this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
483 points (98.4% liked)

Risa

6943 readers
9 users here now

Star Trek memes and shitposts

Come on'n get your jamaharon on! There are no real rules—just don't break the weather control network.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Genocide requires intent. Whereas this alien just had a fleeting moment of anger at the time of his wife being murdered.

Can he really be tried for genocide? It's hard to say, but I'd say not. We all have dark intrusive thoughts, and in this instance it had disastrous consequences.

It's all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?

[–] gbuttersnaps@programming.dev 9 points 11 months ago

Second degree species slaughter

[–] cholesterol@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Ah, a heated gaming moment. We've all been there.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Genocide requires intent.

Is that actually, legally, true?

In other words, does the word identify the cause, or the effect?

Can he really be tried for genocide? It’s hard to say, but I’d say not.

How so? The facts seem self-evident.

It’s all moot anyway. If you have no means or intention to enforce a law, does it really exist?

You can still classify someone though in such a way, in hopes that in some future time you can enforce the law on them, having being previously judged as a criminal.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 11 points 11 months ago

Yes, genocide is intentional, it's in the definition.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Genocide does require intent, yes.

[–] Samy@lemmings.world 2 points 11 months ago

That's why manslaughter is different than murder

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Doing something in anger is still intent.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We're talking thinking something, at a moment of extreme stress and anger, after everybody on the planet he lived on was killed, including his wife.

We aren't talking someone physically doing something.

You've never had any intrusive thought, ever? Can you affirm that you wouldn't have an angry thought even if everybody on Earth was murdered, including loved ones?

[–] JAM@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The heat-of-passion is something to argue to mitigate culpability. Yes, he killed an entire species, and wasn't exactly justified, but his emotions and passions were inflamed by the aliens murdering his wife making his actions involuntary.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah but we aren't talking heat-of-the-moment shoving someone into traffic during a bar fight, we're talking heat-of-the-moment naughty thought during an aerial bombardment from a hostile force where his wife was killed.