mjk428
Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund
Heh, this is too funny. First, I think its blindingly obvious that I added the gang-variable to (try to) explain to you what would need to be changed for this to be a case of collective guilt. Second, why would "gang" be a racial stereotype? Are you implying that only a certain ethnicity is involved in gangs? LOL.
Sorry, you won't dance out of this. You saw an article about a black man murdered by a black man and immediately assumed the killer and his entourage belonged to a gang. That's a racial stereotype. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.
quote:
Here is a piece of advice. Follow this case if you can. Look at the case on court-tv or whatever. Perhaps you could get a transcript of the verdict some day. When you do, ask yourself this. Did the prosecutor try to lead in evidence that all four were at the scene of the crime together. Did he try to lead in evidence that all four knowingly and willingly took part in the original break-in. Because if he does, and if the court finds that he has been able to show that, then..surprise surprise, we have tried these guys as individuals.
Undoubtedly they will be given seperate trials and treated individually throughout. However, they will be defending themselves against a charge they didn't commit because they were treated collectively by the prosecuter (backed up by lawmakers).
For what one person did, they all pay a price.
quote:
Sure, there is a law that says roughly this. If you are part of a group of people who decide to do a burglary into someones home, and if you know that one or more of your group are carrying a gun to be used in case someone tries to interfer with your burglary, then once you have passed the threshold into the house (once the "original crime" is committed) anything that happens is on your head aswell. The court will argue that since you knowingly and willingly took part in the original crime despite knowing that your friends were armed, then you must have been in agreement with the fact that the gun might also come to be used. You commit the crime "together and with shared intent". This is not an example of collective guilt however, since you are all tried individually for your knowledge/understanding and intent to join the original crime.
I understand the law. I understand the reason for it. In this particular case I'm OK with it. There are many people that don't like this law for the same reason that you don't think it's right to assign guilt to an entire group because of the actions of a few of its members. At a bare minimum, this law violates the spirit of: There is no collective guilt, only individual guilt.
In this case they all committed burglary, which is a serious crime, so charging them all with murder isn't totally out of bounds. However, this law is getting stretched further and further. Two news helicopters crash into each other while covering a car chase and the driver faces multiple homicide charges (this happened) even though the helicopter pilots put themselve at risk and pilot error caused the crash. This all goes towards showing that we're not quite at "there is only individual guilt" - even in the courtroom.
What about the case Procrustes posted, what did you think of that?
quote:
Actually, for your collective guilt-theory to work, you will need to show that every individual of the Japanese armed forces took part in the trespassing. If you fail to do that, then not every member trespassed, and thus, not every member can be convicted for any eventual crime that took part during the trespassing. So...if for example I can hold up one example of a Japanese soldier who never left his homeland, your case fails. And, since it is quite easy to hold up the example of some poor AA-gunner in Nagoya or whatever, who never left Japan, you fail.
I don't know how members of an invading force can remain in the homeland. However, I'll go along with what you're saying. If every member of a given Japanese unit that was deployed in the Phillipines was charged with war crimes, that would be OK as long as at least one of them committed said war crimes (since they all trespassed and all belong to the same group). I think we're making progress. Still seems like collective guilt to me though.
quote:
Now, this is actually a pretty good analogy to the break-in case you were talking about earlier, so dont just dismiss all this out of frustration of being wrong. Think of it this way.
Guys doing the break in = Japanese army in China.
Guy who shot the victim = Japanese soldiers committing warcrimes.
Members of the gang = Japanese armed forces
Members of the gang who stayed at home during this particular night = Japanese soldiers who never committed any warcrime.
That's why you dismiss and ignore so much that is posted. It's frustration out of being wrong. Don't worry, I'm not like that. I'll keep playing even if someday I'm wrong about something.
As for the rest, see above & below.
quote:
Now, when doggie calls for the slaughtering of all japanese soldiers (lets be nice and pretend he only meant japanese soldiers shall we..even though we both know it isnt so). He is in effect calling for the punishment of all the gang-members, including those who didnt take part in the crime. I have tried to explain why this is wrong. This made doggie angry and he called me names. It also made you angry, because you have insisted that all gang-members should share the same guilt, and you have tried over and over again to make the case that all members are equally guilty...because you think guilt can be collective like this.
Now consider this. How does it rhyme with your sense of justice and you morals to have those gang-members who were at home that night playing PS3 with their girlfriend or whatever...executed for the murder someone else committed in another part of the city?
It's you that claims to know what's in Doggie's heart. I don't. You must think he has superpowers too - if he can call for punishment to occur 60+ years in the past.
I'm all for punishing (but not executing)l gang members simply for being in a gang. They should be rousted, harrassed and generally made miserable at every opportunity if they are openly members of a criminal gang. Especially those where it is known that "making your bones" requires killing someone. This is a poor analogy on your part and not because it isn't fitting. The IJA made the Mafia look like choir boys. I have no problem saying that gangsters are a "group of thugs" just as I called the IJA - it's self evident. So calling the IJA stinking savages that deserved everything they got and more is A-OK by me. Understanding that it's hyperbole and an opinion that will not cause any action.
Two things you just don't seem to get is that neither a battlefield nor an internet forum is a courtroom. Although they both can be a battlefield. ;)
< Message edited by mjk428 -- 12/8/2007 3:35:27 AM >
_____________________________
|
Printable Version
RE: Letters from Iwo Jima - 
How sweet. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread