"In the classic, liberal conception, justice requires impartial adjudication of claims and accusations. The sole question with which law should concern itself is whether, according to the evidence presented and the rules of proof, someone “did” what they were accused of doing or some event did or did not happen. How the result serves particular collective memories is an illegitimate consideration, the introduction of which may distort those values. Playing our larger issues in culture and politics through the trial seems, if we take the liberal view seriously, a misuse of the judicial process. But the relationship of law and collective memory need not simply be discussed in terms of these normative concerns, namely whether it is right intentionally to use legal processes in the effort to create or vindicate collective memory. We might also approach the relationship between law and collective memory in a more descriptive vein and ask how and where law remembers as well as how and where it helps us remember."