Posts: 9,997
Threads: 464
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
You still haven't answered my question about whether German citizens who stayed silent as the Holocaust was carried out are accessories to murder? Are they all guilty of genocide? Ought they all face prosecution?
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?
Posts: 9,997
Threads: 464
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
August West wrote:
Please explain to me how rjmacs comment on the legal system became an endorsement for the forgiveness of Nazi war crimes. You misrepresented his position in a classic strawman fallacy.
No, I did not. You're making up bullsh!t.
I explained quite clearly.
Posts: 8,780
Threads: 202
Joined: May 2025
Reputation:
0
I explained quite clearly.
All you have done is engage in an emotional tirade, and you cannot answer my simple question because you misrepresented him.
Posts: 9,997
Threads: 464
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
August West wrote:
I explained quite clearly.
All you have done is engage in an emotional tirade, and you cannot answer my simple question because you misrepresented him.
1. You're trolling.
2. This will be my last response to you.
3. I did not misrepresent rjmacs.
While he made a token gesture to indicate that Demjanjuk would not be absolved in such a case, he subsequently proceeded to put the entire burden of guilt upon the state rather than the individual, calling Demjanjuk a "scapegoat."
rjmacs wrote: Totalitarian states aren't open, forgiving systems in which people handed a list of options and invited to reflect on the possibilities, deliberate the consequences, and make moral choices. They are conscience-destroying machines that literally deprive people (victims and perpetrators alike) of the capacity to know and do good, leaving only wickedness. Courts aren't designed to illustrate this point; i think we'd all be better off not pretending that these abominations are simple matters of individual conscience. It's overly simplistic and it makes scapegoats of the people we happen to find and decide to prosecute.
I stand by my assertion that such a position is utterly stupid and morally reprehensible.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
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."
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Chakravartin wrote:
While he made a token gesture to indicate that Demjanjuk would not be absolved in such a case, he subsequently proceeded to put the entire burden of guilt upon the state rather than the individual, calling Demjanjuk a "scapegoat."
Scapegoats aren't by definition blameless or innocent, and in this case i have made no claim that Demjanjuk is either one. Scapegoats are people who are assigned blame that should reasonably be assigned to additional or different targets.
I never put the "entire burden of guilt upon the state rather than the individual." I said that the state is worthy of a part of the blame for these crimes, and that when we focus SOLELY on individuals, we miss an important part of the evil of totalitarianism, which is that it is systemic.
BOTH/AND. Not EITHER/OR.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
You still haven't answered my question about whether German citizens who stayed silent as the Holocaust was carried out are accessories to murder? Are they all guilty of genocide? Ought they all face prosecution?
Can you give me a specific example of a person still alive whose participation level you think makes them a candidate for war crimes trial? What standard of participation are you using? There were some pretty clear standards set by Nuremberg, I think. most of those people have either died or disappeared, but as found they are tried, and I think that's fair.
No, i can't. But you've answered my question with your question. Thanks!
Posts: 9,997
Threads: 464
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
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.
You can't think of any other crime under those circumstances...?
...
Apparently, you can't distinguish between the criminal law and a moral imperative. Without that foundation my answer to your third question would be gibberish to you.
Posts: 17,873
Threads: 325
Joined: Mar 2024
Chakravartin wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
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.
You can't think of any other crime under those circumstances...?
...
Apparently, you can't distinguish between the criminal law and a moral imperative. Without that foundation my answer to your third question would be gibberish to you.
What? A crime is, by definition, a violation of a criminal law. You asked of what crime that person would be guilty. If there are other crimes of which such a person is guilty, please let us know. I answered based on U.S. law, since that's the code with which i'm most familiar.
I didn't answer whether the person would have a moral imperative to act, because that isn't what you asked. Of course anyone should take action to stop such a crime. Are you discrediting me for not answering a question you didn't ask?
Posts: 9,997
Threads: 464
Joined: Oct 2021
Reputation:
0
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Chakravartin]
While he made a token gesture to indicate that Demjanjuk would not be absolved in such a case, he subsequently proceeded to put the entire burden of guilt upon the state rather than the individual, calling Demjanjuk a "scapegoat."
Scapegoats aren't by definition blameless or innocent...
Scapegoat: a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scapegoat
Perhaps you meant to use a different word?
rjmacs wrote:
...and in this case i have made no claim that Demjanjuk is either one.
"...it makes scapegoats of the people we happen to find and decide to prosecute."
rjmacs wrote: I never put the "entire burden of guilt upon the state rather than the individual."
"...it makes scapegoats of the people we happen to find and decide to prosecute."
If the criminal actor is a scapegoat then someone else is to blame. The only other party that you identified is the state.
rjmacs wrote:
BOTH/AND.
That's stupid.
States are not persons.
And contradictory. You identified the people who committed the murder as "scapegoats." A scapegoat is by definition blameless.
|
