I am going to try and present information and facts as they are, then ask a couple questions at the end. The goal is to inspire a little bit of debate, so feel free to take any side on the issue which I ask on at the end of this post
There was an interesting turn of events yesterday, when former President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic was found dead in his prison cell. Most of you know who he is, but if you do not, he was facing a UN tribunal at The Hague for over 66 crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and several war crimes. The trial had begun in 2002 and was set to conclude in a couple months. He had participated in ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. There is a very good graphic of what happened in the Washington Post, the full articles are available here.
So basically, in 1989 he became president of Serbia and strips Kosovo of its status as an autonomous province. In 1991, Croatia and Slovenia declare independence from Yugoslavia, and in 1992, Bosnia declares independence from Yugoslavia. In 1998, Milosevic sends troops to crush ethnic Albanian uprising in Kosovo, NATO air strikes begin the next year, and Milosevic is indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal. The NATO bombings end in June, when the Serbs withdraw from Kosovo. The Balkan wars of the 1990s ended with Yugoslavia broken up into five new states, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, and Macedonia. “The wars in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo cost nearly 200,000 lives, created 3 million refugees and left damages between $20-60 Billion.”
Here’s the interesting part about all of this. Slobodan was his own defense: he was a lawyer, and was speaking in his own defense. He died before the conclusion of his trial. This has created a huge mess, some wanted to see the trial completed and to see him “brought to justice” to borrow a phrase from our dear President. Others are happy that he’s gone. People blame him for the state of the Balkans now, some say that his abuse of resources had kept the area in poor production, without investment and corruption ridden. Milosevic however signed peace agreements brokered by the
US in
Dayton, and encountered high levels of opposition within his country.
So, given that a man has died before the end of his trial, what impact do you think this will have on tribunals in the future? Early reports indicate that he died of a Heart Attack, although suicide has not been ruled out as a possibility. So, food for thought:
What should be done when a person on trial dies during the trial? This is applicable to scenarios like murder trials inside the US, or international war tribunals like this one. is justice achieved when he’s dead, and cannot commit more crimes, or is there an element of justice in the actual proceedings of the trials, and does the judicial process arrive at some higher truth, and if it does, how can we arrive there now that he is dead? Can there be more justice achieved, even though he’s dead?
Thoughts/comments?
9 Comments:
It's really hard for one person to just generally claim whether dying while on trial brings justice to the crimes commited by the man. For example, if you knew completely that the dead man was guilty of really heinous crimes, then yes, it would completely be true that justice was achieved. Justice was achieved without having to play the hypocrite and hurt the man yourself (I'm not a big fan of the death penalty -- being hypocrites and what not). But if the man died because of being mistreated while on trial, then it would be an unfair justfication of his death.
On the other hand, if it was claimed that the dead man was supposedly the perpetrator of many crimes but no one ever got to find out the truth, that certainly, and obviously is an unjust way of achieving justice. It would suck even more if evidence was found later on that the man was guilty of very small crimes.
But I guess that's how the world works. There really isn't any way of making sure that someone is guilty of crimes without avoiding old age and the wonderful death that comes along with it. I mean, you could try to speed up the trial, but since when are trials fast?
This might get courts to get off their butts maybe. who knows.
I don't see the point of trying him if he is dead. Even symbolically. He is dead. End of story.
haha good point.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm going to have to disagree with Arun on this one. Yes the man is dead, but to say he's symbolically dead is not true. Slobo's memory and legacy live on through people who supported his ideas, and those who were crushed by his policy.
Let me digress, there was a man named Adolph Hitler. Have you heard of him? I believe it is comforting to think that his physical death spelled the end of symbols that Hitler projected. There's a menacing memory of him present: White Power Movements, even Iranian Presidents making a statement with Holocaust denial. Symbolically not very dead.
There is the legal principle of trying a case IN ABSENTIA of the defendant, meaning the person is not present.
While I know this probably doesn't apply to the dead, why not allow a case to be tried posthumously? And to prevent trying everyone in history, put a statute of limitations on the trial window after the death of an individual.
The International Court is sitting their with its thumbs up it's ass anyways, because its very existence causes problems with issues of sovereignty and juridiction.. and say exemption for U.S.Soldiers. If it's going to be a unique body let it make some interesting changes. It has to deal with these major events like Slobo
Being on record, transcription and judgement is important to many of us humans. Continue the trial posthumously,and I wouldn't suggest this if the ICC had some insanely crowded docket of cases brought, Slobo is a big fish though..because a lot of the process depends on member state cooperation.
Look, nations honor "heroes" posthumously, I argue that the converse principle of having a verdict for an asshole ( if the resources of the court permit) is important. Victim's of slobo providing some more testimony, and having a conviction on the record will have more resolution than his death provides.
Would many people really care if they try Hitler now? Would it really matter? Symbolically or otherwise? I'm of the opinion, and correct me if I'm wrong, that we all agree that he is a very bad guy, etc. etc. (Except, of course, for skinheads.) But ... playing Law & Order and bashing a gavel on a bench and pronouncing his evilness doesn't really do anything at the margin - I'd think. I mean it's one thing if it would incite the two-minutes of hate (a la 1984) - but it wouldn't do 1/1000th of that.
That is sort of my point with Slobo. Yes he was evil. Yes he was a psycho. Yes he was a bad bad man. Saying so isn't going to change crazy people who believe his crap nor will it affect (most) people who believe that he was a bad bad man anyway. It will only appease those (in a decided minority) who believe in its symbolic value in the first place.
I wonder if not even so much as the resolution of the trial determining that he is a "very bad man" means as much as the trial process itself: questioning witnesses and arriving at the truth of what slobodan actually did and did not do during his reign. Is attempting to arrive at the truth worth trying him posthumously?
Wasnt that kind of the point of the Nuremburg trials, where we got a lot of information out into the open shedding a whole lot of light onto the Holocaust?
i just strongly doubt that this is really an optimal use of time and resources. that's all.
In response to Arun, I don't agree with attaching the term "optimal" to this more copmlicated situation.
In post WWII Germany, with Nuremberg and post-Nuremberg apprehension of fugitives caused divisions in German Society. In this case it was optimal for one group to let things go, and painful for other large groups if that was the case.
I agree with Arun, on the surface this does seem like it wouldn't accomplish anything.
Slobodan committed crimes on a grand
scale, and it will be important in history, and on record, that the criminal resolution of this trial be brought forth.
Think in terms of history, and how events shape contemporary life. Does it sound reasonable that since Slobodan is dead, that it is "The End of the Story" or "case closed" ?
Hardly.
Post a Comment
<< Home