Should ex servicemen be immune from prosecution?

[tinfoilhat]

15 minutes ago, Penistone999 said:

Of course ex servicemen should be immune from prosecution. 

You sure? I recall the defence of “just following orders” was used to justify some of the most heinous crimes in history. 

[Annie Bynnol]

There was enough evidence, statements and reports made at the time to justify the prosecution.

The Inquiries at that time were limited by their scope and the evidence they could see.

The Inquiries were of the "fact finding" type and were never the "recommendation".

 

The Inquiries were slowed down as many others have been since.

The Inquiries and prevented a full Inquest for decades.

The Saville Inquiry interviewed, soldiers and witnesses from 2003 and was able to access  evidence and statements previously denied to other inquiries.

 

More recently it has been decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge Soldier F with murder.

 

No soldier in the world, should be a)free from explaining their actions and  b)quite differently -justify their actions.

 

The deaths of British civilians at the hands of British Soldiers on British Territory is  needs an even higher level of scrutiny.

 

 

[JamesR123]

If a serviceman commits a crime, he should be subject to the law like anyone else.

 

I would take into consideration the situation at the time of the crime, understanding that the service person may have been under great stress and worried about their safety,

 

If a soldier shoots an innocent civilian in a war zone, this is not as great a crime as if I were to walk onto the street and shoot the poster above me.  This should be reflected in both the decision to prosecute and the sentencing if found guilty.

[Mister M]

48 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Fair enough, but presumably then we should also be investigating and prosecuting those who gave the orders and those who then covered it up.  Which presumably goes right to the top of the political establishment at the time.  Ultimately the army was there due to political decisions and acting on behalf of parliament.

Blanket?  So if they do for example, decide to torture some enemy prisoner, or even a British civilian,  that should never be prosecuted?

Yes I agree. And if those with power are never punished then that's no deterrent to further abuses being committed. 

[Mister M]

1 hour ago, Penistone999 said:

Of course ex servicemen should be immune from prosecution. 

I really disagree with this. 

However,  when the fact that loyalist and republican paramilitaries can be given amnesties under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and ex British soldiers are being pursued for prosecution - I understand how why some might think that unfair

Edited May 9, 2019 by Mister M

[vwkittie]

I don't think servicemen should be immune. Being a soldier doesn't give you carte blanche to murder and I don't think the passage of time makes any difference.

 

I think this is a populist move on his part.

[Guest makapaka]

1 hour ago, tinfoilhat said:

Which, given the circumstances, is a bit tricky. 

It's not even NI - there were plenty of bent and or racist coppers doing Lord knows what back then across the UK. Different times.

I agree it might be difficult to prove.

28 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

If a serviceman commits a crime, he should be subject to the law like anyone else.

 

I would take into consideration the situation at the time of the crime, understanding that the service person may have been under great stress and worried about their safety,

 

If a soldier shoots an innocent civilian in a war zone, this is not as great a crime as if I were to walk onto the street and shoot the poster above me.  This should be reflected in both the decision to prosecute and the sentencing if found guilty.

Like any crime the circumstances would need to be taken into account.

 

 

[Cyclone]

56 minutes ago, JamesR123 said:

If a serviceman commits a crime, he should be subject to the law like anyone else.

 

I would take into consideration the situation at the time of the crime, understanding that the service person may have been under great stress and worried about their safety,

 

If a soldier shoots an innocent civilian in a war zone, this is not as great a crime as if I were to walk onto the street and shoot the poster above me.  This should be reflected in both the decision to prosecute and the sentencing if found guilty.

It's not necessarily a crime at all.

[lil-minx92]

There wont be many service people willing to do the governments undercover dirty work (hit jobs & pre-meditated killings) if they don't get some sort of guaranteed immunity from future prosecution. 

[hauxwell]

There needs to be a cut off date for prosecution.  Soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted for historical crimes.