Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Like I said what was is not what is.

    International criminal law is very different to UK law.
    Still no evidence that the threat of death is not a valid defense then.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    Still no evidence that the threat of death is not a valid defense then.
    show me where it makes the exemption in the law, the exemption is not included because it doesn't exist. If it existed it would be included, simples.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    show me where it makes the exemption in the law, the exemption is not included because it doesn't exist. If it existed it would be included, simples.
    You said that it would be no defense what so ever. I don't believe you. You have not shown a single case of an ordinary person being done for a warcrime they commit under threat of death.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    You said that it would be no defense what so ever. I don't believe you. You have not shown a single case of an ordinary person being done for a warcrime they commit under threat of death.
    You're free not to believe me, the law remains the law it's not a legal defence.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    You're free not to believe me, the law remains the law it's not a legal defence.
    It is a defense. Just google it. There are cases where it has been used as a defense and the judge accepted it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    It is a defense. Just google it. There are cases where it has been used as a defense and the judge accepted it.
    Just googled it, and though duress has exhonerated some charges in the past in American courts, and got a reduced charge in A british court, it states plainly that

    "At present, duress is not considered a defence against a murder charge in Anglo-Americanlaw." Page 16

    http://www.isrcl.org/Papers/Sliedregt.pdf


    However I was wrong.

    It appears it is a defence.

    Article 31, section D

    (d) The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. Such a threat may either be:

    (i) Made by other persons; or

    (ii) Constituted by other circumstances beyond that person's control.

    2. The Court shall determine the applicability of the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute to the case before it.

    3. At trial, the Court may consider a ground for excluding criminal responsibility other than those referred to in paragraph 1 where such a ground is derived from applicable law as set forth in article 21. The procedures relating to the consideration of such a ground shall be provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

    However it should also be noted in article 21 as referenced in article 31

    The application and interpretation of law pursuant to this article must be consistent with internationally recognized human rights, and be without any adverse distinction founded on grounds such as gender as defined in article 7, paragraph 3, age, race, colour, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, wealth, birth or other status.


    http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/i...e/part-a.htm#2

    So, private Jack MIGHT have a defence (not 100% he will) if under duress, hence I was wrong, However rape and torture are a breach of human rights and it can not be gauged to what extent Private Jacks actions could be called necessary. It cannot be proven that his choice to rape and torture reduced the victims suffering and therefor private Jack would be found guilty.

    So my statement was wrong, but in the example of this hyperthetical situation, it was right.

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    HOWEVER you try to justify it, you are in the wrong.
    Was I wrong to read this as "I'm going to deliberately ignore your careful reasoning and instead simply insist that you are wrong."?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Was I wrong to read this as "I'm going to deliberately ignore your careful reasoning and instead simply insist that you are wrong."?
    You can read it however you like, but considering the whole quote is

    "Dear God I hope none of you ever join Britain's Armed Forces, obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal, HOWEVER you try to justify it, you are in the wrong"

    I was not engaged in a debate of ethics when that post was made or responding to any individual or their argument. I was reacting to some people's lack of understanding of law. If you think you can justify rape and torture in any circumstance, you are in for a shock when you find your self in front of an international criminal court.

    But I suspect you either know this and are just making a pointless post, alright Implication we know you're there stop trying to get attention. Or you lack the basic ability to understand how communication works.

    pick one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by james22)
    It is a defense. Just google it. There are cases where it has been used as a defense and the judge accepted it.
    Duress is limited in scope.

    In particular the defence of duress cannot be raised in crimes of murder, attempted murder or by those who participate in killing. Recent case law suggests a narrowing in its application.
    http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Defence-of-Duress.php
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus, some people have spectacularly missed the point of this :facepalm2:

    In any case, Option 1. Net pain and all that *******s.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    You can read it however you like, but considering the whole quote is

    "Dear God I hope none of you ever join Britain's Armed Forces, obey that order and you have no defence no protection, legal or moral, you are a rapist and war criminal, HOWEVER you try to justify it, you are in the wrong"

    I was not engaged in a debate of ethics when that post was made or responding to any individual or their argument. I was reacting to some people's lack of understanding of law. If you think you can justify rape and torture in any circumstance, you are in for a shock when you find your self in front of an international criminal court.

    But I suspect you either know this and are just making a pointless post, alright Implication we know you're there stop trying to get attention. Or you lack the basic ability to understand how communication works.

    pick one.
    Well I'll take neither of those, thank you. Since you specifically said "legal or moral" and "however you try to justify it", I inferred that you were not, as you now argue, reacting only to people's lack of understanding of law and were, in fact, attempting to take some kind of moral standpoint as well. Note that this thread is in the debates section and it seemed that you addressed your post to everyone who had posted in this thread ("I hope none of you..."), all of whom had made moral and not legal arguments. Thus I sincerely hope you will appreciate that your post did not appear as well communicated and clear as you intended and hence understand that my response wasn't due to my lacking a "basic" ability to comprehend communication.

    If it would help you take me more seriously, I could make a slightly longer post explaining why I find it inappropriate to simply insist that something is wrong and dismiss all justification without considering it (which, as outlined above, it seemed you were doing)? It's quite a common thing really; people do often seem to rely on instinctual feelings rather than a proper consideration of the situation and its consequences when discussing what is moral or immoral. And that's irrational virtually by definition.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    From a moral standpoint, it would be wrong for Jack to rape and murder the prisoner, even if it is supposedly for the greater good.

    Jack is responsible for his own actions. At least if he refused, he would bear no guilt for having done something so horrific. I would say the prisoner being raped and murdered is pretty violent in itself, so it's not as if it's much of a better option to die through torture. Jack hasn't morally done anything wrong by refusing to rape and murder the prisoner because he is under coerced conditions anyway, so the morality of the whole situation is tainted.

    Morality isn't always synonymous with practicality - and that's important to remember.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Well I'll take neither of those, thank you. Since you specifically said "legal or moral" and "however you try to justify it", I inferred that you were not, as you now argue, reacting only to people's lack of understanding of law and were, in fact, attempting to take some kind of moral standpoint as well. Note that this thread is in the debates section and it seemed that you addressed your post to everyone who had posted in this thread ("I hope none of you..."), all of whom had made moral and not legal arguments. Thus I sincerely hope you will appreciate that your post did not appear as well communicated and clear as you intended and hence understand that my response wasn't due to my lacking a "basic" ability to comprehend communication.

    If it would help you take me more seriously, I could make a slightly longer post explaining why I find it inappropriate to simply insist that something is wrong and dismiss all justification without considering it (which, as outlined above, it seemed you were doing)? It's quite a common thing really; people do often seem to rely on instinctual feelings rather than a proper consideration of the situation and its consequences when discussing what is moral or immoral. And that's irrational virtually by definition.

    Okay please explain to me how private jack can justify commiting rape and murder legally and morally.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    Okay please explain to me how private jack can justify commiting rape and murder legally and morally.
    Legally? I have no idea. Morally? Still don't know, possibly by appealing to utilitarianism or some other kind of consequence-based ethical theory. But that's not the point: plenty of people tried to do this before your post, and what I am criticising is your dismissal of their viewpoint without addressing their reasoning or arguments.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Legally? I have no idea. Morally? Still don't know, possibly by appealing to utilitarianism or some other kind of consequence-based ethical theory. But that's not the point: plenty of people tried to do this before your post, and what I am criticising is your dismissal of their viewpoint without addressing their reasoning or arguments.
    So you are against the fact I hold an opinion and that I am vehement in that view, the view that there is no defence for commiting rape and murder.

    Which incidently is also the law...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    So you are against the fact I hold an opinion and that I am vehement in that view, the view that there is no defence for commiting rape and murder.

    Which incidently is also the law...
    No; I am against your narrow-minded irrationality.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    No; I am against your narrow-minded irrationality.
    My narrow minded irrationality of telling people where they stand legally if they commit a crime?

    Please do explain.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    My narrow minded irrationality of telling people where they stand legally if they commit a crime?

    Please do explain.
    Stop playing this ridiculous game. As before, I have no problems with your explaining the law to people (assuming you are correct).

    On the topic of morals (not law!), my problem is with your complete refusal to consider others' arguments and your willingness to simply insist that your unjustified viewpoint is correct no matter what arguments are presented against it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bubadeeboop)
    everyone dies one day.
    I would rather die fighting than die being executed by the enemy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Stop playing this ridiculous game. As before, I have no problems with your explaining the law to people (assuming you are correct).

    On the topic of morals (not law!), my problem is with your complete refusal to consider others' arguments and your willingness to simply insist that your unjustified viewpoint is correct no matter what arguments are presented against it.
    I'm playing no game, I genuinly didn't understand what your point is.


    I insist on my viewpoint because it is the law, it's not unjustified since it is based in fact. I know my ****, why do you think British troops are punished harshly for breaches of military law? We have LOAC drummed into us before deployment on operational tours, for a number of reasons, breaches turn the local population against us, if the media discover it, it turns public opinion against us and it harms the repuatation of the Army.

    The fact I have engaged opposing views and carried out a long drawn discussion over the issue surely indicates that I am not ignoring arguments, I have even admitted my own mistake on grey areas of the issue of duress.

    I have also said that morality is an individual concept and differs from person to person.

    So the only thing I can imagine you have taken issue with ...is the fact I didn't say in my opinion at the end of my statement?

    I really am having diffuculty understanding what your issue is.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.