Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.
|
Because the situation of the victims in society is not relevant to the general's crime.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Like a true defense lawyer here, your objective seems to be minimizing the extent to which any individual perpetrator can be held responsible for the lousy situation of his victim. You are not trying to find a way to make the victim whole. Fair?
Quote:
|
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.
|
"There will be always be an offset." When? What is the point of this whole intellectual exercise? There is never a case ("a logical forum") where a group is put to the test you describe?
