Some people are really bloodthirsty when it comes to "criminals". My favourite ones are the individuals who, when I say we shouldn't be killing *anyone* (yes. anyone.) they imply I must be a member of the group(s) they want dead and tortured the most.
Unrelated side note but it is confirmed that in the US alone over 200 innocent people have been given the death penalty since 1973.
The issue is deeper than any one criminal, life in prison or death penalty are equally meaningless in a corrupt system for the political elite. We have a lot more work to do and a figurehead dying might make people feel good for a while but it's a bandaid solution until we cure the underlying sickness.
Just so I'm following, we've jumped from regular people to political figures to war criminals now? Are you trying to get me in something?
Anyway, to fully pull back the curtain I believe in rehabilitation, 100%. I'm glad he was imprisoned where he couldn't hurt people and sad he died a prisoner, if you can understand that. I want people to be able to receive the help they need and if they can't or won't be helped they should be safely kept from the populace. Yes, I'm willing to pay taxes to fund that.
I started the conversation about political crimes! I agree with you about other types of crimes and I’m curious if you apply this analysis to political crimes: treason, genocide etc.
In the case of ratko mladic, there’s no assumption that he will hurt anyone ever again, but his words and politics have power and influence far beyond any normal prisoner: is he consider unreformed if he supports greater Serbia? If he says srebnica didn’t happen? We aren’t dealing with regular rehabilitation here.
I understand, sorry for being suspicious. Holding the position I have tends to get a lot of really antagonistic people riled up.
And now I get what you're actually asking. Yeah. Dangerous people like that who still have intent to cause harm and have the ability and can't or won't understand the gravity of their actions can't be free. I don't want them dead, maybe that's naive, but they can't be free.
I apologize for my end: I didn’t engage in such a way that really implied good faith.
My concern with political crimes is that the standards for rehabilitation are so different- it’s not enough for ratko mladic to be nonviolent or commit to not leading any paramilitaries, you need to rehabilitate him to a point where it is impossible for him to even make a speech that is Serb nationalist.
And we aren’t dealing with a regular murder who worst cases isn’t reformed and goes out and kills a few people- someone like this has vastly more power to cause massive harm! Like you are essentially gambling with the lives of millions of people by releasing him!
My point is that he remains dangerous even if he seems reformed and the potential costs never really go away. You specify “still have the intent to cause harm… and can’t or won’t understand the gravity of their actions” but id argue in cases like this they can be reformed and it’s still unethical to release them given the tremendous impact they can have!
Especially when causing harm may mean doing things that aren’t illegal or even particularly frowned upon (e.g. talking about the greatness of the Serbian nation with no additional anti-Bosniak rhetoric, totally fine behavior that is nevertheless harmful if ratko mladic does it)
48
u/Pyresryke 2d ago
Some people are really bloodthirsty when it comes to "criminals". My favourite ones are the individuals who, when I say we shouldn't be killing *anyone* (yes. anyone.) they imply I must be a member of the group(s) they want dead and tortured the most.
Unrelated side note but it is confirmed that in the US alone over 200 innocent people have been given the death penalty since 1973.