Ok so then what you are saying is that all law-breakers are identical. That circumstances never play a part in how serious the punishment should be. So a guy who kills another for fun is the same as a guy who kills to protect his family? The guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family is exactly the same as the guy who steals your PS2 to sell for drug money?Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
This is going backwards in moral thinking. Circumstances and intent matters. Someone defending himself getting the exact same treatment as someone who kills for fun isn't justice.
And like it or not, in most laws there are different degrees of breaking the law. Just to show it, in the case of murder there are 5 classes of murder (well, it's usually called homicide, but whatever): Justifiable Homicide (This is the self defense case), Manslaughter (you didn't mean to do it), 3rd Degree (heat of the moment), 2nd degree (Malice but not premeditated), 3rd degree (Malice and premeditation). Now a person can get a death sentance for murder/homicide in the USA. But usually it's reserved for the more severe cases (2nd and 3rd degree murder) and only for the individuals judged mentally competant to understand the severity of the crime and can follow the trial and help in their own defense.
The reason that all homicides don't carry the same sentence is that not all murders are equal. The other person still dies, but the situation of self defense is 180 degrees from the case of an angry ex-husband who stalks his ex-wife for 6 months and stabs her 32 times in front of her kid. And the case of a person who didn't mean to kill the other person is different from our stalker too. They may have only intended to injure the guy, but he died. That isn't a premeditated murder. So by your fomulation, if I were to apply the morality your using with Geneva, this is all horrible, because the woman who kills a guy threatening her kids is identical to the person who stalks a person and kills him in cold blood. And anyone who kills another is identical to BTK, The Zodiac Killer, and Jeffrey Dahlmer. All deserve death, and if I dare take into account the circumstances, I'm somehow evil. Because the mother should obviously prefer watching her children die in front of her rather than break a law.
That's all I'm saying about Geneva Convention. There are different circumstances and different degrees of breaking Geneva. I could technically break Geneva (If I understand properly) by giving a Christian the wrong version of the Bible (KJV or Vulgate etc.) because I'm not familiar with the differences. However, to lump that in with a guy that runs a rape room and electricutes the soccer team for losing seems a far streach. And if a nation decides to torture to save its own citizens, this is different than torture for punishment or confession or making Lindy England get some stress relief.
I'm not asking that they be completely let off, I'm asking for the judges to take into account what was going on at the time, the severity of the actual violation, and the mental capacity of those involved. Just like any other crime.
:temigi: 
