this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
449 points (98.3% liked)

Risa

7500 readers
3 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 24 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 7 points 2 years ago

Second degree species slaughter

[–] cholesterol@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Samy@lemmings.world 2 points 2 years ago

That's why manslaughter is different than murder

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years 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 10 points 2 years ago

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

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Genocide does require intent, yes.

[–] Mrkawfee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Doing something in anger is still intent.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 2 years 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 2 years 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.