Most philosophical approaches to international criminal justice have focused on the jurisprudential rationale for punishing criminals in an international forum, seeking to defend the normative status of international criminal law against assertions that such trials violate the principle of nullum crimen sine lege…
Download file to see previous pages...
h. Without a coherent philosophical theory of criminal punishment to justify international criminal justice, the mere authority or "permission" to apply a set of norms to international criminals remains vacuous. If such trials cannot provide substantive justice in a philosophically meaningful sense, they are more deeply flawed than any procedural objection would reveal. (John, 2001)
The idea that all criminals should be punished for their illicit deeds, regardless of their political position, is at the heart of the modern international criminal law regime. The former argues that the benefits, over either the short or long run, of punishing people such as Goring or Saddam Hussein in a legal forum justify such trials. Such thinkers point to the usual battery of utilitarian arguments for punishment: deterring future crimes, establishing a historical record of the criminal acts, reforming lawbreakers, providing a sense of closure to their victims, and so forth The other, more abstract view declares that justice itself demands that these people be punished independent of any harmful or beneficial consequences that may arise from their trial. For retributivists, other benefits of punishment, though desirable in themselves, are morally insignificant. It is the latter view that is the only valid justification for trying the unique sorts of crimes that the international courts have been designed to handle. (Larry, 2005)
Arnaud does not argue for the philosophical soundness of retributivism as such, nor he defendes the philosophical legitimacy of war-crimes trials in general. Specifically, he stated that one cannot make sense out of the intuitions, values, and beliefs that stand behind the current movement toward international criminal trials and war-crimes trials (or their shared ideology, if you will (Arnaud 2004, 1) unless one understands it to be rooted in a retributivist theory of punishment. While the term "ideology" is a loaded one, it nonetheless captures the point: the ideology standing behind modern international criminal law and the laws of war displays a noted bias in favor of the retributivist principles articulated by Kant (among others). Ultimately, war-crimes trials do not provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number. (Christopher 2002, 43-61)
Despite some important philosophical differences among individual thinkers, retributivists share some common central beliefs. For these thinkers, the rationale for punishment is "metaphysical" in character in the sense that it is rooted in abstract principles of justice and right. Justice is the independent, nonmaterial motivation for punishment, and it serves as the sole determining ground for punishment. Punishment by a court (poena forensis) ... can never be inflicted merely as a
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Cite this document
(“Principle of Retribution for International Crimes Essay”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1524261-principle-of-retribution-for-international-crimes
(Principle of Retribution for International Crimes Essay)
“Principle of Retribution for International Crimes Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/miscellaneous/1524261-principle-of-retribution-for-international-crimes.
Some of the most civilized countries like United States advocate death penalty to hard core criminals for the protection of the lives of the innocent people even though trials leading to death penalty are the most expensive way of punishment. Being a Christian country, America cannot justify death penalty on moral grounds.
The most widespread debate that has been taking place in the U.S. is whether the descendants of slavery and the slave trade should receive retributions. Certainly, there are assertions that can be heard regarding slaver outside the United States—particularly as it certainly still happens today—where people are used as a guarantee on debt, forced labor, and chattel slavery.
While the case of sentencing or punishing an offender arises, there occurs a debate between the form of the available punishments, retribution or rehabilitation (Tan, 2008). The present study focuses on the issues and the arguments with regard to these two forms of punishment.
Any violation that comes under the international war law can be called as a war crime. If a person or persons does not stick to the rules of the war, then these people are also committing a war crime. Rules like not attacking those displaying a peace flag should be adhered to.
From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
War crimes are torture, rape, slavery, political, racial abuse, religious persecutions, extermination, killings and indignities heaped on the vanquished by the victor during the war.
International business crime has been defined as a continuing criminal conspiracy having a firm organisational structure, a conspiracy fed by fear and corruption. International business crimes extend over foreign borders and into the first world countries. In recent
An international crime transcends local jurisdictions and cannot be left within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national authority that would normally adjudicate such trials. International crimes are war crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, torture and aggression and international criminal law is the law that governs such crimes.
Consequently, this paper is going to highlight what genocide is together with the features associated with it. Furthermore, it is also going to highlight on the acts that can be considered as genocides, as well as some
Punishments or sentences vary from case to case and may include imprisonment, fine, community service or any other form of punishment that is legally acceptable (Davies, Croall, & Tyrer, 2005, pp. 24). There are different rationales or
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Principle of Retribution for International Crimes for FREE!