[Mersault_91]

After being convicted of war crimes by the ICC in March, he has been handed a 14 year prison sentence. At the age of 51 and having already served 6 years of the sentence, we can assume this means he will not spend the rest of his life behind bars. This is despite the fact he recruited and used child soldiers in Congo. Genuinely interested to know the reasoning behind the leniency of his sentence? Perhaps related to the fact he surrendered to the court?

[Goldberk]

For what purpose would you like to see him serving a longer sentence?

I'm not sure that punishment will help the congo and the factional unity that is needed by the people of that country.

[Mersault_91]

I didn't mean to pass judgement on the issue. I was more interested in knowing the judicial reasons behind the sentencing...

It does seem odd, however, that a man who the human rights watch claim oversaw the ethnic cleansing of hundreds in Ituri will be free in such a short period of time.

Your note on factional unity is interesting. Could that have had an effect on the judge's decision? If so, is it morally justifiable to sacrifice justice for pragmatism in cases like this?

[Plaro]

Goldberk I was always meaning to ask, what is the name of the women in your avatar?

[Goldberk]

It does seem odd, however, that a man who the human rights watch claim oversaw the ethnic cleansing of hundreds in Ituri will be free in such a short period of time.

Perhaps, if you see punishment as the prime purpose of justice.

Your note on factional unity is interesting. Could that have had an effect on the judge's decision? If so, is it morally justifiable to sacrifice justice for pragmatism in cases like this?

I don't know if it was applied in this case, i hope so. Justice is not an end in itself only a means, it's goal surely should be societal safety and harmony, sometimes reconciliation serves that purpose.

Goldberk I was always meaning to ask, what is the name of the women in your avatar?

Emma Goldman

[Plaro]

Wait, that was actually a woman!

[Lokakyy]

Perhaps, if you see punishment as the prime purpose of justice.

While the issue with reconciliation is indeed complex, I think that the normal incarceration dichotomy of punishment - rehabilitation doesn't apply to cases of war crimes.

It is obvious that the main message of the war crime trials is not tied to the person convicted, but the political message that leading an army that resorts to gross crimes against humanity will lead to prosecution and punishment. In essence, even if you are a warlord, it is possible that there will be repercussions. For example, if you look at the genocide trials of Rwanda, they were not about the same persons repeating their crime, but a warning to people who might do similar acts in the future.

Not that it is that simple, since often you will be prosecuted only if you lose.