The all-time Criminal Draft

[tian820]

Technically, couldn't one pick ANY person who's ever lived?

[BRabbiT]

this sounds like a great idea

[bomber]

So pissed I missed out.

[sawyersauce]

From the OP...

Rules Below:
- Snake Draft
- 8 Posters
- 10 Rounds
- 8 Hours per pick
- The identities of picks must be known. (Therefore, Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac Killer, B.D. Cooper, ect. Are not selectable.)
- War criminals are pardoned for the sake of this draft.

Iamgine, you'll have to pick again.

ProfMurder is up.

[iamgine]

So all war criminals are out regardless if they'd done other crimes?

[sawyersauce]

So all war criminals are out regardless if they'd done other crimes?

Well I'm not going to accept a war-criminal because they never paid that parking ticket.

But, as is stated in the OP, if the criminality of your pick is questioned you have to proove it to me. So go ahead and make your argument if you want. I'm willing to be flexible if you're convincing.

EDIT: It's basically going to take more than one off-hand conviction. Continued criminal behaviour.

[bballer]

[Rizko]

Dasher has already won this. I like the idea that iamgine is going with this, really similar to what I would have done if I had joined. I'll give you some ideas if you want.

[iamgine]

Well I'm not going to accept a war-criminal because they never paid that parking ticket.

But, as is stated in the OP, if the criminality of your pick is questioned you have to proove it to me. So go ahead and make your argument if you want. I'm willing to be flexible if you're convincing.

If you want me to repick it's okay. I think Tian is right. Almost anyone is a criminal. Even Paris Hilton or Charles Barkley is a criminal. So you got to set some standard at least.

Having said that, Hitler caused the murder of millions of people. He was guilty of murder, genocide, numerous war crimes, and treason against German government. It's just that he died before anyone can tear his mustache off.

[sawyersauce]

This is the standard from the OP.

Picks can be made from criminals from any country and time in history. The definition of what exactly qualifies somebody a ‘criminal’ is fairly loose. However, if the criminality of your pick is questioned you will need to prove their status or pick again (this will have to be done on a case-by-case basis, there is no universal rule). Regardless, you cannot pick, for example, professional soldiers or lawyers for your team – they have to be criminals, who would happily commit crimes for a living.

You're right that it's very loose, but that's intentional. Believe me, I tried to come up with a universal ruling to exclude one-offs, minor shop-lifters, ect. However such a rule would probably also exclude, for example; Zhenli Ye Gon, who has never been convicted, but is one of the world's largest criminals. That ambivalence is why I have to do it case-by-case.

I added this to the post you quoted...
EDIT: It's basically going to take more than one off-hand conviction. Continued criminal behaviour.

War-Crimes are pardoned. So if you can show another significant crime other than the Putsch, then he's in.

[Rizko]

Regarding hitler:

"The legal status of many of the Nazi regime's actions is still debated in Germany.

Despite the fact that Hitler persuaded the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act on 23 March 1933 allowing him to rule by decree, there are many grey areas. Two examples:

1. Hitler abolished the federal structure of Germany and established centralized government. It is very doubtful indeed whether the Enabling Law allowed changes to the constitution.

2. In 1933, some SS men were changed with murder in connection with a number of deaths in concentration camps. Himmler secured immunity from prosecution under ordinary German criminal law for SS personnel in respect of actions committed in the course of duty. The implication is that they probably were guilty ... Actions such as the Holocaust were later also largely committed under the cloak of immunity from prosecution rather than by specific decrees."

[iamgine]

Would masterminding a genocide count....

[sawyersauce]

Regarding hitler:

"The legal status of many of the Nazi regime's actions is still debated in Germany.

Despite the fact that Hitler persuaded the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act on 23 March 1933 allowing him to rule by decree, there are many grey areas. Two examples:

1. Hitler abolished the federal structure of Germany and established centralized government. It is very doubtful indeed whether the Enabling Law allowed changes to the constitution.

2. In 1933, some SS men were changed with murder in connection with a number of deaths in concentration camps. Himmler secured immunity from prosecution under ordinary German criminal law for SS personnel in respect of actions committed in the course of duty. The implication is that they probably were guilty ... Actions such as the Holocaust were later also largely committed under the cloak of immunity from prosecution rather than by specific decrees."

The words 'grey area', 'debated' and 'doubtful' don't exactly cast this as concrete. (Well, maybe 'grey area'.) If these actions haven't been confirmed as illegal, I can't really accept them as anything by speculative evidence. Law-making is always a nit-picky subject.

EDIT: @ Iamgine, count as a war-crime? yes. Any breaches of civil law?

[iamgine]

I can't find anything on his wiki about any other crime (I guess you didn't too). Why won't the treason count? It is, after all, a very serious crime. If someone has done treason against US government, surely he'd be eligible.

[sawyersauce]

I can't find anything on his wiki about any other crime (I guess you didn't too). Why won't the treason count? It is, after all, a very serious crime. If someone has done treason against US government, surely he'd be eligible.

It's not so much the seriousness of the crime than it is simply the quantity. If I set a precedent allowing one single crime to qualify someone how can i refuse later picks who have say, overworked their visa? Or been caught shoplifting clothes once?

I really wanted career criminals in the draft. Who make their living commiting crimes. Not talented people who happen to have once commited a crime.

Mmm, no. That sounds weak. Of course I can factor in how dire crimes are. I still feel it's against the spirit of the draft (but not the rules).

Okay, i'll allow it. But this isn't a nation-state draft, he will not be leading a country/government/military - he will be leading a criminal syndicate or operation. If you're sure he's suited to that, then the pick stands.