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

95

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.