Moral and practical solutions to a legacy of violence do not have to be mutually exclusive, though it has been common throughout history that the practical prevails. The “end of the story” in Uruguay or installment of Pinochet as senator after his role as dictator in Chile ended are examples of immoral, and at best, only slightly practical solutions. Despite a concerted effort to reinstate democracy as a replacement for violence, the case of Chile reflects a weak attempt to resolve the emotional and moral legacy left behind by Pinochet. It may be impossible to find a balance between the moral and the practical that is agreed upon by all constituents, but practical solutions may be more conducive to stable democracies, which avoid the risk of repeating past abuses (to the same extent). Practical solutions have the potential to take into account a variety of opinions about how to bring perpetrators of abuse to justice. However, those institutions and practices must also make sure that perpetrators are not a part of the decision-making process. Practical solutions can also be moral (to an extent) if they ensure that perpetrators do not have access to any mechanisms of coercion or abuse. Furthermore, they can ensure that a cycle of abuses is not repeated by creating checks against retaliatory solutions that might be supported by some members of the public, and instead, in the long-run, trending towards an equilibrium of justice and understanding.