大象传媒

A House majority, including ,  for 鈥渋ncitement of insurrection.鈥� The vote will initiate a trial in the Senate鈥攂ut that trial will likely not be finished鈥攁nd may not even start鈥攂efore Trump鈥檚 term of office .

There is an open constitutional question about whether a president can be impeached . A more basic question asks about the point of impeaching Trump. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, writing in The Washington Post, described the entire exercise as 鈥�.鈥�

鈥淚t isn鈥檛 principled, it isn鈥檛 concerned with justice, and it isn鈥檛 concerned with the future,鈥� he stated.

As a scholar who writes about , I argue that there may be good moral reason for this impeachment鈥攅ven if it cannot be completed before Trump leaves office.

Impeachment is not a criminal procedure; it is generally described as 鈥溾�� in American law.

The philosophical justifications given for the institution of criminal law, however, might help us understand the purposes this impeachment might serve.

Impeachment and Criminal Law

Criminal law can serve a variety of functions. It  the criminal, through incarceration; it serves a  function, by forcing the criminal to experience punishment proportionate to the crime; and it expresses a particular view about the , by setting a limit to what sorts of action a society will accept.

Incapacitation is likely a bad justification for the impeachment of an outgoing or former president. Incapacitation is intended to stop a criminal from repeating his or her offense. The offense grounding the president鈥檚 impeachment, though, was an act of speech, one the article of impeachment describes as 鈥�.鈥� A president who is impeached and removed from office is precluded from holding federal office in the future; that, however, does nothing to remove the power of Trump to speak.

Retribution is similarly unpromising as justification for impeachment. The 鈥減unishments鈥� here鈥攊ncluding the 鈥攈ardly seem adequate, if they are conceived of as punishments for one who has incited an insurrection.

Punishment as Moral Condemnation

The final function of criminal law, though鈥攐ne emphasized by philosopher 鈥攊s likely better able to justify an attempt to impeach an outgoing president. Criminal law, for Feinberg, is intended to mark out the limits of moral disagreement, through a symbolic statement condemning certain sorts of acts as .

Citizens in a democratic society do not need to agree about political morality. They can recognize their political opponents as entitled to their views鈥攈owever mistaken each side takes those alternative views to be. Conservatives and liberals have often regarded each other as wrong, but nonetheless .

There are, however, some points at which a society makes a shared statement that a given sort of practice or act is not politically respectable鈥攁nd the criminal law is one means by which that statement is made. As Feinberg notes, imprisonment is not simply an unwelcome punishment鈥攊t is a symbolic statement that the criminal has done something of which he or she ought to be ashamed.

The criminal鈥攐r the impeached鈥攎ight not actually feel ashamed. The function of the criminal law, however, is to say that he or she ought to feel ashamed, and that those who do that sort of act are outside the realm of normal moral disagreement.

Politics After Violence

We might see this sort of function by examining how legal institutions have responded to much more serious forms of political wrongdoing. The , most famously, put the Nazi hierarchy on trial, for  and for crimes against humanity.

The punishments meted out鈥斺�攚ould seem grossly inadequate, if they were intended to match the moral gravity of genocide and forced labor.

The best justification of Nuremberg, though, looked not to the Nazis themselves, but to . The trial was intended to identify the line past which political societies could not stray without being regarded as shameful鈥攚ith an eye not simply on the present, but .

President Trump鈥檚 wrongdoing is nowhere near as grotesque as that of the Nazis, and no purposes are served by pretending otherwise. The best moral purpose for his impeachment, though, might have some moral similarities to the functions of Nuremberg.

The impeachment of President Trump is an indication that there is a need to mark out, through a definitive statement, what no president ought to do. It will also set the moral limits of the presidency鈥攁nd, thereby, send a message to future presidents who might be tempted to follow in President Trump鈥檚 footsteps.

This article originally appeared in . It has been edited for 大象传媒 Media.