Crime and No Punishment
Jul 24, '07 12:39 PMfor everyone
Aren't people who just followed the order of state power and committed some serious crimes guilty after the state lost its political power?
Tags: crime, punishment
Prev: Ten Minutes SupperNext: Marriage of Inconvenience
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 24Tricky. In Munich in 1945, the answer was yes.

reply
mercedo wrote on Jul 24Many Tokko -literally means special high-class police, which is similar to Gestapo in Nazis Germany were acquitted from any charges in 1947 as a part of special forgiveness bestowed along with taking effect of San Francisco Peace Treaty that settled the compensation between Japan and allied countries.
Yes, there are some cases before and after the World War II, or the collapse of Communist regime of East Europe. Those directed were usually charged, those only followed their order found no charges.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 24Nuernberg addressed that question in some detail .. there may be some argument in favor of those who had no power to do otherwise vs those who exercised power in discharging those criminal acts. It is easy to say that everyone should say "No" to a morally wrong order - but we are not facing prison or firing gun.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:17 AMAny place at any time only whether it's unlawful is considered. However evil the act is thought, this judgement belongs to the realm of God.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25Sure. In Nazi Germany, you could perhaps not avoid a post as a leader of a concentration camp without risking imprisonment in one - but once you were a leader, you had some choices. You weren't forced to be a Joseph Mengele.

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 25
ullangoo saidbut once you were a leader, you had some choices. You weren't forced to be a Joseph Mengele. Absolutely! I fully agree .. I guess some distinction needs to be made between those who willingly perpetrate crimes and those who have no say so in it, but must - for fear of their lives - follow orders.However, even those low on the totem pole have at times freely joined in and enjoyed their assignments.It is a difficult call, but in the end, those guilty - by virtue of power or by freely going along - must pay.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25I have a problem with this. Up to late 1942, the Danish government more or less supported the German occupational power, urging the public to "co-operate". Then in 1945, those who had co-operated were sentenced for treason. That, in my opinion, is immoral. People can't be punished for something that was legal when they did it. OK, we're not talking serious crimes here; mostly people who did business with the Germans.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:55 AMIt is interesting to see treason was only made charge against the nationals of the country. In wartime China, one actress Li Xianglan was about to be accused of high treason. But she was acquitted after she was confirmed to be a Japanese national who were born in China.
But one of princesses from the lineage of the last emperor in Tsi dynasty who was forced to live in Japan since she was a kid as a hostage was convicted as high treason although she knew a lot about Japan and knew few about China. Both women lived in China and were friends at the time they were indicted.
The capital punishment was the only consequence for high treason.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25I have some more problems. Suppose we have had a civil war. The winner decides - as always - how to define "serious crimes". Perhaps we'd agree that executions without trial, torture and the like are crimes in all circumstances. It's different with concepts like "treason"; it tends to mean simply supporting the party who lost. What then?

reply
paji2 wrote on Jul 25
ullangoo saidSuppose we have had a civil war. The winner decides - as always - how to define "serious crimes". That is an interesting concept you introduced. Let's do a bit of make-believe:The War of Independence - suppose the British had won. How would Benedict Arnold come out?The War Between the Sates - suppose the South won. Would Sherman be tried as mass- murderer?World War 2 - Suppose Hitler were victorious. Would Roosevelt, Churchill, Gaulle, Eisenhower, Montgomery and so on be tried as war criminals?Iraq War - Suppose the Iraqi won. How would they, the "defenders" view the "invaders"? Would they demand that Bush and Chaney be handed over to be tried as war criminals?It might be argued then, that the concept of "criminal" and "hero" depends largely on which side writes the history, which side is victorious.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:30 AMMight is right, survival of the fittest. History is a study of the records written by a winner.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25Those who throw grenades at government troops from ambush are heroes if they win, otherwise they are murderers/terrorists. Are they guilty of crimes? In which case?

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25Yes, that's what I meant, although I was thinking a bit less make-believe - of the civil wars in South America, mostly. Bush and Chaney ARE war criminals. Sorry, I know that's another issue.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25In the war of Independence, I'm pretty sure the British would have convicted the rebels if they had won. It's that dangerous treason concept. Sherman - yes, maybe. Or Lincoln.I don't know about WWII. Perhaps the most likely to be accused by the Nazis was Stalin.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:02 PM
ullangoo saidPerhaps the most likely to be accused by the Nazis was Stalin. It was Hitler who broke the Non-aggression pact with Russia, and launched an Operation Barbarossa. Probably the most likely to be accused by the Nazis was Nazis themselves.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Jul 25I don't remember the Nürnberg trials very well, but I don't think the Germans were tried for simply waging war. The issue was the crimes committed against citizens in Germany and the occupied countries, primarily Jews. Hard to find a parallel in the Allied Forces.

reply
paji2 wrote today at 11:40 AM
ullangoo saidHard to find a parallel in the Allied Forces. Perhaps not in WW2 - but think of Vietnam and the so-called MaiLai (not sure of spelling) incident!

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 12:36 PM
paji2 saidPerhaps not in WW2 - but think of Vietnam and the so-called MaiLai (not sure of spelling) incident! Oh yes. When they are the invaders, they are certainly not too good either.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:05 PM
ullangoo saidHard to find a parallel in the Allied Forces. Remember Soviet was an Allied country.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 11:28 AMJudgment - maybe. but it's the responsibility of humans to put criminals where they can't harm more innocent people.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:46 PMHumans only judge whether it's in accordance with law. Humans don't judge whether it's good or evil. Only God or a supernatural being who is free from any politically biased idea can judge human's acts from moral value.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 12:34 PMI know Soviet was an Allied country. I meant that the Russians/communists were those the Nazis really hated - more than the French or even the British. I think that if they'd won the war, they'd have been hardest on Soviet. Just a guess, of course.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 12:57 PMSeems to me we do a lot of good/evil judging. Perhaps especially when law isn't involved - or politics. I've never been able to decide whether or not evil is really anything but absence of good. Somewhere inside, I believe that everyone who knows what's good will do it.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:17 PMHow about Nanjing massacre, in which Japanese army believed to kill 300 thousand Chinese in Nanjing. Or Nazis persecution over Jews, 6 million were believed to be killed in contamination camps. Under the Stalin's Soviet regime, 10 million were believed to be killed by primarily German troops. But the same number of Soviet nationals were believed to be killed by Stalin's secret war over his own nationals to maintain law and order or simply to keep his regime.
There are many massacres in history and all deeds were evil in God's eyes. But probably those massacres were taken place by the hands of ordinary people who just merely followed the order of their government.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:50 PMI can't read God's mind, Mer. I don't dare saying that what I don't like or understand, He doesn't either.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 2:34 PMThere are many massacres in history and all deeds were evil in morality. But probably those massacres were taken place by the hands of ordinary people who just merely followed the order of their government. Their deeds were not against the law, so they can't be charged in any crime even though their deeds were thought to be morally bad.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 2:40 PMTrue. And people are often told that the enemy is "evil" and that they and their families will be in danger unless their country strikes first. So they think that what they do is necessary or even recommendable. Their intentions may not be morally bad.Besides, people go insane in war. They may do things they wouldn't have imagined, say, a year earlier.