On Compensation and Return : Why the Continuing Injustice Argument for Compensating for Historical Injustices Will Probably Fail to Justify Compensating for Historical Injustices, or the Return of Property

This essay offers an objection to recent attempts to justify compensating for historical injustices. Sher, Boxill and Cohen attempt to justify compensating the descendants of an original victim of past wrongs. They argue, that in cases in which the original wrong doer failed to compensate the original victim, the duty to compensate does not "disappear" with the passing away of the victim. Rather, it means that the wrong doer is now under a duty to compensate the descendants of the original victim. What was owed to the victim, is now owed to his/her descendants. I shall argue that their argument, that I'll term the "continuing injustice argument" (CIA), fails to justify compensating the descendants of the original victim(s) of past wrongs. I shall examine the following factors of the CIA: 1. The status of the descendants of the wrong doer as fault free, their right to a stable continuation of their life, and their obligation to return to the descendants of the victim whatever unlawfully gained property that was passed to them. 2. The responsibility of the descendants of the victim. 3. Discounting the claims for compensation of the descendants of the victim that reach a certain level of welfare. 4. Assessing the part that third parties have in the welfare situation of the descendants of the victim. 5. Assessing information related issues