garysher

__________________

mytmouse57

Or enemy troops who have already surrendered and are unarmed. (Which took place on both sides in WWII, btw.)

That's why they are called war "crimes." And officers and soldiers who are found guilty of such acts can be and in some cases have been put to death under the military code of justice.

__________________
If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields

Katczinsky

Not everyone, apparently: War Crimes Act of 1996. Realistically speaking, most US presidents past and current (under the implication that people are deserving of the death penalty in circumstances of war crimes and the death of innocent people) would have been tried and executed. But the inconsistency is that generally people in this country consider many members of the government and military to be above the law.

I remember some people getting indicted for implications for war crimes, and I think even imprisoned but not executed. But generally speaking, when things like that happen they largely aren't reported or they fall on deaf ears.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

forester814

Hmm. OK, clearly, these guys were quite guilty.

But for future cases like those, is that enough to truly call "no doubt at all?"

I mean, as disgusting and unlikely as it would be, couldn't even that much evidence be planted? Wouldn't "no doubt at all" mean somehow proving inarguably that the evidence was not planted?

I've decided that I can bring myself to accept capital punishment if there truly is NO doubt at all, but I can't accept it in cases where they are "just" 99.999% sure... You know what I'm saying?

forester814

Well, that sure sounds like it would meet the standard of "no doubt at all," though I suppose there is the REALLY slim chance that the eyewitnesses were conspiring to frame the accused.

Wow, yea, that sounds VERY clear-cut. Even my unlikely conspiracy angle is out, with dozens of eyewitnesses.

I can totally get behind that. I feel the same way. Moral issue aside, I think a quick and (state-mandated) painless end is too good for people like that.

CrazyFlamingos

Not necessarily. Ask any experienced law enforcement officer and they will likely tell you that eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable in the case of crimes committed by strangers.

If the perpetrator was known to all of the witnesses or was apprehended during the commission of the crime and there were several eye witnesses then that would be irrefutable.

But eye witnesses IDing a stranger after the fact? Not going to convince me to give someone the death penalty.

__________________
unfknblvbl


"I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." -- Frederick Douglass

forester814

You raise a good point, one I had been thinking about since I keyed the post you just replied to. Maybe not even those circumstances qualify as "no doubt at all."

My state of Illinois has a death penalty statute, so it's conceivable I could one day be called for jury duty and asked my opinion of the death penalty.

Based partly on the discussion here, I would have to say that I would consider it in cases where "no doubt at all" is established, but not in cases that are "just" 99.999% sure.

I imagine that position would lead to me being excused from jury duty, in favor of someone more willing to impose the death penalty, and I'm fine with that.

mytmouse57

That could be part of it. There's also the factor of cutting people who are in a combat situations some slack.

For example, I don't know if you've ever read the works of Stephen Ambrose, but as a fan of WWII history, I've read a couple of his books. In a couple of places, he talks of instances where U.S. soldiers would just lose it and blow away Germans who just had or were trying to surrender. But, he surmises we shouldn't judge those men too harshly. Some of them had been in near-constant firefights for days at a time... sometimes even longer. They had been killing and watching death and killing -- including seeing some of their best friends getting torn to shreds. Under those circumstances, he reasoned, it might not be entirely fair for us who have never seen war to judge the actions of those men.

Likewise, again, somebody who has been under constant combat stress for days -- or even weeks -- at at time might act toward civilians in ways we can't fully understand.

I'm not trying to excuse all war crimes... esp. the more blatant ones.. but the stress soldiers in a combat zone are under is a factor you have to consider. The logic of our world doesn't really apply in situations like that.

__________________
If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields

Katczinsky

Agreed. Even though I'm generally against the death penalty for other reasons; you could argue this on a legal standpoint, also; much like the arguments that were laid out to ban executions of minors, the mentally retarded, and the insane.

Not to equate soldiers on their level; I'm just saying that from a legal standpoint you could argue that soldiers in the circumstances you laid out above wouldn't be fully morally culpable for their actions, and are generally deserving of some slack.

But this argument only covers those who's culpability was hindered by such psychological impact as combat, and well the confusion of war that you explained (or, basically only soldiers). Generals, or civilian politicians, however, who make illegal decisions that lead to the death of innocent civilians are definitely more culpable than the soldiers actually on the ground. What I meant by the idea that the government or military is considered to be above the law was that the sickening thing about this is that the upper chain of command, the people generally more culpable, aren't reprimanded but the blame (if it does indeed fall) usually falls on the soldier.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule: obviously combat doesn't turn all soldiers into genocidal killing machines, so I think there is a level of culpability in many circumstances. Especially in clear-cut blatant cases as you said.

__________________
Political Compass:

Economic Left/Right: -9.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72

mytmouse57

Kat, I think you're exactly right about those up the chain of command. As the old saying goes, shit rolls downhill.

And sometimes, an actual, literal "war crime" doesn't have to take place.

I can think of two major battles -- Paschendale in WWI and Hurtgen Forest in WWII -- in which commanders basically turned thousand of troops into cannon fodder by ordering one suicidal assault after another for no good tactical or stratigic reason -- but rather because of their own pig-headedness and egos.

And do you think anybody was ever held accoutable for those actions?

__________________
If at first you don’t succeed – try, try again and then quit. There’s no sense in making a damned fool of yourself. – W.C. Fields