Millions For Defense, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ha! Man, the SEALs sure did put a hurtin' on those pirates, eh? Word has it that some European countries pay ransom to these criminals. I'm inclined to agree with Michael O'Hare that paying ransom should be illegal. At any rate, it's pretty clear that a very aggressive policy is warranted in crimes involving ransom--the only reason such crimes occur is that people give in to them.
I do have a few worries about such a policy, though. It does seem somewhat Big Brotherish to have the government tell you that you must let a loved one die rather than pay ransom. On the other hand, the number of people harmed and killed by kidnapping and similar crimes would be miniscule under such a policy compared to what it now is. There would be one short "generation" of non-compliance before such crimes just died out. Some hostages would die and some would be released, but there'd be fewer kidnappings in the future. And as for property crimes involving ransom, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. Perhaps paying blackmailers should also be illegal...though for all I know it already is.
On the other hand, if one extends this resoning, I wonder whether it would force us to criminalize many acts of compliance to the demands of criminals. If, for example, people stopped handing over their wallets to muggers, there would be a lot fewer muggings. (Er...incidentally, I had to look up 'mug' to make sure what it meant. I've never lived anywhere where there were any, so I wasn't too clear on the concept...) Some people would die, but only people willing to kill for money would become muggers. It's fairly easy to see a distinciton between this policy and the one recommended by O'Hare...but it's not clear to me where the line is appropriately drawn.
Ha! Man, the SEALs sure did put a hurtin' on those pirates, eh? Word has it that some European countries pay ransom to these criminals. I'm inclined to agree with Michael O'Hare that paying ransom should be illegal. At any rate, it's pretty clear that a very aggressive policy is warranted in crimes involving ransom--the only reason such crimes occur is that people give in to them.
I do have a few worries about such a policy, though. It does seem somewhat Big Brotherish to have the government tell you that you must let a loved one die rather than pay ransom. On the other hand, the number of people harmed and killed by kidnapping and similar crimes would be miniscule under such a policy compared to what it now is. There would be one short "generation" of non-compliance before such crimes just died out. Some hostages would die and some would be released, but there'd be fewer kidnappings in the future. And as for property crimes involving ransom, this seems like an absolute no-brainer. Perhaps paying blackmailers should also be illegal...though for all I know it already is.
On the other hand, if one extends this resoning, I wonder whether it would force us to criminalize many acts of compliance to the demands of criminals. If, for example, people stopped handing over their wallets to muggers, there would be a lot fewer muggings. (Er...incidentally, I had to look up 'mug' to make sure what it meant. I've never lived anywhere where there were any, so I wasn't too clear on the concept...) Some people would die, but only people willing to kill for money would become muggers. It's fairly easy to see a distinciton between this policy and the one recommended by O'Hare...but it's not clear to me where the line is appropriately drawn.
posted by Winston Smith at
3:53 PM
3 Comments:
The situation is more muddy with piracy, but it seems a bad idea to criminalize the paying of ransom in domestic kidnapping cases, for the following reasons:
1) The victims of the ransomer (the ones shaken down, not the kidnap victim) should have incentives to get the police involved, and criminalizing compliance would give them reason to keep the police out of it. A blackmailer often counts on the fact that his victim is a criminal to keep the police away. If a victim were to comply, then they would have, from that point on, an powerful reason to keep from ever going to the police or even testifying in court after the fact.
2) From what I understand of ransom cases (and I admit this is largely from cop shows), the kidnappee is usually killed even when the ransom is paid. When the kidnappers are caught, it's often through the process of the pay out: Marking the bills, arresting one of the gang during the handoff, &c. If the kidnappers knew that, as a matter of law, no ransom would ever be paid under the watch of the state, then they would kill their hostage as soon as they knew the police were involved and the police would lack a bargaining chip.
3) Anglo-american law excuses crimes whenever they are committed under duress, as long as the threatened harm is greater than the one compelled. It hardly makes sense to create a crime that by definition would be excusable. You could restrict or eliminate this kind of excuse, but that is very dangerous road to go down. If someone should be prosecuted for paying a ransom, shouldn't people forced into prostitution be prosecuted on the same grounds?
Mate. Somalian piracy has been going on for along time, only two deaths have occurred, one by french commandos shooting someone they were sent into rescue {recently}, another by a heart attack when pirates sailed up on his ship.
Killing them is a foolish policy, all it will do is make the forces in Mogadishu and the coast treat U.S. nationals *alot* more discreetly, and now since the threat of death is there, harshly.
Reason for piracy? Western/Eastern tankers polluted the straits so badly the fishing communities couldn't survive...no food. So they fish the people who killed their livelihood. The coastal regions are the most controlled/governed and have a health care and social system funded by the ransoms.
Those foreign ships took their livelihood in their own sea. Let them take those that destroyed what they had before. The Somalis didn't come fuck with international naval trade, it fucked with them.
I've heard this line, but I can't agree with it.
As for the question of justice: those who polluted the waters ought to be dealt with in court. But that doesn't mean we should put up with kidnappings and so forth.
You conjecture that this action will make the situation worse, but that seems extremely unlikely. What's way *more* likely is that the pirates will back of of screwing with U.S. interests at all. And if they don't, then, well, there'll likely be more of the same, and rightly so.
Which throws us back to the question about justice. If indeed this all leads back to environmental destruction wrought partially by the U.S., then the U.S. needs to face this fact and try to make amends.
Not that that's likely. The right wing will scream Appeasement! They don't have what you'd call a finely-honed sense of justice.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home