05-13-2011, 09:59 PM
Chakravartin wrote:
No. Complicitness is not legally the same as being an accessory, although it may morally be of the similar despicableness.
No. Without direct participation, those persons are (generally) not guilty of attempted genocide. Those that did aid the murders may be guilty (see "accessory" ).
Before I answer the last question I'd like you to answer this:
If a person stands a few feet away and silently watches without taking any action for several hours while a young girl is beaten, raped and ultimately butchered just a few feet in front of him, is that person guilty of a crime? If so, what crime? Should that person be prosecuted in a criminal court?
Okay. The short answer is no, if the witness did not know beforehand that the crime was going to occur. However, if the witness knew beforehand that the crime had been planned, they are guilty as an accessory to the rape and murder.
From Wikipedia: "To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape."