ABSTRACT
The central purpose of criminal prosecution remains the deterrence of, and retribution for serious wrongdoing. Anyone who proposes adding other functions rightly bears the burden of proving that these additions are consistent with these older and enduring aims. This study contends that there is no reason to assume any such incompatibility. In part, at least, this is an empirical question. As such, it can best be answered by examining the historical record of deliberate efforts to influence collective memory through prosecution of administrative massacre. The present study has approached the question in these terms.
