3 ms·

Being a member of a criminal organisation does not make you a criminal by itself, that is called guilt by an association and has been used by tyrants throughout

Being a member of a criminal organisation does not make you a criminal by itself, that is called guilt by an association and has been used by tyrants throughout history to justify oppression and killing without cause. You are only a criminal if you are proven through substantial evidence that you have in fact committed a crime.

jay_kyburz 6y ago
Perhaps if you don't know its a criminal organization, then sure. But if you knowingly assist murderers do their job, I say you can go to jail with them.
- aronpye 6y ago
  I mostly agree, but there is nuance to these types of things. For example, is everyone who worked in Nazi Germany a criminal?
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    Hard question, still disputed. My point of view is, yes! Unless he opposed in a meaningful way. But most did their duty and did so proudly. And after the war everyone just did their duty because hey had to and no one was a nazi. But the question also applies to today. The US for example use turtore and murder. So for some family members of people being murdered, because they attended a wedding in afghanistan, the whole US is guilty and therefore a legimitate target. I do not think so, but I think people in the US should take this more into consideration when thinking about terrorist. Most terrorist legitimate their actions (and get support) by saying they fight back the evil empire.that brings them only bombs.
  - cycomanic 6y ago
    Despite the fact that Germans as a whole held responsibility for what happened, it's a different question. You didnt have a choice to be born German, you do have a choice to work for NSO. So the question is more, does the accountant who was keeping books of the belongings taken from the Jews have moral (and legal?) responsibility? And yes I believe he does (and the courts in Germany agreed look up Oskar Gröning).
hutzlibu 6y ago
Well, here in germany it definitely is a crime to be member of a criminal or terroristic organisation (§ 129) and I am pretty sure in the US its the same. And it makes sense. The concept is valid, if you knowingly support criminal activity, which you do by associating with them, you are guilty (by varying degree). Mere familiy members of the mafia in italy for example will usually not being prosecuted, even though they are part of it. What you mean with guilt by association, is when the nazis for example enprisoned whole families, because one member was part of the resistance. And from the point of view of the Nazis this also makes sense. Because family members do support each other and are close(in ideology), so one enemy in a group means, there are probably more and if not, then it is an example for others not to help anyone resisting even if it is your brother and rather stop or support them. So the problem with guilt by association to me is not the concept, but how it is applied. The cruel, despotic government is the problem in the first place, not the tactics they use. And this concrete case here is about supporting authorian, cruel governments, by (indirectly) working for them. And I am free to despise and avoid people by my own standards, no matter that they are within the borders of the law.
- nulbyte 6y ago
  The keyword in your response is "knowingly." Simply being a member of one group or another doesn't imply that you know everything going on.
cycomanic 6y ago
Why do people always conflate legality and morality. A wedding guest might not be doing anything illegal eating/taking so much food/drinks that there is nothing left for anyone else, but I'm pretty certain many would make the decision to not invite them again, even without giving them a trial. If we talk about its legal, whose laws should we even apply?

jay_kyburz 6y ago

Perhaps if you don't know its a criminal organization, then sure. But if you knowingly assist murderers do their job, I say you can go to jail with them.

aronpye 6y ago
I mostly agree, but there is nuance to these types of things. For example, is everyone who worked in Nazi Germany a criminal?
- hutzlibu 6y ago
  Hard question, still disputed. My point of view is, yes! Unless he opposed in a meaningful way. But most did their duty and did so proudly. And after the war everyone just did their duty because hey had to and no one was a nazi. But the question also applies to today. The US for example use turtore and murder. So for some family members of people being murdered, because they attended a wedding in afghanistan, the whole US is guilty and therefore a legimitate target. I do not think so, but I think people in the US should take this more into consideration when thinking about terrorist. Most terrorist legitimate their actions (and get support) by saying they fight back the evil empire.that brings them only bombs.
- cycomanic 6y ago
  Despite the fact that Germans as a whole held responsibility for what happened, it's a different question. You didnt have a choice to be born German, you do have a choice to work for NSO. So the question is more, does the accountant who was keeping books of the belongings taken from the Jews have moral (and legal?) responsibility? And yes I believe he does (and the courts in Germany agreed look up Oskar Gröning).

hutzlibu 6y ago

Well, here in germany it definitely is a crime to be member of a criminal or terroristic organisation (§ 129) and I am pretty sure in the US its the same. And it makes sense. The concept is valid, if you knowingly support criminal activity, which you do by associating with them, you are guilty (by varying degree). Mere familiy members of the mafia in italy for example will usually not being prosecuted, even though they are part of it. What you mean with guilt by association, is when the nazis for example enprisoned whole families, because one member was part of the resistance. And from the point of view of the Nazis this also makes sense. Because family members do support each other and are close(in ideology), so one enemy in a group means, there are probably more and if not, then it is an example for others not to help anyone resisting even if it is your brother and rather stop or support them. So the problem with guilt by association to me is not the concept, but how it is applied. The cruel, despotic government is the problem in the first place, not the tactics they use. And this concrete case here is about supporting authorian, cruel governments, by (indirectly) working for them. And I am free to despise and avoid people by my own standards, no matter that they are within the borders of the law.

nulbyte 6y ago
The keyword in your response is "knowingly." Simply being a member of one group or another doesn't imply that you know everything going on.

cycomanic 6y ago

Why do people always conflate legality and morality. A wedding guest might not be doing anything illegal eating/taking so much food/drinks that there is nothing left for anyone else, but I'm pretty certain many would make the decision to not invite them again, even without giving them a trial. If we talk about its legal, whose laws should we even apply?