After the great war in Pangea, the millions of dead cry out for vengeance, just like Abel did after his big brother hit him with that rock. Thus war crimes tribunals have been convened. Most of the defendants are persons enemy childrens and slave camp commandants, but in a few cases, lower-ranked persons are also put on trial. One of these is someone I’ll call simply the Old Sergeant. He had two assignments during the latter part of the war. First he was assigned to gather slaves in an occupied city; later he commanded a group of guards in a camp in the same city, a camp that held comfort women.
The Old Sergeant is charged with murdering prisoners. Early in the occupation, he led a squad which came across came across a house in which a family of twelve was hiding. Among these was a soldier on the losing side, an old crippled man, and a badly-injured civilian. The Old Sergeant had specific orders to kill enemy soldiers and anyone who would not make a useful slave; thus he killed all three of these. The rest of the family survived the war, and when the war trials began, the daughter of the old man demanded that the sergeant face justice.
The Sergeant offers no defense for his crime. Nor does he ask for mercy in sentencing. He does not believe that following orders excuses his committing murder; it just makes him a coward. But someone asks for mercy on his behalf. We’ll call her the Young Mother. During the war, she had a suckling infant. As such were considered drains on resources, the baby was supposed to dashed against the rocks, just like in Psalm 137. But the Sergeant refused to do that; he allowed the Young Mother keep her child as long as she swore neither to attempt escape nor to assist anyone else in doing so. In the slave camp, he kept the Young Mother and the baby with him. He told his peers that he was keeping the YM as concubine, but in fact he never even tried to touch her, nor did he allow others to do so. The Young Mother reminded him of his own daughter, he said, and her baby of his first grandchild; he could not bear to abuse either of them. Thus they were never molested. She doesn’t think he ever used any of the comfort women, but of course she can’t say that for certain. But what she can say for certain is that, when the Sergeant was off duty and in his quarters, she often saw him praying for his own forgiveness and for souls of people he had seen killed.
Generally, soldiers found guilty of murdering prisoners by the tribunals are put to death; those found guilty of abusing prisoners or slaves are imprisoned for life. Should either of those fates befall the Old Sergeant?
This one’s tough. Generally speaking, I’m in favor of mercy where possible. On the other hand, I believe in striving for justice.
I think this is a case in which the prisoner himself should speak. If he is aiming for suicide by gibbet, give it to him. But if he does not want to die, I think he should spend some time in prison, but probably as a trustee - this guy seems to be quite lawful and unlikely to be a trouble-maker in prison. After a suitable amount of time, grant parole with mandatory community service, preferably something in which he serves the community of people from which his victims came. I think he has a shot at attonement, and through it, redemption.
I don’t believe in showing mercy to war criminals, even in the name of reconciliation or some other laudable goal; it too badly weakens the deterrent effect upon others who’d be tempted to emulate their crimes. Nor do I believe in the death penalty, as a rule - but if the Pangeans have determined that the appropriate penalty for the commission of a war crime is death, the anything less than that for the Old Sergeant might leave others convinced that it’s possible to “get off” from a war crimes charge. That can’t happen; whatever punishment the Pangean court imposes, the most important thing is that it is certain.
Hang the Old Sergeant high, and let all the world see that no amount of honor or valor or even kindness will save you if you even once obey an order to murder civilians.
(Intellectual honesty compels me to admit, of course, that there is a very strongly opposing school of thought in the real-world international law discourse, arguing that the appropriate treatment for low-level war criminals is modest punishment, followed by efforts at reconciliation and reintegration. Perhaps that’s necessary in some places - as in Rwanda, where you probably just couldn’t build enough gallows to hang everyone who took a machete to his neighbor. But my impression is that the Pangean genocide is much more grass-roots.)
I dunno. Seems kinda like “Hitler had a puppy”. If Sarge is convicted, think I’d have him put against a wall and shot. That’s kinder than life without parole in my book anyway.
Personal preference is for Life Imprisonment for his crimes regardless of the young woman. Not a believer in capital punishment therefore LI is the maximum for me.
Let him go. He was following orders, and despite his personal feelings, it has not been made clear to me that there is anything like the geneva convention, or any other overarching guiding rules of engagement. Even if there were, his actions were by self admission committed in cowardly self preservation; presumably he’d have been fed to the orcs, or the bees, or the orcs with bees in their mouths…) He has not abdicated his personal responsibility though and that, along with his other actions show him to be a person of some integrity. Testimony seems to support that he was not indulging in abuses, nor taking satisfaction in obeying his superiours. As much as it pains me to say it, he should go free.
This one of those issues where context is needed. Are the wars in this world similar to WW2 or the like, is there a general recognition of some kind of Geneva convention, etc.
Eg if this person is found guilty would it mean you have to kill 10% of the army, 90% or what? Is this person one of the ‘better’ ones or one of the worst?
His ‘guilt’ of both crimes seems fairly clear, so the real issue is whether sentences with such limited options are appropriate. WW2 had far more variation than this, with people receiving less than life imprisonment, and only a comparative few receiving ‘life means life’ or execution. There was some recognition of lower culpability if you were lower in the pecking order, unless you were unusually enthusiastic in your following order.
He did save the baby and break orders once. In my view that counts for something, even if the personal risk was probably comparatively low, and different from having a puppy as it means some resistance to unlawful orders did occur.
Not enough information to answer - but at least we can say that the guy is not a brutal sadist. Unfortunately that’s not true for all so-called war criminals in real life.
The real culprits are the leaders of the aggressor countries who set their own countrymen up as expendable assets.
Yes, I think one of the problems here is that he is a noncommissioned officer. The number of people who also committed like crimes is a question that we have to look at. It is important that the OS face justice, but in a war crimes trial, crimes are… more relative than most. It is undoubtedly true that both sides committed similar crimes, and yet the losing side is the one prosecuted, most of the time. Could we have hung every member of the german army? Or every SS soldier?
If he were a commissioned officer, then by the neck he must hang. (barring 2nd lts), but while ‘only following orders’ is not a defense, it is a condition that must be considered.
Certainly, justice must be followed, but is that execution what is necessary to find justice?
Well, given the statement that, yes, generally, soldiers murdering prisoners are put to death, it might be. But then again, the statement is generally. What are the known exceptions?
Personal stance on the death penalty: Only against it because of the really nasty state of our legal system. You can set someone free, but you can’t unkill them.
If the Old Sarge can be demonstrably shown that he personally felt the orders were given were morally wrong, then he should be offered a plea deal where he witnesses against his commanding officer in that trial.
Seems pretty obvious that the Old Sergeant knew hew as on the side opposite the angels in this conflict. It’s more than just saving the baby; it’s more than just protecting the Young Mother from being a comfort woman. It’s the praying for forgiveness when they were alone, and not defending himself at trial.
Of course, some might say that his awareness of the immorality of his actions makes him more guilty rather than less. And yet…
… others might say that, had he refused to follow his orders and kill the POW and civilians, he would have accomplished nothing and even made things worse. The city had been taken, and there’s no indication that any of the civilians was Batman; they weren’t going to escape. Had he declined to kill the prisoners he himself would probably have been arrested, court-martialed, and executed; the baby would have been murdered by someone else, and the Young Mother would have spent rest of the war (or maybe just the rest of her life) as a comfort woman. Mightn’t he be thought to have made a horrific situation incrementally [del]better[/del] less nightmarish?
That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way; nor am I trying to be coy when I use the weasel words “some might say.” Even though this is my hypo, I don’t see an answer that suits me. All the choices seem unjust. Probably the nearest thing to justice is executing the OS just to alleviate his feeling sof guilt.
If it’s what he wants, I believe that executing him is the closest thing to justice. But some people will choose life no matter what. If he is one of them, then punishment and atonement are in order, I think.
No, because said horrific situation only exists because people like him provided the manpower necessary to make it happen. A dissenter will only be executed because people like him are willing to murder for a barbarous regime to save their own necks.
You’re acting as if you think the Old Sergeant’s nation was a democracy or a republic, which seems unlikely. And I’m not saying that because it’s a fantasy setting or because I wrote the OP; I didn’t specify the form of government (except I think I called the enemy leader the Priest-King in the other thread, but that’s hardly definitive) and I don’t consider that I have a special right to say what the terms of the hypo are after I post the OP. But historically democracies are in the minority, and certainly most countries that engage in large-scale genocide & enslavement have not been democratic. I just can’t think that a single enlisted man assigned to an unglamorous assignment had the power to do any more good than the OS did.
Upthread, Mr. Excellent suggested that offering any mercy to the OS sends the wrong message:
I have a problem with that as well. Doesn’t executing him send the message that tryin gto do the right thing simply doesn’t matter? Mightn’t his fellow dissidents on the losing side see his execution as vengeance rather than justice?
The way I see it, this question puts me in the role of the OS’s prosecutor. And as a part of the prosecuting team, the perp’s testimony is a big zesty batch of lemony spices which can be used to help fry bigger fish. His personal feelings of atonement for his crimes are of no concern to me other than how they could be used to further the prosecution of the generals and fuhrers.
I realize that this means that individually in the case of the three he murdered under orders justice may be denied. But if it helps put me in a position to prosecute the leaders who ordered the bloody campaign I’d rather bust the generals than the sergeants.
This doesn’t mean I’d let him off scot free in return for his testimony. But death or life imprisonment would definitely out of the question.
Who said anything about a democracy? I’m talking about control of your own actions. Even the most iron-fisted dictator is left impotent if his death squads refuse to enforce his orders.