No one sees himself (or, herself?) as being a war criminal. Was President Harry S. Truman a war criminal? If the United States had lost World War II (say, by Japan having developed some secret super weapon), would HST been executed for "Crimes against Humanity"?? As we all know, it's the victors who write the history.

Not by the same rhetoric or argument or theory-but…practically? Sure.

If the sort of criticisms offered in thread are indicative…while it may be true that victors write history in a general sense, the us…even in victory, has not managed that sort of exclusivity. At least not yet.

(August 6, 2022 at 11:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 6, 2022 at 8:37 pm)bennyboy Wrote: In short, why should those who disregard the rights of others still be extended any rights at all?

Because the right to a fair trial is guaranteed to anyone charged with a crime. And if an unfair trial results in a capital conviction, how is it that executing that innocent person performs any justice?

Like I said, sometimes we make mistakes.  We might give a fair trial, decide that the evidence is heavily in favor of a conviction and meriting a death sentence-- and then discover that we made a mistake.  That would be a tragedy.  But not more of a tragedy than the many thousands of perfectly innocent souls that are lost each year in the accidents of operations of other aspects of society-- and I'd argue, in most cases probably less.

The missing element there is that in so many other tragedies, the greatest portion of tragedy..even... we play no personal role of complicity or responsibility - however...everything our governments do, in the end, come down to us. It's all in our name. Many bad things happen to many people for many reasons. At least some of those, if not all, are beyond our realm of remit. Those that are done in our name with our assent or consent are another category of specific things altogether.

Killers kill. sure. But killing killers because they kill isn't gravity. It doesn't just happen. It is not beyond our control in the way that killers killing..is.

(August 7, 2022 at 2:34 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(August 6, 2022 at 11:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Because the right to a fair trial is guaranteed to anyone charged with a crime. And if an unfair trial results in a capital conviction, how is it that executing that innocent person performs any justice?

Like I said, sometimes we make mistakes.  We might give a fair trial, decide that the evidence is heavily in favor of a conviction and meriting a death sentence-- and then discover that we made a mistake.  That would be a tragedy.  But not more of a tragedy than the many thousands of perfectly innocent souls that are lost each year in the accidents of operations of other aspects of society-- and I'd argue, in most cases probably less.

... until you're the innocent marched to the death chamber, am I right? I doubt you'd be so blithe at that point.

As for the other thousands who die accidentally, again, the guilty are susceptible to civil or criminal suit, while government officials are not. The fact that the justice system must be seen as fair would to me seem to demand that if we adopt your "what the hell, kill a few innocents" approach, we ought at least to open those government officials to civil or criminal liability. In other words, it's still a false equivalence.

As matters stand, they have nothing to fear from making a negligent mistake, or worse, a deliberate choice to frame a suspect in order to clear a case.

(August 6, 2022 at 8:52 pm)Helios Wrote: There is nothing in the social contract that says "if you do bad stuff we have the right to indulge in a blood sacrifice and kill you for the sake of dead people and our collective need for vengeance"The social contract also applies to how we treat those who have broken it. The idea we get to become a group of savages shrieking for blood because they broke the contract or worst a group of blood merchants who get to tabulate a human life like they are livestock renders the whole notion of a social contract a farce.

Hmmm. . . quite colorful language.

You can execute people in an orderly way, without becoming "a group of savages shrieking for blood." How about a statistical analysis, whereby executions of persistent violent felons saves lives on average?

I have to say, though, that despite your emotional persuasive language, you really haven't explained why chronic violent felons, say people with more than a few victims, should be treated better than livestock. The last time I checked, a cow didn't murder a child, get paroled 20 years later, and then go out and do it again.

I think that might be the item in question. Whether well organized savagery still counts as savagery. The primary utilitarian reason to treat all people better than livestock is so that no one has legitimate cause to act like livestock , and so they cannot mount such a defense caught in such an act... I'd imagine.

I mean..it may even be true that we're factually no better, but it probably doesn't help society to acknowledge as much - doesn't further any societal goal to which some response a b or c could be said to have some utility. We've been known to execute the incompetent as well as the competent. The guilty and the innocent. Knowingly so, even - just a process. Actual innocence and actual guilt are not necessarily bars or preconditions to conviction and punishment.

(August 7, 2022 at 12:41 pm)Jehanne Wrote: No one sees himself (or, herself?) as being a war criminal.  Was President Harry S. Truman a war criminal?  If the United States had lost World War II (say, by Japan having developed some secret super weapon), would HST been executed for "Crimes against Humanity"??  As we all know, it's the victors who write the history.

Victors write their own histories, to be sure, but make no mistake, so do the losers. It's just that many readers choose not to read narratives that challenge their own perspectives.

In war, all sides commit war crimes. Some do so as a matter of policy, some do so as a matter of small-unit leadership, and some do so as a matter of individual acts of rage or revenge. But all sides in, say WWII or Vietnam, committed atrocities. That's because in war, we not only seek to dehumanize our enemies, we also tend to dehumanize ourselves.

(August 7, 2022 at 2:40 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: ... until you're the innocent marched to the death chamber, am I right? I doubt you'd be so blithe at that point.

That seems pretty unlikely.

Quote:As for the other thousands who die accidentally, again, the guilty are susceptible to civil or criminal suit, while government officials are not. The fact that the justice system must be seen as fair would to me seem to demand that if we adopt your "what the hell, kill a few innocents" approach, we ought at least to open those government officials to civil or criminal liability. In other words, it's still a false equivalence.

I didn't say "what the hell, kill a few innocents." I said that in many areas of social function, mistakes might lead to death. I see no reason why the judiciary should be held to an unobtainable standard of perfection, when a jackass can drive a car with his phone in front of his face, mow down my entire family, and be out of prison in a decade.

Yes, you have to go through due process. But in my opinion the current system that takes sometimes decades is morally deficient. I think by the time someone actually dies, they are quite likely a different person than whoever shared their fingerprints 40 years ago, and holding them accountable for such a distant crime seems wrong to me. In fact, I'd rather see a statute of limitations for execution-- seal the case in at most 5 years, or drop it.

Quote:As matters stand, they have nothing to fear from making a negligent mistake, or worse, a deliberate choice to frame a suspect in order to clear a case.

Yes, well this is another issue-- ideally, you'd like the process to last longer than any given administration. If the Retardicans decide that abortion is worth the death sentence, I'd hope the appeals would last at least long enough for a sane secular government to consider the case.

I remember when there were protests on Wall Street. I was hoping that a few of those most responsible for the bubble burst might end up hanging from a tree. Instead they walked away with billions of dollars of taxpayer money. In my opinion, anyone who takes actions that should reasonably be expected to do harm to Americans should be tried for treason.

Well..if it clears anything up, war criminals are not tried for accidents that lead to death. Nor for incompetence that leads to death. They're tried on specific and well demonstrated intent, organization, and in most cases accomplishment of their specific and well pursued goals. We don't hear much about attempted warcrimes prosecutions. So sure, it's probably odd to treat accidents that lead to death like warcrimes - but we dont..even if/when people think we should. Like when a drone kills a wedding party -and- it's target.

It's the murder/manslaughter distinction applied to a battlefield.