LibriumArcana.Games

The International Criminal Court in The Hague has heard from a man who says he trained children to use Kalashnikovs for warlord Thomas Lubanga.

The unnamed former militia fighter was giving evidence at Mr Lubanga's trial for war crimes allegedly committed during the five-year civil conflict.

He said Mr Lubanga had told child recruits in his camp: "Do not be afraid. The war will not be difficult."

Mr Lubanga denies using hundreds of child soldiers during the war.

His trial opened on Monday after a seven-month delay, as judges and prosecutors disputed confidential evidence.

He is the first person to be tried at the ICC.

'Fighting and dying'

Taking the stand on Friday, the unnamed former fighter said he had joined Mr Lubanga's militia, the Union of Congolese Patriots, in 2002 after militia commanders threatened to burn his village if the young people did not join its ranks.


THOMAS LUBANGA
Thomas Lubanga in 2003

Leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, an ethnic Hema militia
Accused of recruiting children under 15 as soldiers
Arrested in Kinshasa in March 2005
Held by the ICC at The Hague since 2006
Born in 1960, has a degree in psychology

Trial starts road to justice
Profile: Thomas Lubanga

He said that children had been among the group that went with them to a training camp.

The militia made him an instructor since he had already served in the DR Congolese army, in which he had served seven months as a child soldier in 1997, at the age of 13.

He taught children to shoot and the basics of combat, he said.

Underage children were often assigned to officers as armed "bodyguards or escorts", he said.

"Children were deployed in companies, battalions, brigades and platoons. They were like soldiers."

Eventually, the witness added, he saw children fighting and dying in several battles.

"If the commander gave the order, everyone had to fire, even the children," he testified.

The first witness at the trial retracted his testimony after first saying he had been recruited by Mr Lubanga's fighters on his way home from school.

The prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, asked for an investigation into whether the witness, who was also unidentified, feared for his personal safety after the trial.

frigidmagi wrote:I'm talking about the Warlord on Trail actually. Not the witness.

frigidmagi wrote:Even with the death penalty you can cut a deal.

The Minx wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:Even with the death penalty you can cut a deal.

Yes, that's true. But it still becomes less likely.

The Cleric wrote:

The Minx wrote:

frigidmagi wrote:Even with the death penalty you can cut a deal.

Yes, that's true. But it still becomes less likely.

"Less likely" is awfully vague.

The Minx wrote:I don't follow you. Are you expecting a specific percentage calculation? Does the exact figure matter?

The Cleric wrote:

The Minx wrote:I don't follow you. Are you expecting a specific percentage calculation? Does the exact figure matter?

A generalized number would be applicable I think. 5% is a large difference from 50% after all. I am all for the death penalty, and feel that it should be implemented more, especially in cases where the guilt is not in question. And if the guilt is highly probably (enough for a conviction but not as solid as video footage or similar), then life in prison should mean "until we bury you," not "20 years and parole for good behavior." Now, you might raise the valid point that jails are already overcrowded, but then I'd also suggest legalization of pot and stopping the imprisonment of individuals for that offense.

The Minx wrote:That is not very pragmatic. Even only a 5% difference in the probability of surrender inevitably reduces the victims of crime in the interim. Risking that for the simple satisfaction of knowing that a criminal was executed isn't the way to go, IMHO.

Now, on the other hand, I'm all for life in prison meaning just that, provided that there is a review process available (note - review to correct errors, not parole for "good behavior"). I doubt that given such a precaution the criminal would be dissuaded from surrender and confession as he might be if he knew he was getting executed.

The Cleric wrote:It's not for satisfaction, it's to give prospective criminals pause. Might the knowledge that a swift execution is a strong possibility, with life in jail a near certainty cause some to reconsider and possibly avoid such crimes?

The Cleric wrote:A true life sentence and execution would be the same for me if I was guilty of something causing it. Hell, I'd plea my way INTO the execution if life in jail was my alternative.

The Minx wrote:Brutal incentives don't work because criminals, being stupid and/or arrogant, don't think that they will be caught anyway. Would a guy hold up a 7/11 for a few bucks if he actually thought that he would definitely be getting several years? Of course not. How then would increasing the penalty change things? He obviously thinks he's getting away with it.

I strongly suspect that most would consider the immediacy of death more than long term jail sentence, at least at the particular point in time when they are confronted by the fact that no, they are NOT getting away with it after all, and are given the option to surrender. Whether they might change their minds once in jail is another issue, and to be quite honest, their loss.

Besides, this undermines your first point: if a life sentence is worse than the death penalty, then that should provide more of a disincentive to become a criminal, assuming that disincentives work at all, right?

The Cleric wrote:When potential penalties become stiff enough, it causes more hesitation. Do you gamble with the odds shoplifting if they're going to cut off your hand if you're caught? Better make sure you're either NOT going to get caught under any circumstances, or that the payoff is worthwhile. If robbing a 7/11 netted a 20 year sentence, and the arrest/conviction rate was substantially higher than it is now, I would argue that the frequency of such incidents would sharply decline.
You're always going to have your bold and/or stupid criminals, but with geometric progression of sentencing for repeat offenders, you can start to keep those individuals away from everyone else.

Up to them at that point. If they want to sit in jail for a while, then decide to opt out early, it's always an option. With sufficient reflection time and such; don't want it to be a spur of the moment thing. Perhaps a weekly confirmation of an execution choice for 6 months or so before it's allowed or something similar.

Only for those people who are truly guilty. If you're wrongly accused, then abiding your time in jail should net you an overturned conviction (and subsequent compensation or such for time spent falsely convicted). If you KNOW you're guilty, and that parole is never an option, then the alternative becomes much more attractive.