Focused on the moral status of amnesty conferred in transitional justice settings, this book assesses arguments for and against its use.

Amnesty-immunity from prosecution and punishment conferred on groups of perpetrators of wrongdoing committed during a period of violent intra-state political conflict or state repression-is commonly employed in transitional justice settings around the globe. Yet this practice is widely deplored on account of allowing some of the most reprehensible wrongdoers to enjoy impunity.

Within philosophy of law, the issues involved in amnesty are intricate and center on basic questions of justice and fairness, though they are rarely treated with conceptual clarity and argumentative rigor. Patrick Lenta offers a comprehensive examination of the ethical status of amnesty and its relation to retributive justice, restorative justice and related notions of plea bargains, forgiveness, truth, debt remission, and punishment forbearance.

The book submits to critical scrutiny the three most common objections to amnesty, as well as eight of the most powerful justifications in its support, asking whether, in what circumstances, and subject to which terms, the amnestying of perpetrators of human rights abuses is justified. It finds that while most justifications do not convincingly counter the objections levelled against amnesty, the exceptionless condemnation of amnesty covering serious human rights violations by the United Nations and other international organizations is unwarranted.