Peace) to prosecute the most serious crimes of the conflict under the paradigm of transitional justice. Today, I see the negative effects of this fast-tracked project that, true to form, pretends to prioritize “dialogue” over punishment.
For instance, after the peace agreement was signed between FARC (a guerrilla group) and the Colombian government, violence and drug trade increased. The ELN (another guerrilla group) and drug cartels, among other criminal groups, fought to control the old FARC-controlled areas. Moreover, ex-FARC members returned to arms and formed the FARC dissidents group, which in 2019 was composed of around 2,000 combatants, which included new recruits as well as guerrilla fighters who decided to return due to the “difficulties of civic life.” Additionally, even after the peace agreement was signed — which was supposed to decrease violence and drug trade by easing guerrilla fighters back into day-to-day life — coca cultivation has only increased. In fact, Colombia reached its record for highest coca crop production in 2023. Something about this JEP, transitional justice approach, clearly does not add up.
In following this approach, the Santos and Petro administrations are giving criminals a free pass. What is the lesson being taught? That, if you disobey the law, you will perhaps have to apologize; you will not be incarcerated, but you will indeed receive a seat in the Congress. “Transitional justice” seems to be a synonym for impunity.
The ELN, who also started negotiations during the Santos administration, continued launching terrorist attacks. Their continued use of violence offers more proof that impunity does not fix such a complex conflict. Even the Trump administration demanded members of the group be extradited, as he qualified the group as a “sponsor of terrorism.” Once again, actions went unpunished and the peace agreement and the JEP protected the guerrilla fighters from serving time in the United States.
Giving free rein to these criminals has caused the latest massacres in El Catatumbo, an area near the border with Venezuela. In adopting this position, the Santos (2010-18) and Petro (2022-26) administrations ended up weakening their standing instead of contributing to peace. Conflict is on the rise, and the open war right now at El Catatumbo is the result of a lack of authority and an efficient justice system to prosecute guerrilla members. The transitional justice efforts have sent the wrong message. It has made the criminals believe they can commit crimes as they please, knowing that they will be prosecuted by a system that does not require them to serve time.
The argument of transitional justice has brought more political instability to Colombia than it has helped. I acknowledge the reasoning behind advocating for a transitional justice approach instead of a traditional one. It may be argued that traditional criminal justice pushes criminals further into a cycle of violence and repetition because of the treatment it applies to convicts. However, this means that the problem lies in the policies governing the prison system, not the justice system. Swapping criminal justice for transitional justice does not reduce violence either. Actions should have consequences.
This justice debate is an international political issue. The U.S. has also attempted to shift its view on justice by using restorative justice as a different lens to look at crime. Moreover, there have been global attempts to support systemic reform. JEP supporters and restorative justice supporters in the U.S. both argue that the traditional justice system does not take into account the motive of the crime and uses criminal as a blanket category for everyone who is tried. I see the point: Guerrilla members started out in illegal groups because of poverty and social inequality. Similarly, criminals in the U.S. may be motivated by economic hardships, among others. However, I believe that using context as part of the court rulings leads to a slippery slope where all crimes will be forgiven: If you try hard enough, you can justify almost any crime. What can be drawn from this argument, though, is that governments do need to work better to guarantee social equality and better living conditions worldwide. Once again this shows that the issue lies within government policies and not within the concept of justice.
What has happened in Colombia is an indicator of the consequences of hasty approaches to law reforms. The JEP’s approach has left serious crimes against humanity without reparation, and the Colombian population has to go on every day feeling unsafe and betrayed.
As Penn students, these debates greatly concern us. Justice is the backbone of any society, and contemplating changes requires thoughtful debate and dialogue. It is mandatory to give these debates the attention they deserve and carefully dissect all of the factors, such as hearing from different contexts and perspectives. The point is to work every day to improve the justice system by making it more unbiased and fair every day, but letting criminals resume their lives without serving time is unfair to victims of conflicts as well. It is valid to question and rethink current systems, but as societies, we can’t survive without proper justice. In the end, if justice is not delivered promptly, it is the same as not receiving justice at all. In Colombia’s case, 60-plus years has been more than enough.
MARIANA MARTINEZ is a College sophomore from Bogotá, Colombia. Her email is marmari@sas.upenn.edu.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
Donate
