Prosecution of Uncontacted Peoples

[Foo]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

[Dream]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

[Foo]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

[Dream]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

[Foo]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

[Foo]

Maybe that island is really Wakanda? There is a cloaking device hiding the way they really live. They sit around playing online games while they farm bitcoins on their super servers.

[Dream]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

I think the line is between uncontacted and introduced to civilization. If one of the inhabitants were to get off the island and integrate into mainland society, they would be held subject to the laws of the nation because ignorance isn't a defense amongst the civilized. I could see them being tried and found innocent then carted back to the island, or attempt to socialize them and truly integrate them into society. As it is it's not just an ignorance of the laws of the country that claimed ownership of their island, it's an ignorance of who those people even are. From the islanders' perspective, their island isn't owned by anyone other than themselves, they didn't agree to become a part of India, India just claimed their island from a distance. Had it been claimed through conquering, they would be subject to the laws of India because they would be aware of India's presence and command over them.

[Foo]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

I think the line is between uncontacted and introduced to civilization. If one of the inhabitants were to get off the island and integrate into mainland society, they would be held subject to the laws of the nation because ignorance isn't a defense amongst the civilized. I could see them being tried and found innocent then carted back to the island, or attempt to socialize them and truly integrate them into society. As it is it's not just an ignorance of the laws of the country that claimed ownership of their island, it's an ignorance of who those people even are. From the islanders' perspective, their island isn't owned by anyone other than themselves, they didn't agree to become a part of India, India just claimed their island from a distance. Had it been claimed through conquering, they would be subject to the laws of India because they would be aware of India's presence and command over them.

If India lays claim to it, do they owe them attempts at socialization? Access to healthcare, defense, education, sanitation, etc.?

[Foo]

On a lighter note, this marks the 38th consecutive year that Cannibal Holocaust has won Best Comedy at the Sentinel Island Academy Awards.

*rim shot*

[Foo]

On a lighter note, this marks the 38th consecutive year that Cannibal Holocaust has won Best Comedy at the Sentinel Island Academy Awards.

*rim shot*

Best Supporting Actor - Sea Turtle

[Dream]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

I think the line is between uncontacted and introduced to civilization. If one of the inhabitants were to get off the island and integrate into mainland society, they would be held subject to the laws of the nation because ignorance isn't a defense amongst the civilized. I could see them being tried and found innocent then carted back to the island, or attempt to socialize them and truly integrate them into society. As it is it's not just an ignorance of the laws of the country that claimed ownership of their island, it's an ignorance of who those people even are. From the islanders' perspective, their island isn't owned by anyone other than themselves, they didn't agree to become a part of India, India just claimed their island from a distance. Had it been claimed through conquering, they would be subject to the laws of India because they would be aware of India's presence and command over them.

If India lays claim to it, do they owe them attempts at socialization? Access to healthcare, defense, education, sanitation, etc.?

In my opinion, yes.

Whether they do legally or not, I have no idea.

The fact that they are a neolithic tribe that has remained largely uncontacted through to current times is amazing and interesting, so morally I think they are better left alone. But I also think, unless efforts are made to integrate these people into current society, Our laws can't be applied to them because no attempts to socialize them has been made without the death of the people attempting it and it doesn't seem worth it to risk lives in a war effort to conquer them by force when they can be studied from afar as much as possible and people are completely safe from them as long as they heed the warnings they've been given.

[Foo]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

I think the line is between uncontacted and introduced to civilization. If one of the inhabitants were to get off the island and integrate into mainland society, they would be held subject to the laws of the nation because ignorance isn't a defense amongst the civilized. I could see them being tried and found innocent then carted back to the island, or attempt to socialize them and truly integrate them into society. As it is it's not just an ignorance of the laws of the country that claimed ownership of their island, it's an ignorance of who those people even are. From the islanders' perspective, their island isn't owned by anyone other than themselves, they didn't agree to become a part of India, India just claimed their island from a distance. Had it been claimed through conquering, they would be subject to the laws of India because they would be aware of India's presence and command over them.

If India lays claim to it, do they owe them attempts at socialization? Access to healthcare, defense, education, sanitation, etc.?

In my opinion, yes.

Whether they do legally or not, I have no idea.

The fact that they are a neolithic tribe that has remained largely uncontacted through to current times is amazing and interesting, so morally I think they are better left alone. But I also think, unless efforts are made to integrate these people into current society, Our laws can't be applied to them because no attempts to socialize them has been made without the death of the people attempting it and it doesn't seem worth it to risk lives in a war effort to conquer them by force when they can be studied from afar as much as possible and people are completely safe from them as long as they heed the warnings they've been given.

I don't know. I feel like a society can't say a certain group is better off left alone when they lay claim to the land. Mainly the argument I would make is individual rights. If even one of those people is being abused, protection is owed to them. We have a lot of people in this world who say many things are human rights, including protection from abuse and basic access to healthcare.

I am not so sure we can take a god stance and basically say they are better off left ignorant to what the world has to offer.

[Foo]

And I may have a weird vie of this, but I also feel that the Amish raising their children the way they do can be a form of abuse. It is a stretch, but I see some similarity in this.

[Dream]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

Isolated isn't the same as uncontacted.

If it was a group of natives who killed someone on their lands and that group of natives had never interacted with other people before the incident, I would be hard-pressed to prosecute them. They were protecting their people and land and had no way of knowing if the person intended them harm or not.


Besides, let's be realistic, if someone in the hills of West Virginia offs someone, that someone is likely to be a missing person forever and the people are likely to never be prosecuted.


I look at it this way, the dangers weren't unknown. There is a reason they are trying to prosecute the native people who chartered the guy out to the island (and they should). If you ignore warning signs basically telling you you're fucked if you try this thing, the consequences are something you were okay with.

Not arguing the practical side of this. That guy was fully aware of what he was doing and the likely result.

Just looking at purely legal. I don't care how many signs I put up in my yard and how many people warn the person, if I kill someone who was not an immediate threat to me, I would face the law.

India makes claim to that land. Can the people of that area ever commit a crime? Let's say they got internet and started scamming people? Presumably they would go after them. I know that is absurd because they are practically cave people, but on a long enough timeline, perhaps certain question may need to be answered.

I think the line is between uncontacted and introduced to civilization. If one of the inhabitants were to get off the island and integrate into mainland society, they would be held subject to the laws of the nation because ignorance isn't a defense amongst the civilized. I could see them being tried and found innocent then carted back to the island, or attempt to socialize them and truly integrate them into society. As it is it's not just an ignorance of the laws of the country that claimed ownership of their island, it's an ignorance of who those people even are. From the islanders' perspective, their island isn't owned by anyone other than themselves, they didn't agree to become a part of India, India just claimed their island from a distance. Had it been claimed through conquering, they would be subject to the laws of India because they would be aware of India's presence and command over them.

If India lays claim to it, do they owe them attempts at socialization? Access to healthcare, defense, education, sanitation, etc.?

In my opinion, yes.

Whether they do legally or not, I have no idea.

The fact that they are a neolithic tribe that has remained largely uncontacted through to current times is amazing and interesting, so morally I think they are better left alone. But I also think, unless efforts are made to integrate these people into current society, Our laws can't be applied to them because no attempts to socialize them has been made without the death of the people attempting it and it doesn't seem worth it to risk lives in a war effort to conquer them by force when they can be studied from afar as much as possible and people are completely safe from them as long as they heed the warnings they've been given.

I don't know. I feel like a society can't say a certain group is better off left alone when they lay claim to the land. Mainly the argument I would make is individual rights. If even one of those people is being abused, protection is owed to them. We have a lot of people in this world who say many things are human rights, including protection from abuse and basic access to healthcare.

I am not so sure we can take a god stance and basically say they are better off left ignorant to what the world has to offer.

I mostly agree with you. I just don't know if it's our right to take away their rights to live in peace either though.

It's definitely one of the things I'm torn on because I do think protection and medical access are important aspects of human rights, but I also question if we would do more harm than good. The odds of the Indian government accidentally killing off the tribe through exposure to diseases this tribe has no immunities against is really high (which is one of the reasons it is a no-go zone and the missionary risked the lives of everyone on that island in order to push his will onto them.)

Personally I would weight it according to damage control, where would we do the most harm? Leaving them be to live life how they always have, or interfering in order to bring them medical care and access to modern civilization. The odds of them just accepting help without at least trying to kill off the people who go there is pretty slim. It just doesn't seem worth it to force modern life onto them. If they reached out for help it would be completely different. If they were dying due to a lack of clean water or food it would be different, but they seem to be healthy and existing just fine.

[Dream]

And I may have a weird vie of this, but I also feel that the Amish raising their children the way they do can be a form of abuse. It is a stretch, but I see some similarity in this.

I don't think it's really a stretch, there are some pretty fucked up traditions in Amish country. But religious protections make it almost impossible to intervene except with extremely blatant abuses (child marriage being an obvious one that plagues many religious sects and is hard to act on, and is often ignored unless polygamy is involved because marrying two willing adults is worse than a 40-year-old marrying a 12 or 13-year-old somehow? God forgive him if the 40-year-old marries two 13-year-olds, one is okay, two is absolutely scandalous and horrifying!)

[showa58taro]

Should the people who killed John Chau be prosecuted under Indian law? Just curious as to the legal justification for not doing so.

No. It was a no-go zone, he broke the law and went anyway and suffered the consequences. There were warnings, he knew the risk and went for it anyway.

I also wouldn't prosecute someone who operates a shark-diving tour if a tourist gets eaten.

I get that. Just wondering from a legal standpoint, a person or peoples under their jurisdiction committed murder. What is the legal justification for not prosecuting them?

To give an example, let's say someone in the hills of West Virginia is isolated from society, but then commits a crime. Their ignorance or even claims of sovereignty do not exempt them from prosecution.

They aren’t under their jurisdiction though.

[Reign in Blood]

Chau, no. I was more so pondering this with the claims of the seemingly clueless fishermen who just strayed too close to the island being killed in 2006 or whenever that I read.

[Headhunter]

This is such a fascinating story in so many respects.

[Reign in Blood]

This is such a fascinating story in so many respects.

Go on.

I'm readying a viewing of the Green Inferno as we speak.

[Headhunter]

This is such a fascinating story in so many respects.

Go on.

I'm reading a viewing of the Green Inferno as we speak.

Nah I don't really have anything to add, you guys covered most of the talking points. I really have more questions in the philosophical realm than I do opinions.