Assassinations: Good or Evil?

[achilles12604]

Most people would say that killing is wrong. However this statement is usually assumed to be the killing of random, or innocent persons. I want to look at this in a different light.

If we had been able to assassinate Hitler AFTER we knew he was committing genocide, but before he had killed so many, would it have been wrong? Would it have been a sin?

What about a smaller scale? If we know that someone is continually raping children but he has a great lawyer and is never convicted, is it wrong to quietly kill him off before he strikes again?

[McCulloch]

I am still fuzzy about exactly what you would consider to be effective "prevention".

The example I gave effectively prevented further genocide. It involved military action and the ultimately the International Court of Justice.

You have stated you are against vigilante justice. But what form of punishment would you consider effective?

These are two separate questions. I am opposed to vigilante justice. That is, justice which is carried out summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures. This is why police, courts and the penal system are necessary to orderly human society. In the increasingly globalized world, international courts and forces of justice are necessary.

Removal from power, public hearings exposing details of the crime and the cover-up, incarceration and the death penalty, I think might be effective.

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

Immediately or longer term. Individually or collectively?

[achilles12604]

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

Immediately or longer term. Individually or collectively?

Start with immediately and individually. Then I would love to hear ideas about stopping rapes on a long, collective basis.

[achilles12604]

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

My focus was more on prevention than punishment. I do not believe that there is any value in retribution and revenge. Whatever punishment one would choose comes after the intervention to prevent the ongoing criminal activity. Such action that would be taken against individuals convicted of genocide should serve the purpose of discrediting the perpetrators, protecting future potential victims and discouraging future atrocities.

I do not believe in vigilante justice. It is preferable that the interventions are carried out by responsible bodies with a mandate to take appropriate action. For Srebrenica, the UN and the rest of the world stood back and took no action in spite of clear evidence that genocide was occurring. If action had been taken, then Milošević would not have been in a position to inflict the Ra�ak massacre in Kosovo. Only then did NATO take military action.

I am still fuzzy about exactly what you would consider to be effective "prevention". You have stated you are against vigilante justice. But what form of punishment would you consider effective?

Or if not punishment, how else would you "prevent" genocide from occurring?

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

It seems to me that after something begins, then you can take corrective action.

Jailing a rapist prevents future rapes. Thinking that someone might rape is not justification for action.

Granted. Otherwise we run into something like the movie Minority Report.

Stopping a genocide that is starting by various means prevents further actions to be taken.

So ultimately there is no prevention. In order for there to be prevention, there must first be a crime. Is that your position?

Insisting that it 'might' happen is just an excuse to do your own genocide.

Is there any way to prevent the atrocity from occurring in the first place that you can think of? Or must we always allow for genocide to occur first before any action is taken?

Or if you like, what actions can be taken to prevent genocide for EVER occurring in the first place?

[achilles12604]

It is beginning to seem to be that there really is no way to "prevent" crimes from occurring. It seems to me that both McCulloch and Goat when stating that actions like international courts are "preventing further crimes" in reality what is occurring is that they are stopping the continuation of the current crime. Their actions don't really "prevent" crime as they are reactive rather than proactive.


Can anyone think of any proactive actions which can be implemented to reduce genocide? Murder? Rape? Theft?

Is there ANYTHING which can be effective in preventing these atrocities or are we as a race doomed to always be reacting to the selfish nature and desires of some small part of humanity?

[McCulloch]

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

Immediately or longer term. Individually or collectively?

Start with immediately and individually.

Whatever it takes. Rape is a violent assault.

Then I would love to hear ideas about stopping rapes on a long, collective basis.

As in most things, the longer term solution is not quite as easy and straight-forward. The research that has been done on this subject needs to be analyzed and further research should be carried out. I strongly suspect that it has a lot to do with the dehumanization of women by the rapist.

Is there ANYTHING which can be effective in preventing these atrocities or are we as a race doomed to always be reacting to the selfish nature and desires of some small part of humanity?

To a certain degree you are right. But I don't see that as a cause for despair. We cannot justly punish potential criminals. But we can remove impediments to taking swift action against criminals. For instance, nothing was done about the Turkish genocide against the Armenians. The excuse was that it would violate Turkish sovereignty and that their acts were an internal matter. In fact, the inviolably of sovereignty was still invoked at the Nuremberg trials. No Nazi was convicted of crimes against humanity for genocide committed within their own borders. The only crimes recognized at Nuremberg were crimes committed in invaded countries. Now that we have gotten over the idea that the imaginary lines we draw called borders can protect someone from international justice, those who orchestrated the Rwandan genocide could be legitimately brought to justice.

We also need to make it so that those who commit these acts are not rewarded for it. When Milošević invaded Bosnia and committed genocide against the non-Serbs there, he was rewarded by increased territory and weak ineffective actions by the UN. So he was boldly confident that he would not be opposed in taking similar actions in Kosovo. Had the UN strong effective action in Bosnia, the events of Kosovo would not have happened. If the UN had taken strong effective action against the Iraqi genocide against the Kurds, Milošević might not have believed that he could have gotten away with Bosnia. But as it happened the USA turned a blind eye to the Kurdish situation so that they could support Iraq in its struggle against Iran.

[Goat]

So I guess now I would require your definition of "punishment". What type of punishment would you see fit for this crime? How would it be implemented? And how would it serve as "prevention" for future incursion as listed in the above link?

My focus was more on prevention than punishment. I do not believe that there is any value in retribution and revenge. Whatever punishment one would choose comes after the intervention to prevent the ongoing criminal activity. Such action that would be taken against individuals convicted of genocide should serve the purpose of discrediting the perpetrators, protecting future potential victims and discouraging future atrocities.

I do not believe in vigilante justice. It is preferable that the interventions are carried out by responsible bodies with a mandate to take appropriate action. For Srebrenica, the UN and the rest of the world stood back and took no action in spite of clear evidence that genocide was occurring. If action had been taken, then Milošević would not have been in a position to inflict the Ra�ak massacre in Kosovo. Only then did NATO take military action.

I am still fuzzy about exactly what you would consider to be effective "prevention". You have stated you are against vigilante justice. But what form of punishment would you consider effective?

Or if not punishment, how else would you "prevent" genocide from occurring?

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

It seems to me that after something begins, then you can take corrective action.

Jailing a rapist prevents future rapes. Thinking that someone might rape is not justification for action.

Granted. Otherwise we run into something like the movie Minority Report.

Stopping a genocide that is starting by various means prevents further actions to be taken.

So ultimately there is no prevention. In order for there to be prevention, there must first be a crime. Is that your position?

Insisting that it 'might' happen is just an excuse to do your own genocide.

Is there any way to prevent the atrocity from occurring in the first place that you can think of? Or must we always allow for genocide to occur first before any action is taken?

Or if you like, what actions can be taken to prevent genocide for EVER occurring in the first place?

If I knew how to prevent genocide from EVER occurring, why, I could win the Nobel peace prize. Alas, you can not take action against someone for breaking a law, or committing a crime until there is ample evidence that something might occur. When the 'perp' is a country, it is hard to collect evidence that something is planned.

[achilles12604]

How would you prevent rapists from raping?

Immediately or longer term. Individually or collectively?

Start with immediately and individually.

Whatever it takes. Rape is a violent assault.

I would agree. Violence of action would be acceptable.

Then I would love to hear ideas about stopping rapes on a long, collective basis.

As in most things, the longer term solution is not quite as easy and straight-forward. The research that has been done on this subject needs to be analyzed and further research should be carried out. I strongly suspect that it has a lot to do with the dehumanization of women by the rapist.

I would imagine that the dehumanizing aspect is what ALLOWS the rapist to carry out his actions without feelings of guilt or shame. However I don't think it is the underlying cause. Just because you don't view someone as human you don't automatically want to rape them. I think rape is about power and selfish control. Unfortunately, I think that this taps into primal instincts of a human being. The Alpha male of any herd or group is the alpha because of physical strength and domination. It is natural to want to be this alpha and if one is not able to overcome all other males, then turning on women is a path which can achieve the desired outcome. How to stop these people without implementing 180 grains however, is a mystery to me.

Is there ANYTHING which can be effective in preventing these atrocities or are we as a race doomed to always be reacting to the selfish nature and desires of some small part of humanity?

To a certain degree you are right. But I don't see that as a cause for despair. We cannot justly punish potential criminals. But we can remove impediments to taking swift action against criminals. For instance, nothing was done about the Turkish genocide against the Armenians. The excuse was that it would violate Turkish sovereignty and that their acts were an internal matter. In fact, the inviolably of sovereignty was still invoked at the Nuremberg trials. No Nazi was convicted of crimes against humanity for genocide committed within their own borders. The only crimes recognized at Nuremberg were crimes committed in invaded countries. Now that we have gotten over the idea that the imaginary lines we draw called borders can protect someone from international justice, those who orchestrated the Rwandan genocide could be legitimately brought to justice.

I agree whole heartedly here. Justice delayed is justice denied. Actually I have commented that I think a decent justice system would be a grafting of our pre-trial system with the post trial of Singapore. Let them play basket ball and have their card games until they are convicted. Then cane them to within an inch of their lives.

If the penalty for drug dealing was death (as it is in Singapore), I bet drug trafficing (and all other crimes tied to drugs which in my estimation is about 90% of all crime) would decrease steeply.

We also need to make it so that those who commit these acts are not rewarded for it. When Milošević invaded Bosnia and committed genocide against the non-Serbs there, he was rewarded by increased territory and weak ineffective actions by the UN. So he was boldly confident that he would not be opposed in taking similar actions in Kosovo. Had the UN strong effective action in Bosnia, the events of Kosovo would not have happened. If the UN had taken strong effective action against the Iraqi genocide against the Kurds, Milošević might not have believed that he could have gotten away with Bosnia. But as it happened the USA turned a blind eye to the Kurdish situation so that they could support Iraq in its struggle against Iran.

I have a fairly unique view of the justice system in the USA. People use the phrase "Rot in jail" as if jail/prison was a punishment. I wonder what those people would say if they actually got to see what happens in prison/jail. Frankly, American prisons are a joke. They are a country club that you are not allowed to leave. You sit in a large room with your own gymnasium attached, you are brought food (to your room - can anyone say room service?), cable TV is a RIGHT, medical care is a right, and you can sue people simultaneously for using to much force, and for not securing you well enough!


Jails and prisons are a joke. And yet this is what happens to those who murder, rape, steal, and make life hell for innocent and hard working people. They are rewarded for their crimes and we call it punishment. No wonder recidivism is around 75%.




I can about half agree with you. If we actually made prisons hard and punishments strict, then yes they may serve as deterrents. But now in all cases. I doubt there is any way to stop all criminals. Sad really.

[McCulloch]

I believe that our justice systems are overly dependent on incarceration. Jails do have their place, but my opinion is that they should not be used to the degree that they are. Surely there are more effective ways of deterring crime. Many prisoners are not there because they are violent or that they represent a threat to society. In many cases prison is an excellent training ground for future criminals.

[achilles12604]

I believe that our justice systems are overly dependent on incarceration. Jails do have their place, but my opinion is that they should not be used to the degree that they are. Surely there are more effective ways of deterring crime. Many prisoners are not there because they are violent or that they represent a threat to society. In many cases prison is an excellent training ground for future criminals.

Very true. However in America, almost any other form of punishment is disallowed. And prison is actually not a punishment at all. There was an article here in Denver where an older citizen (60 something) robbed a bank, then sat down to be caught. He did this because he wanted to go "home" to prison.

No one can ever convince me that prison is a punishment.

[McCulloch]

No one can ever convince me that prison is a punishment.

I'm not quite sure that I can agree with that blanket statement. For a person who values freedom, the restrictions that prison represents is punishing. But I will agree that prison is not always a punishment and that the evidence of its effectiveness at reducing or deterring crime is not there.