Man or Monster?: The Trial of a Khmer Rouge Torturer

by Alexander Laban Hinton

During the Khmer Rouge's brutal reign in Cambodia during the mid-to-late 1970s, a former math teacher named Duch served as the commandant of the S-21 security center, where as many as 20,000 victims were interrogated, tortured, and executed. In 2009 Duch stood trial for these crimes against humanity. While the prosecution painted Duch as evil, his defense lawyers claimed he simply followed orders. In Man or Monster? Alexander Hinton uses creative ethnographic writing, extensive fieldwork, hundreds of interviews, and his experience attending Duch's trial to create a nuanced analysis of Duch, the tribunal, the Khmer Rouge, and the after-effects of Cambodia's genocide. Interested in how a person becomes a torturer and executioner as well as the law's ability to grapple with crimes against humanity, Hinton adapts Hannah Arendt's notion of the "banality of evil" to consider how the potential for violence is embedded in the everyday ways people articulate meaning and comprehend the world. Man or Monster? provides novel ways to consider justice, terror, genocide, memory, truth, and humanity.

Genres: History

360 pages, Paperback

Published November 8, 2016

About the author

Alexander Hinton serves as the Director of the Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights and Professor in the Anthropology and Global Affairs Departments at Rutgers University, Newark.

Reviews

[Nora Vasilescu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important testimony

In our world where torture can still be discussed like a reasonable policy in the most civilized countries this is one of the most important and well written studies about how history and society can shatter not only their victims who at least are left with the dubious honor of being the victims but even their faithful officers.
Imagine for a second yourself a parent of a clever, math and foreign languages talented, hard working boy. And somehow each and every quality he has contributes over the span of his life to transform him in one of the most odious torturers, placing him and his deeds right next to Hitler. Is it possible? Over the pages of this carefully presented life you may see it not only possible but also as inexorable as Oedip's destiny.

[Peyton · Rating 3 out of 5]

"While Kar Savuth had argued for Duch’s release, [François] Roux sought a lighter sentence. His comments echoed much of Duch’s written statement, including his passing remark that, while accepting responsibility, Duch was ultimately 'a hostage, a mere puppet in the criminal regime.' Roux noted that the defense and prosecution agreed on many of the facts in the case. The key issue, which Petit had touched on, was the sincerity of his apology and of his claim about his lack of autonomy. The co-prosecutors, Roux continued, had failed to discuss 'the twin pillars of terror and secrecy. It was because of the terror that every link in the chain of command acted zealously to please superiors who were the ones who issued orders.' Since Duch took responsibility for giving orders, the court needed to acknowledge that he himself received orders, which he then transmitted.

Although obedience did not excuse Duch’s acts, Roux claimed, it should be considered a mitigating factor. How many people in Cambodia, Roux asked, had acknowledged such a role in the killings? To do so in public and before the victims, as Duch had done, was not easy.

From the time that Roux had first met him in 2007, Duch had said that he recognized his responsibility and wanted to talk about what had happened. When asked if he would like to participate in a 'reenactment,' a civil law proceeding in which the accused returns to the scene of the crime, Duch responded affirmatively, asking only that he be left alone for a while at Tuol Sleng and that he be allowed to speak to some of his former prisoners and guards. When he did so, Duch wept. How could anyone doubt Duch’s sincerity, Roux asked? 'What other than justice... could have organized this meeting between Duch and his former victims.' There is no doubt, Roux continued, that the prosecution’s description of the tragic events at S-21 'arouses all our compassion for the innocent victims.' But everyone also needed to think about 'the one that today is confronting his past,' an act that took 'a certain amount of courage.' By allowing Duch to seek forgiveness, address his victims, and provide answers, the court would help restore his humanity. Duch would at times fall short, since he 'remains a human being' and, like all of us, has 'a bit of trouble admitting certain things that are extremely painful.' Toward the end of his remarks, Roux told the civil parties: 'You have your full place in these hearings. You will be able to ask Duch the questions that you wish to ask him.' Then he issued a warning. Duch might not be able to answer all of their questions, including their main question: why? 'I’m not sure that Duch on his own has the answer to this tragic question,' Roux explained. 'Why these scenes? The unthinkable scenes, these unbearable scenes at S-21? Why these scenes that dehumanize the victims?'

Roux concluded by noting that perpetrators like Duch also had been dehumanized by the atrocities. 'Will we,' he asked, 'be able at the end of these hearings... to return to the victims all of the humanity? But to also be able to allow those or the one [who] had exited humanity to return to humanity? This is the stake for our court.' Duch had become a tragic character, almost a victim. The trial was his path to redemption."