Define crimes against humanity

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,292
Brassicaland
#1
Crimes against humanity is effectively the most serious charge against any humans.
Lingchi (execution by around 3600 slices, which is substantially worse than crucifixion; I keep arguing what would it like if Jesus is portrayed coming back from Lingchi) is considered a crime against humanity in itself; then, some may argue if it should be used for crimes against humanity.
Some may consider ecological disasters, mass murders, or more.
Liang Fa (梁发) might be a half-baked pastor himself and mostly harmless; he might play a role in Taiping Rebellion.
How would you define crimes against humanity?
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
25,254
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#2
In my opinion there are substantially two paths to follow:


* legal one
* rational one


The legal path is simple: a crime against humanity is a crime defined in this way in a convention signed by the majority of the countries on this planet, representing the majority of mankind. So the legal reference is UN ... United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect


Problem:


Crimes against humanity have not yet been codified in a dedicated treaty of international law, unlike genocide and war crimes, although there are efforts to do so. Despite this, the prohibition of crimes against humanity, similar to the prohibition of genocide, has been considered a peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation is permitted and which is applicable to all States.
Rational path ...


A crime against humanity is a crime endangering whole mankind or a crime affecting something of the human nature on a certain scale.


Problem: to define human nature in an objective way is not easy, to determine which is the scale at which we've got a crime against humanity in an objective way is not easy as well.


Rape and mass rape.


Quoting WIKI


"The statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda both included rape as a crime against humanity"


UN resolution 2008/1820 says



"rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity or a constitutive act with respect to genocide".


Generally mass rape is considered a crime against humanity [an army organizes the rape of the women and the girls of a conquered territory].


If a group of soldiers rape a local girl ... that's a crime. Period.
 

larkin

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
3,698
#3
"Usury: When money is lent on a contract to receive not only the principal sum again, but also an increase by way of compensation for the use, the increase is called interest by those who think it lawful, and usury by those who do not."
Usury should be considered a crime against humanity. It is a method designed to create slavery.
 
Jul 2016
8,472
USA
#4
My own personal definition is that they are crimes so abhorrent that standard legal definitions don't adequately describe them. Committing genocide for instance, calling it murder doesn't properly convey the murder of thousands or millions.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#5
Crimes against humanity is effectively the most serious charge against any humans.
Lingchi (execution by around 3600 slices, which is substantially worse than crucifixion; I keep arguing what would it like if Jesus is portrayed coming back from Lingchi) is considered a crime against humanity in itself; then, some may argue if it should be used for crimes against humanity.
Some may consider ecological disasters, mass murders, or more.
Liang Fa (梁发) might be a half-baked pastor himself and mostly harmless; he might play a role in Taiping Rebellion.
How would you define crimes against humanity?
Having a barbaric punishment I don't think qualifies as crimes against hunmanity.

Crimes against humanity are

1. Crimes against a number of people, not just a few individuals..

2. Lead to torture or death

3. The death and/or torture was not delivered as punishment for anything the people did that is generally recognized as wrong and deserving severe punishment. Exevuting someone for murder, does not qualify. Executing someone for betraying their country does not qualify. Killing large numbers of people simply because they were the wrong ethnic group, or religion does.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,292
Brassicaland
#7
Having a barbaric punishment I don't think qualifies as crimes against humanity.

Crimes against humanity are

1. Crimes against a number of people, not just a few individuals..

2. Lead to torture or death

3. The death and/or torture was not delivered as punishment for anything the people did that is generally recognized as wrong and deserving severe punishment. Executing someone for murder, does not qualify. Executing someone for betraying their country does not qualify. Killing large numbers of people simply because they were the wrong ethnic group, or religion does.
We certainly treat the Japanese invasion of China as crime against humanity today.
 

Similar History Discussions