Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's just assume that you got through the Albanian quiz for all Albanian gypsies and did all your math for the group. You're at Nuremberg.
Prosecutor: General von Badguyberg ran a concentration camp and executed gypsies. He is responsible and should be serve the appropriate sentence.
Defense lawyer: Albanian gypsies as a group were also responsible (not personally responsible)* so their oppression is not fully the fault of General von Badguyberg and he is not fully responsible.
You're the judge. What do you do and why?
*WTF does this even mean?
|
The only crime the general would be on trial for at Nuremberg would be the killing of the Romany person.
He couldn’t be charged with the preceding impacts of local bigotries on that person’s life.
Identically, using my hypothetical, which is more appropriate, if that general had merely imprisoned the two Romany brothers, and was caught 30 years later, and the claim were brought at that at that point, that the general was entirely culpable for all the disadvantages the fisherman brother suffered, the general’s culpability would be mitigated to the extent superseding causes (fisherman's own subsequent choices) contributed to his disadvantages.
And, in any logical forum, where a person’s (or group’s, if we’re throwing rigor and care out the window) situation is alleged to be exclusively or near exclusively the result of outside forces, there will always be an offset against that charge to the extent personal responsibility comes into play.
I’ve actually litigated this case several times. Even asserting fraud, the other side will often use a “sophisticated plaintiff” defense (“your guy was sharp and only got taken because he wasn’t observing adequate diligence”). One counters with “you don’t have a right to defraud my guy, regardless.” But it is an accepted defense. And it works, and should work.
