6 ms·

Is this necessary? This article from 2008 seems to indicate that his sentence had been rescinded. https://web.archive.org/web/20111230060902/http://www.telegra

Is this necessary? This article from 2008 seems to indicate that his sentence had been rescinded. https://web.archive.org/web/20111230060902/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2145378/Dantes-infernal-crimes-forgiven.html https://web.archive.org/web/20111230060902/http://www.telegr... Also, it looks like he was convicted under the Holy Roman Empire, which doesn't really exist anymore. I'm not sure who there is to overturn his conviction.

orblivion 6y ago
I mean they did this: https://apnews.com/article/9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b https://apnews.com/article/9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b Seems silly. Should they overturn Jesus' conviction too? At a certain point the conviction is part of their story.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- x86ARMsRace 6y ago
  This causes some interesting questions about continuity of accountability for governments. I wonder how long you can hold a government accountable for the actions of its previous administrations. How many years can you go back? How many iterations of a state can you hold accountable too?
  - imgabe 6y ago
    Empty gestures like this do not hold any one accountable. The people responsible for whatever injustice occurred are long dead and there is nothing you can do to them. This is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent improving life for people who are alive today in some tangible way. Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?
    - Talanes 6y ago
      >Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it? I don't really understand the point of inquiries like this. Obviously you are here "wasting" time that could be spent on those activities as well, and yet you (rightfully) aren't hostile toward yourself for it.
      - imgabe 6y ago
        There is time that you can spend in productive endeavors and there is time for rest and relaxation. If you're going to work at something, work at something useful. If you're going to occupy the time and energy of a government, occupy it with something that is helpful to the people being governed. Sure, I'll spend time faffing about and commenting on HN, but I don't think that Congress needs to pass a resolution about it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > How many years can you go back? Probably one election cycle.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    However many is politically expedient. China, in particular, has an exceptionally long memory.
    - wahern 6y ago
      Did China have a legal system that made the emperor accountable to any temporal authority? (As a legal matter, not simply a practical one.) In the received political systems of the West, authority has at least been nominally shared for millennia, albeit across varying dimensions and with brief lapses into absolute rule. For example, while as a practical matter the Roman Catholic Pope's role during the Holy Roman Empire was largely constrained to spiritual and religious matters, the Pope nonetheless retained significant secular authority (e.g. over lands, etc) that the Emperor was obliged to respect. Failing to do so would result in illegality. Likewise the Emperor was at least in principle equal with other monarchs in Europe, so had obligations viz-a-viz them that couldn't be unilaterally skirted. Contrast that with the Westphalian system, where legal sovereignty is absolute within a territorial domain and where failure to respect an interstate obligation doesn't necessarily manifest as any kind of domestic illegality. Thus, when a state violates a treaty there's no expectation that its citizens construe the violation as illegitimate and to act and be responsible accordingly. (Modern international human rights theory being a very recent exception.) I know Chinese legal, political, and religious systems were rich and sophisticated, but AFAIU in Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history, the emperor was legally accountable to no temporal authority. Though, of course, it behooved emperors to abstain from exercising that absolute authority, obey legal and other norms, and adhere to their heavenly mandate. It's an important distinction because it reflects cultures' (and thus its peoples') conceptions of power and legitimacy, which in turn directly constrains what is practically achievable by authority figures within and without their domain. It's no accident the Westphalian system of states arose in the West, nor the successful, widespread systemization of democratic political systems. Similarly, it's not surprising why Westerns in particular (which is not to say uniquely) would find interesting such an abstruse question regarding the exoneration of Dante.
      - peteretep 6y ago
  - glitchc 6y ago
    If we had a statute of limitations like this, treaties with other countries would cease to hold all meaning. Humanity has already walked down this path before: The kings of England would routinely invalidate treaties made by predecessors. Let’s not retread our steps, yes? The world is much calmer and safer for it.
    - msh 6y ago
      But when is the country the same as made the treaty? Given time all countries change government structures and landmass quite heavily. Or in another case if a country is ruled by a genocidal dictatorship and there is a rebellion, should the new government be bound by the treaties made by the dictator? What if that dictator had been installed by a foriegn government?
- cabalamat 6y ago
  I don't think there's a legal successor state to the Roman Empire. Also the paperwork for that conviction has been lost.
pen2l 6y ago
I think we do a lot of things in our society for their symbolic value to formalize moral values and to demonstrate that we recognize past wrongs. In that regard I don't see anything wrong with this undertaking.
- delecti 6y ago
  That's not what I asked though. I'm not asking whether or not Dante should have his conviction overturned. Though on that note, I'm not convinced it should be, because it seems his crimes were for actual corruption while in public office, and waging war against the government. But no, I'm pointing out that it seems like his conviction was already overturned, so what exactly is the complaint?
  - vaduz 6y ago
    Under current laws, city council of Florence does not have extraordinary power of pardon and clemency - President of the Republic of Italy does. The declaration you linked is symbolic only - and the Italian sources [0] indicate the plan this time is to look if the case can be re-tried in light of some new evidence. [0] https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_gennaio_31/contro-mio-avo-dante-condanna-politica-quel-processo-rifare-c1a027bc-638c-11eb-a44f-6ffd36d7208d.shtml https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_gennaio_31/contro-mio-av...
  - athriren 6y ago
    i love this kind of chutzpah. dante is exiled from a city he lovingly intersperses throughout his fiction in some of the most famous and beautiful and utterly complex poetry of all time by one of the most famously corrupt rulers in all of human history for things he wrote ~in his poems~ and over 700 years later the sum total of human technology allows someone to say his political conviction by a no longer existing state is justified because of these thought crimes on a site that notionally believes in freedom of speech or at the very least thought. hope it is better wherever you are dante.
    - unixhero 6y ago
      You write beautifully, yet with too long sentences :).
vaduz 6y ago
Holy Roman Empire is not a factor - Dante was found guilty and exiled under the laws of the Republic of Florence. Ultimately Italy has jurisdiction as the successor state of Florence -> Tuscany -> Sardinia -> Italy after 1861...
- kenneth 6y ago
  Sidenote: are you from Lichtenstein?
skissane 6y ago
> Also, it looks like he was convicted under the Holy Roman Empire, which doesn't really exist anymore. I'm not sure who there is to overturn his conviction. When Dante was convicted in 1302, Florence was the Republic of Florence. The Republic of Florence was subject to the Holy Roman Empire, but still remained a distinct legal jurisdiction (like a state.) The Republic of Florence was replaced by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1569, which ruled Florence (with some interruptions) until 1859, when it was conquered by the Kingdom of Sardinia, which soon became the modern Kingdom of Italy, which in turn became the present-day Italian Republic after WW2. Each successor entity inherited the legal rights of its predecessor entity – the Italian Republic inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Italy, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Republic of Florence. One of the legal rights of the Republic of Florence was to rescind the legal judgements of its courts, even posthumously. Hence, that legal right has been inherited, through a chain of successors, by the modern-day Italian Republic, which therefore has a unique legal authority (not possessed by any other jurisdiction) to formally rescind Dante's conviction and sentence. Yes, it is a right of no practical effect, its exercise would be of purely symbolic consequence, but it would be the unique possession of the Italian Republic. (The succession story I presented – Republic of Florence => Grand Duchy of Tuscany => Kingdom of Sardinia => Kingdom of Italy => Italian Republic – is no doubt somewhat simplified, but I don't think fleshing out those added details would change the ultimate conclusion.)
- edgyquant 6y ago
  As a side note the unifications of Italy and Germany are fascinating history and the culture that emerged due to them is also likely the reason those are the two most famous historical fascist nations (and why it was born in those places.) The nationalism required to (and built up for the purpose) unify the countries gave rise to ultra nationalism as generations of wanting to have a greater nature built a population who thought conquest was the only method to achieve peace and prosperity.
  - gattilorenz 6y ago
    I like this explanation very much, I just don't know if I can agree with it. If it's taken from a historian or you have any in-depth references, I would be happy to read more about it! Big reasons why fascism was born in Italy was the counter-revolutionary movement as a response to the big socialist movement and the disastrous social and economical situation after WWI, which seem equally common in Germany but also in other Fascist countries (Portugal, Spain). My guess is that we don't remember those as much mostly because they remained neutral in WWII, so there was no propaganda about them.
idclip 6y ago
I believe it is for him ... him and by association his family seem to emotionally need it. Let him Free himself from his psychological prison - even if imagined ... most of us use sadism to try and act out our unconscious violence/justice fantasies .. to use legal means is a step up. Non violent ... i (if in may be so bold as to attribute any significance to my own opinion) commend it!

orblivion 6y ago

I mean they did this: https://apnews.com/article/9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b https://apnews.com/article/9b6f6f5ba5be2408ff0502c7fb8abd5b Seems silly. Should they overturn Jesus' conviction too? At a certain point the conviction is part of their story.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
x86ARMsRace 6y ago
This causes some interesting questions about continuity of accountability for governments. I wonder how long you can hold a government accountable for the actions of its previous administrations. How many years can you go back? How many iterations of a state can you hold accountable too?
- imgabe 6y ago
  Empty gestures like this do not hold any one accountable. The people responsible for whatever injustice occurred are long dead and there is nothing you can do to them. This is a waste of time and energy that could be better spent improving life for people who are alive today in some tangible way. Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it?
  - Talanes 6y ago
    >Is this going to feed someone who's hungry? Shelter someone who's homeless? Do anything that will make any actual difference in the life of any living person? No? Then why are we wasting time on it? I don't really understand the point of inquiries like this. Obviously you are here "wasting" time that could be spent on those activities as well, and yet you (rightfully) aren't hostile toward yourself for it.
    - imgabe 6y ago
      There is time that you can spend in productive endeavors and there is time for rest and relaxation. If you're going to work at something, work at something useful. If you're going to occupy the time and energy of a government, occupy it with something that is helpful to the people being governed. Sure, I'll spend time faffing about and commenting on HN, but I don't think that Congress needs to pass a resolution about it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ttt0 6y ago
  > How many years can you go back? Probably one election cycle.
- peteretep 6y ago
  However many is politically expedient. China, in particular, has an exceptionally long memory.
  - wahern 6y ago
    Did China have a legal system that made the emperor accountable to any temporal authority? (As a legal matter, not simply a practical one.) In the received political systems of the West, authority has at least been nominally shared for millennia, albeit across varying dimensions and with brief lapses into absolute rule. For example, while as a practical matter the Roman Catholic Pope's role during the Holy Roman Empire was largely constrained to spiritual and religious matters, the Pope nonetheless retained significant secular authority (e.g. over lands, etc) that the Emperor was obliged to respect. Failing to do so would result in illegality. Likewise the Emperor was at least in principle equal with other monarchs in Europe, so had obligations viz-a-viz them that couldn't be unilaterally skirted. Contrast that with the Westphalian system, where legal sovereignty is absolute within a territorial domain and where failure to respect an interstate obligation doesn't necessarily manifest as any kind of domestic illegality. Thus, when a state violates a treaty there's no expectation that its citizens construe the violation as illegitimate and to act and be responsible accordingly. (Modern international human rights theory being a very recent exception.) I know Chinese legal, political, and religious systems were rich and sophisticated, but AFAIU in Imperial China, which accounts for most of the past 2000 years of mainland Chinese political history, the emperor was legally accountable to no temporal authority. Though, of course, it behooved emperors to abstain from exercising that absolute authority, obey legal and other norms, and adhere to their heavenly mandate. It's an important distinction because it reflects cultures' (and thus its peoples') conceptions of power and legitimacy, which in turn directly constrains what is practically achievable by authority figures within and without their domain. It's no accident the Westphalian system of states arose in the West, nor the successful, widespread systemization of democratic political systems. Similarly, it's not surprising why Westerns in particular (which is not to say uniquely) would find interesting such an abstruse question regarding the exoneration of Dante.
    - peteretep 6y ago
- glitchc 6y ago
  If we had a statute of limitations like this, treaties with other countries would cease to hold all meaning. Humanity has already walked down this path before: The kings of England would routinely invalidate treaties made by predecessors. Let’s not retread our steps, yes? The world is much calmer and safer for it.
  - msh 6y ago
    But when is the country the same as made the treaty? Given time all countries change government structures and landmass quite heavily. Or in another case if a country is ruled by a genocidal dictatorship and there is a rebellion, should the new government be bound by the treaties made by the dictator? What if that dictator had been installed by a foriegn government?
cabalamat 6y ago
I don't think there's a legal successor state to the Roman Empire. Also the paperwork for that conviction has been lost.

pen2l 6y ago

I think we do a lot of things in our society for their symbolic value to formalize moral values and to demonstrate that we recognize past wrongs. In that regard I don't see anything wrong with this undertaking.

delecti 6y ago
That's not what I asked though. I'm not asking whether or not Dante should have his conviction overturned. Though on that note, I'm not convinced it should be, because it seems his crimes were for actual corruption while in public office, and waging war against the government. But no, I'm pointing out that it seems like his conviction was already overturned, so what exactly is the complaint?
- vaduz 6y ago
  Under current laws, city council of Florence does not have extraordinary power of pardon and clemency - President of the Republic of Italy does. The declaration you linked is symbolic only - and the Italian sources [0] indicate the plan this time is to look if the case can be re-tried in light of some new evidence. [0] https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_gennaio_31/contro-mio-avo-dante-condanna-politica-quel-processo-rifare-c1a027bc-638c-11eb-a44f-6ffd36d7208d.shtml https://www.corriere.it/cronache/21_gennaio_31/contro-mio-av...
- athriren 6y ago
  i love this kind of chutzpah. dante is exiled from a city he lovingly intersperses throughout his fiction in some of the most famous and beautiful and utterly complex poetry of all time by one of the most famously corrupt rulers in all of human history for things he wrote ~in his poems~ and over 700 years later the sum total of human technology allows someone to say his political conviction by a no longer existing state is justified because of these thought crimes on a site that notionally believes in freedom of speech or at the very least thought. hope it is better wherever you are dante.
  - unixhero 6y ago
    You write beautifully, yet with too long sentences :).

vaduz 6y ago

Holy Roman Empire is not a factor - Dante was found guilty and exiled under the laws of the Republic of Florence. Ultimately Italy has jurisdiction as the successor state of Florence -> Tuscany -> Sardinia -> Italy after 1861...

kenneth 6y ago
Sidenote: are you from Lichtenstein?

skissane 6y ago

> Also, it looks like he was convicted under the Holy Roman Empire, which doesn't really exist anymore. I'm not sure who there is to overturn his conviction. When Dante was convicted in 1302, Florence was the Republic of Florence. The Republic of Florence was subject to the Holy Roman Empire, but still remained a distinct legal jurisdiction (like a state.) The Republic of Florence was replaced by the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1569, which ruled Florence (with some interruptions) until 1859, when it was conquered by the Kingdom of Sardinia, which soon became the modern Kingdom of Italy, which in turn became the present-day Italian Republic after WW2. Each successor entity inherited the legal rights of its predecessor entity – the Italian Republic inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Italy, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Kingdom of Sardinia, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which in turn inherited the legal rights of the Republic of Florence. One of the legal rights of the Republic of Florence was to rescind the legal judgements of its courts, even posthumously. Hence, that legal right has been inherited, through a chain of successors, by the modern-day Italian Republic, which therefore has a unique legal authority (not possessed by any other jurisdiction) to formally rescind Dante's conviction and sentence. Yes, it is a right of no practical effect, its exercise would be of purely symbolic consequence, but it would be the unique possession of the Italian Republic. (The succession story I presented – Republic of Florence => Grand Duchy of Tuscany => Kingdom of Sardinia => Kingdom of Italy => Italian Republic – is no doubt somewhat simplified, but I don't think fleshing out those added details would change the ultimate conclusion.)

edgyquant 6y ago
As a side note the unifications of Italy and Germany are fascinating history and the culture that emerged due to them is also likely the reason those are the two most famous historical fascist nations (and why it was born in those places.) The nationalism required to (and built up for the purpose) unify the countries gave rise to ultra nationalism as generations of wanting to have a greater nature built a population who thought conquest was the only method to achieve peace and prosperity.
- gattilorenz 6y ago
  I like this explanation very much, I just don't know if I can agree with it. If it's taken from a historian or you have any in-depth references, I would be happy to read more about it! Big reasons why fascism was born in Italy was the counter-revolutionary movement as a response to the big socialist movement and the disastrous social and economical situation after WWI, which seem equally common in Germany but also in other Fascist countries (Portugal, Spain). My guess is that we don't remember those as much mostly because they remained neutral in WWII, so there was no propaganda about them.

idclip 6y ago

I believe it is for him ... him and by association his family seem to emotionally need it. Let him Free himself from his psychological prison - even if imagined ... most of us use sadism to try and act out our unconscious violence/justice fantasies .. to use legal means is a step up. Non violent ... i (if in may be so bold as to attribute any significance to my own opinion) commend it!