Milosevic dies in jail

I wonder how badly this will interrupt the process of justice.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

They'll probably continue the trial and posthumously find him guilty on all charges, for closure and shit.

Wasn't what I mean't. Now any suspected criminal brought before the Hague could claim that his life is being put under needless endangerment.

There was a suicide a week ago, so this isn't the first time a prisoner has died in the Tribunal's prison. This might open a whole new can of worms. But we'll see what the results from the atopsy says.

Originally Posted by AlogiA

I think you can forget the trial now since he is dead. First Babic, then Milosevic...I wonder how long Seselj and Gotovina will make it.

Maybe.

Probably not long. Two within practically one week? Is this the way Europeans handle their death penalty?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by AlogiA

That 's right! Why else would it take them over 5 years?

The Nuremburg trials took four years. So it's not like five years is all that much more. Plus, they were supposively close to a sentence.

Investigation of Milosevic's 90+ counts of genocide and crimes against humanity take's time. Every single count must be throughly proven in the interests of justice.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Devo

I believe there is a charter within the UN the U.S. has not signed which keeps our leaders from being persecuted of war crimes.

Not exactly, we don't officially recognize the authority of the international crime court.

That doesn't mean they still couldn't try Americans for crimes against humanity, it's just that there'd be no point.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by gyges

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

So what you're basically saying is that justice is just thinly disguised vengeance?

Whether it is, or it isn't you wouldn't be violating your utilitarianist beliefs by supporting justice. Since I'm pretty sure the victims would be happy to see justice done. The needs of the many still outweigh the needs of the few.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Eleo

But people can be irrational; so maybe they shouldn't always be given what they actually want.

Since we're speaking in such generalities; not everybody that wants justice wants to see the accused hanged.

Which is why most countries don't have the death penalty. Since in every case it's already too late. Yet justice still needs to upheld, otherwise anarchy would reign.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

If you don't punish those who commit murder than what's to stop others from doing it? Not all people are afraid to take a life, it's the consequences that keep them from doing so.

Maybe somebody else here is up to contesting that. I'm way too cynical for that. Regardless it'd still be a interesting perspective.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

Well the other argument is there are going to be some psycopaths and sociopaths who take life without caring about the consequences. You can't usually stop those folks until it's too late.

I was thinking more along the lines of that most human beings are good and it's really not the fear of the consequences that prevent people from murdering each other.... oh hell I just made the arguement. I don't think I could back it up though.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Musharraf

Look, dude, relax, I was just saying that it's dangerous to criticise the "eye for an eye" theory if you're discussing with Americans, worst case American republicans.

Eh, close minded people will be close minded people. That doesn't mean that opinions shouldn't be discussed or otherwise limited. Singling out Americans is not fair and make's me a sad panda. Could I get a hug from you after this?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The response then, is to create a prison environment where inmates do not suffer at all, yet if that is the case, then you are essentially rewarding criminals with taxpayer money, and how is that right?

Prisons aren't exactly paradise retreats, especially not European prisons.

*edit*
Plus, American prisons actually generate money. All the non-risk prisoners are whored out as cheap labor. Some of which are highly qualified.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Musharraf

Sorry what are you saying there; it's late and I haven't had my nightbooze yet

Uhh basically that people who aren't open to different ideas, aren't open to different ideas because it threatens their close-minded view on life. Also, that it's not right to single Americans out just because some (or the majority) of Americans are small-minded.

The last bit was just crap I thought was funny at the time. You totally killed it for me though.

Most amazing jew boots