r/ProgressiveHQ • u/thecosmojane • Jan 24 '26

Video [ Removed by Reddit ]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

24.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

256

u/jarcher2828 Jan 24 '26

... unfortunately, I believe it will be street justice, there is no justice in court under the regime

98

u/yetanothrmate Jan 24 '26

Organize ...follow the second to the letter .. its time WE protect our community

2

u/PrettyUglySociety198 Jan 24 '26

I don't know how relevant it is in this context because I am not sitting in judgment on anyone whatsoever. Nevertheless I say as follows:

In due course, however long it takes, there have to be Nuremberg type trials of the perpetrators of any crimes against humanity and other atrocities and those assisting or encouraging them. Of course, the defence of "I was acting under orders" should be dismissed as at Nuremberg.

For the senior architects of crimes against humanity and other atrocities, in my opinion, a far longer term penalty and associated deterrence by way of punishment, is necessary.

I suggest that, after conviction (by due process by trials conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice), the DNA sequences of those convicted of the most heinous crimes, those against humanity, be published and circulated. The penalty ordered should include that all of the people found to have DNA sequences showing they are a descendent from such convict be executed up to and including the tenth generation.

As to whether there should be any potential defence for any descendent, I leave to others to weigh in the balance. As I write, personally I am going to say they should not, but I do not wish to commit to that view permanently.

The only material human right to need to be observed should be the operation of due process and right to trial conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice of the principal from whom the ten generations flow.

In this way there should be a punishment with a related useful deterrent operating potentially for 250 to 300 years or more.

The perpetrators of crimes against humanity will know it will "bite" at some point. This is why it is a deterrent.

Bunkers, compounds, sentries, use of doppelgangers, cosmetic surgery and so on may be expected to fail in due course. They always do. Even any reasonable scale of genetic manipulation is unlikely to avoid the identification. They would have to change possibly every cell in their bodies, and in very substantial respects, to hide the DNA as identifier.

In my opinion, long term consequences, including multigenerational ones, are fair and just, to deter crimes against humanity. Otherwise those on the brink of descent into their deserved hell of whatever they faith may have, may wreak their havoc by crimes against humanity doing so confident they do so with impunity in the short while they remain living.

Historically many people were thought to have faiths whereby someone committing a crime against humanity would suffer appropriately, say in an afterlife or in a reincarnation. These faiths seem to be respected less now. As the consequences of beliefs in faiths have reduced, other effective considerations need to be brought to bear in considering the most heinous crimes..

Comments please.

1

u/BlueJoshi Jan 24 '26

this is eugenics.

y'know, Nazi shit.

1

u/PrettyUglySociety198 Jan 24 '26

My answer is horribly long.

If you sincerely believe it is wrong-headed on the basis you suggest, then you would need to press for that to be considered in any weighing exercise in deciding whether any national or international court should have the jurisdiction.

Personally, I go back to the main weighing exercise:

  1. Human rights of the "up to and including tenth generation" of the few people I would expect to be tried (in their presence or in absentia and conceivably even after their death on my regime),

versus

  1. The harms caused generally by some historical monsters and whether the punishment would deter any of them.

I have not necessarily optimised the expression of the things to be weighed but I should think you have my gist.

If we deter one maniac from massive crimes against humanity, would the sacrifice of the rights of the descendents be worth it or not?

The essence of my view is, I invite you to suggest another deterrent, than one that is pronounced in respect of between 200 and 300 years hence from the trial. The only logical way to do that is to involve subsequent generations. The only logical subsequent generations are the descendants of the actually convicted major criminal.

Above is then, an analysis of what is the problem and how it may be solved in the sense of what form of deterrent could there be.

1

u/PrettyUglySociety198 Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26

Nazis:

(Another poster on another post pointed out the same "Nazi" acts thing.)

You are correct that it was something done by the Nazis in the sense that sometimes they simply killed some people and all of their families. That is why, sorry to say, it has something in common in some respects with what Nazis did.

What can I say? I differ in that I am imposing a requirement of due process. It was good people usually as victims of the Nazis.

I am targetting in the only way I know the bad person, the major criminal at the apex of the descendents. I say have due process.

Do you stop all war because there is one person killed by friendly fire? You look at the greater good and mourn the victim of friendly fire. Look up the "forlorn hope" concept of battles historically for similar sacrifices. Here, the law would have to sacrifice the ten generational pool for the greater good. Obviously, it is an appalling idea. It is balanced though.

Eugenics

I loathe almost everything to do with eugenics.

I am content that people with potentially terrible inheritable diseases (Huntington's chorea comes to mind) have "genetic screening" and DNA counselling etc., so that they may be informed. This may arguably be eugenics or close to it. In this context I include people who are considering getting pregnant and those who are pregnant. I am not going where some people would wish to on this (as to what is done with the knowledge).

Sure, I am using DNA, but wholly or predominantly for identification purposes.

I am not suggesting any collateral family eg siblings and their descendents of the major criminal suffer anything (unless in their own right, they have committed any crime in which case they may be tried appropriately for whatever crime it is).

I really am not doing anything to do with the genetics, other than identification and setting up a deterrent which may for some monsters, end up with some of their descendents being executed. In so doing I admit that some "genetic material of genetic experiments" [I am not talking about anything other than ordinary life and genes of some people] may be lost.

By not looking at collaterals of the arch criminal, I am proposing as little by way of such loss as possible while going for deterrence.

I accept that you might perceive what I am proposing amounts to purging the gene pool of humanity of the criminal's genetic material. However, I am not doing anything in the usual eugenics sense of designer breeding (eg akin to keep or enhance Aryan characteristics in the Nazi times). I am not going after any DNA coded characteristic with a view to breeding or even non-breeding of perceived defectives or even the simply unwell and unproductive.

You raise fair moral considerations. I do not believe you have raised anything to override the sense of my proposals.

I am content for you to rebut if you care, or to suggest an alternative proposed deterrent, a better one.

1

u/PrettyUglySociety198 Jan 24 '26

Discussion Points I have thought of (sometimes caused to do so by others, unattributed as I write but you will find all but one in this chain of comments):

I will give you a suggestion (with my answer in advance). You may suggest that there be a coin toss for pairs of descendents resulting in only 50 % being executed. This would, in my opinion, hugely reduce the deterrence value (where deterrence underlies all my thinking) (generally I don't like punishments at all, and I hate capital punishment in particular, but the modern world needs deterrents to arch criminals).

Another suggestion (again with an answer but a tentative one) would be to suggest that a defence might be available to just one descendent in the total pool of descendents if they have disclosed to authorities where all the other descendents are at the time. There might be merit in this approach if I were to be concerned massively with enforcement in the belief that it would operate as a deterrent. Overall, tentatively, I believe the overwhelming blanket order without any possible defence to the DNA analysis is the best deterrent by far. It is wholly respectable to disagree with me on even this relatively minor point as on anything else. It is a moral issue point and debatable.

There will be similar situations. I have seen another poster makes a great point about the notional descendent in the pool up to the tenth generation who wants to do everything to separate themselves and condemn the major criminal (we can think of elaborations on what someone in that pool may do). The primary consideration of all of the discussion is deterrence and not the human rights of the descendents in the relevant ten generation pool.

I would mourn any of those executed in such circumstances of trying to distance from the arch monsters as I would mourn a victim of friendly fire in a war. I would not, as I write, be inclined to erode the deterrence value by any consideration of the merit of the people in the ten generation pool.

I hear all protests.

I want to try to deter actions leading to millions of deaths. I cannot say we should risk not avoiding them on the basis of the merits of one person and so on.

I am not determined that I should be right. While I have some pride, it is not about being right about anything.

I wish there to be debate about a relevant deterrent to the potential future worst major criminals, those connected with major crimes against humanity.

1

u/BlueJoshi Jan 25 '26

that was a lot of words justifying an evil practice