Great Trials in History, Class #5, Period 5 (8-5)

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Alex's apartment had disappeared. Just after she left it. Alex had no idea exactly who was going to reimburse her for everything in her apartment that she was missing, much less what she was supposed to do tonight.

Alex tried to contain her grumpiness as she started her lecture.

"Mary, Queen of Scots," she began. "Queen of Scotland. At one point during her tumultous reign, her husband died, at which point she married the man largely suspected of killing him. The Scots didn't accept such behavior, even from a queen, and thus, she was forced to abdicate the throne. She escaped to England."

"In England, she was seen as a threat to Queen Elizabeth -- and with good reason. She had a claim to the throne, and was involved in several plots to assassinate the ruling Queen and take her place. She was arrested and charged with treason. The trial itself seems to have been mostly a formality. There's little doubt Mary was guilty, but there's also little reason to believe that she was allowed to make any sort of defense for herself. Unsurprisingly, she was found guilty and sentenced to death.

"Queen Elizabeth stalled, at that point; one royal executing another sets a very scary precedent. But the sentence was eventually carried out, and Mary, the exiled Queen of Scotland, was beheaded for committing treason against the Queen of England."

Alex gave that sentence a few moments, to let it sink in, before continuing.

"Anyone from this world will be familiar with World War II. Three countries -- Japan, Germany, and Italy -- formed an alliance, and several other European, Asian, and even North American countries fought back. After the war's conclusion, a number of horrors were uncovered. Germany had been committing large-scale massacres. I won't go into the specifics of the Holocaust here -- I don't have time to do the subject justice, I'm afraid -- but citizens of Germany and other invaded countries were considered undesirable, usually based on ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs -- Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, Communists -- and sent to camps where they would be forced to work, put to death, or both. The death toll from these camps is in the millions."

That, too, required silence. This time, out of respect.

"After the war, high-ranking German officials were put on trial for crimes against humanity. The officials claimed that the trials represented a form of victor's justice. No other country had to face charges for its actions during the war. Granted, no other country ran death camps, but one did drop nuclear weapons on two different cities. Ones filled with civilians."

Today's topic was just going to have a lot of silences in it.

"Many of the German officials were found guilty, and sentenced to death. An international court was formed, to deal with such situations in the future. Many people contest such a court's legitimacy. Does a sovereign country have free rein over what occurs within its borders? Are some crimes too big for the world to ignore? Can one monarch execute another for treason? Today's topic is jurisdiction, as it clashes with national borders, and what it means to place a head of state on trial."

(OOC: the Nuremberg trials have a brief mention of the Holocaust, as well as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These topics might be further discussed in class, depending on how the discussions go. Please be warned.)

Comments

Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

Does one country ever have the right to put citizens of another on trial? For crimes that occurred within that second country's borders? Do certain crimes transcend normal understandings of jurisdiction? Should a head of state be made to answer to the world? How do you keep such situations from becoming 'victor's justice,' where any country occupying another may charge war crimes and hold executions?

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

[whateverknight.livejournal.com]

Squall thought about it. "If a crime is bad enough, and the country with jurisdiction isn't going to do anything about it, then a lot of people are going to want to see justice done whether they have the authority or not." His tone didn't give away his feelings on whether something should be done.

He thought about it some more, and then shrugged. "An international court is a good idea, because rules and procedures might help avoid mob justice."

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

[glasses-justice.livejournal.com]

"Do you think the Nuremberg trials might have been mob justice?" Alex asked. "A number of people were worried that the courts were influenced by the horrific scale of the atrocities involved. That you can't have an impartial trial with such a contentious matter."

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

[whateverknight.livejournal.com]

"You could, if the jury actually tried to be impartial," Squall answered. "Just because most people think with their hearts instead of their heads" -- which he was clearly annoyed by -- "doesn't mean that they have to."

Re: Discussion #1: Jurisdictional Boundaries

[once-a-traitor.livejournal.com]

Edmund's expression was grave and he took his time thinking the questions over. "There are certain circumstances where one country should be allowed to put citizens of another on trial, but you have to take into account who the crimes are committed against and where they took place, what level of impact they have had and what kind of long-lasting implications such a move would make. I can understand why one might be inclined to pursue such actions, but I wouldn't envy any man who would try."