11

Snopes's article on the South Africa vs Israel genocide case explains that intent is an important element of genocide. Likewise, intent is an important element of murder.

But we've also invented the lesser charge of manslaughter, presumably so that we can do some sort of justice when intent is absent or difficult to prove, but what was done still seems criminal.

Is there an analogous lesser charge for genocide, covering e.g. actions with the effect of destroying, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such? Or is that a yet-to-be-named crime? Or is it not actually rightly a crime somehow?

Improve this question
7
  • 6
    Genocide is perhaps more closely analogous to hate crimes than to murder. The definition of genocide includes crimes that do not involve killing people, or that need not include killing people. So suppose an army destroys a village that contains all the members of some tribe without any intent to destroy the tribe: it would not be genocide, but it might be a war crime, just as the destruction of any village might be a war crime.
    – phoog
    Commented Mar 7 at 7:40
  • 2
    Note that the idea that intent is required for genocide is disputed. It seems strange if a nation, military or similar actor can actively cause the deaths of some group and then claim innocence because the deaths were not intended but just a predictable consequence of their actions.
    – quarague
    Commented Mar 7 at 9:28
  • 1
    Do you have an example in mind? Something like the Great Jump Forward being the cause for millions of death, which was most probably not the intent at all?
    – idspispopd
    Commented Mar 7 at 10:24
  • 1
    Similarly, I could see something like accidentally transmitting a disease that wipes out a nationality. I mean, who expected them to be so susceptible to a minor pox?
    – SCD
    Commented Mar 7 at 13:04
  • 1
    @SCD Does it count when there's mutual destruction? The Columbian Exchange brought smallpox and measles to the Americas, but they returned the favor by sending syphilis to Europe.
    – Barmar
    Commented Mar 7 at 15:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

Is there a manslaughter version of genocide?

No.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    Because "accidental genocide" would probably/normally be "collateral damage of war"
    – MikeB
    Commented Mar 7 at 10:11
  • 5
    @MikeB Indeed. "Sorry that all those Palestinians civilians were killed, we were just trying to destroy Hamas and they got in the way."
    – Barmar
    Commented Mar 7 at 15:55
  • 1
    @Barmar "We had followed the rules of war and deposited leaflets to vacate the area we had found to be a legitimate target. They did not vacate. We are deeply sorry."
    – Trish
    Commented May 3 at 10:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .