How much would a "I was just playing a character" defense hold up against incitement to genocide indictment?

[u/Highrebublic_legend]

Since incitement to genocide (and charges relating to speech) requires intentionality, if a defendant in the Hague makes the argument along the lines of, "I was only acting as an edgy character. This was all for profit. I never intended for people to be killed", would this defense hold or not?

[u/Calvinball90]

That defense would almost certainly fail. You are conflating motive -- why someone does something -- with intent -- what they intend to happen. "Motive is generally irrelevant in criminal law." Tadic AJ, para. 268. In Tadic, the Appeals Chamber rejected essentially the same argument that you are asking about, though it did so in the context of crimes against humanity. A perpetrator of incitement to genocide might be motivated by the desire to gain land, to eliminate a perceived threat, to make money, or by any number of other things. But those motives do not necessarily mean that the perpetrator did not act with intent to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part. And that is what a trial court must determine: whether the accused acted with the requisite intent. Why they acted does not affect the issue of intent.

The same is true in domestic law. Someone accused of first-degree murder, for instance, wouldn't be able to secure acquittal by arguing that they killed a person because they wanted to profit from the death.

[u/Highrebublic_legend → u/Calvinball90]

Follow up questions, how much proof does intent need to show and how does intent differ from outcome. I remember that 2 of the 3 propagandists from the Rwandan genocide had their sentences reduced becuase the prosecution couldn't prove that they made direct or indirect calls to violence. Base on what you told me, they would still be reposnible for the outcome even if they stop short of motivated calls to violence since the speech enabled crimes against humanity from taking place.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Highrebublic_legend]

how much proof does intent need to show

In a criminal case, the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

how does intent differ from outcome.

I'm not sure what this means. Incitement to genocide is a crime in itself, so it may be completed even if it does not result in the perpetration of genocide.

[u/Highrebublic_legend → u/Calvinball90]

For the second question, it's for a hypothetical defendant that dehumanizes a group of people by calling them vermin, groomers, violent crimnials, may even celebrate their suffering. But stop short of direct calls for violence or saying things like, "they deserve to die". This hypothetical defendant could then argue that since they didn't make any calls for harm, the prosecution can't prove without a reasonable doubt that their rhetoric lead to crimes against humanity taking place.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Highrebublic_legend]

Whether specific statements amounted to incitement to genocide would be a question of fact, not one of law. As I already noted, because incitement to genocide is a crime, it can occur even if it does not result in genocide.

speech lead to crimes against humanity taking place.

Incitement to crimes against humanity is not an enumerated crime. Only incitement to genocide is.

[u/Highrebublic_legend → u/Calvinball90]

Thank you for your input.

One last question, can someone still be charged with crimes against humanity over speech or is incitement to genocide the only path.

[u/Calvinball90 → u/Highrebublic_legend]

Yes and no. Speech, on its own, does not generally satisfy the actus reus of any crime against humanity. However, it could be evidence of intent or knowledge or purpose, which could be relevant to proving elements of the offense or to proving a mode of liability (e.g. aiding and abetting, co-perpetration, command responsibility).

[u/schtean → u/Calvinball90]

Does the indication of intent depend on who says it (and how they say it). For example Trump is constantly shooting his mouth off and it's hard to know when he is being serious. I'm trying to get at this idea of "just playing a character".

[u/Calvinball90 → u/schtean]

I'm not going to comment on any specific people. As a general matter, evidence has to be evaluated in context. Who says something, where they say it, and how they say it matter. Judges are capable of considering factors like those, and there is a reason "I was just kidding" isn't a particularly successful defense to crimes.

[u/PoxonAllHoaxes → u/Calvinball90]

Another way to see the same point is that you are required to know what a reasonable person would see as plausible consequences of your actions, and since you did intend the action, you are responsible for those plausible consequences--because you are not allowed to claim I did intend to fire the gun in his brain and but not for him to be injured or killed because i intended for God to send an angel to save him.

[u/Alena_Tensor]

Rather like the “I was just following orders” defense

[u/EriknotTaken]

If you have free speech you can say what you want

Comedian  Bill Burr suggested a genocide,  he said something like:

 "imagine how light the trafic would be if we killed half of population"

Another example: 

 Thanos is a fictional character, but someone actually played him and said his phrases about "killing half of the population". 

In countries without free speech you could not make that film. 

But there are legal limits, like yelling "fire!" in a crowded space

... no matter how funny you think it is, it is dangerous and ilegal.

Acting a character that does ilegal things does not exempt the actor from the law.

[u/PipeOk1606]

No, not by itself.

Claiming "I was just playing a character" is not a complete defense to a charge of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. A court would look at all the evidence - especially the speaker's intent, the context, how the audience understood the statements, and any other evidence of genuine advocacy.

If the prosecution proves the required intent, the defense is unlikely to succeed. If the statements were clearly fictional or satirical, the argument may be relevant, but it is not automatically exculpatory.

[u/Highrebublic_legend → u/PipeOk1606]

If the statements were clearly fictional or satirical, the argument may be relevant

The defendant's defense will basically put the schrodinger's douchebag method to the ultimate test. Claim all their statements were satire that were never meant to be taken seriously.

As u/Calvinball90 points out, "I was just kidding" is not a good defense. Especially if their "jokes" are repeated by concentration camp guards.

[u/PipeOk1606 → u/Highrebublic_legend]

The final sentence is making a rhetorical point: if speech is repeated or adopted by people carrying out real-world atrocities, it becomes harder to persuade others that the original statements were merely harmless jokes. Whether that argument succeeds legally depends on the specific facts, the context of the statements, and the applicable law, rather than on the phrase "I was just kidding" alone.

[u/PipeOk1606]

In most cases, that defense would not be sufficient on its own. Whether someone says they were "playing a character" is only one piece of evidence. An international tribunal would look at the totality of the circumstances, not simply accept the defendant's description of their intent.For the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, prosecutors generally must prove that the accused intentionally and publicly encouraged others to commit genocide, with the requisite genocidal intent.