Redemption and Mercy II

The hero has the bag guy at his mercy. Should he kill him? This TechCentralStation column says so but it is wrong. If the hero kills the villian during a fight it is ok but once disarmed, the villian is to be held for trial (or whatever).

This reflects the real world. During the seige of Fallujah we saw footage of a soldier doing a sweep of a mosque. There were people lying on the ground. One of them moved and the soldier shot him. As it turned out, this person had been wounded and disarmed the day before. The world was outraged. An inquest was held and eventually found that, given the number of insurgents who played at being wounded in order to kill soldiers, the shooting was justified. Along the way, various legal experts pointed out that as soon as someone is captured, we have a duty to protect him.

This tradition goes back to the Middle Ages. Prior to that, prisoners were normally humiliated and tortured. This changed when people realized that prisoners could be held for ransom. The financial incentive overrode the desire for revenge on an enemy.

Other military traditions developed. An army that surrendered was allowed to stay together, often retaining its weapons. Prisoners were only kept until the end of hostilities or an exchange of prisoners could be arrainged and they were not to be executed out of hand.

In the novel Sharpe's Battle, Sharpe captures some French soldiers who have just committed attrocities against a Spanish town. Discusted, Sharpe executes them, an action that almost ruins his carrer. After he is forgiven, Wellington explains that we have to treat our prisoners well if we expect the enemy to do the same with their prisoners.

The same goes for civilian life. If someone starts a fight and you kill him, it is self defense. If you first disarm him, then kill him it is murder.

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are dealing with battles between good and evil. The good guys have to be better than normal people. That means that, no matter what a good idea it might be, Luke could not kill the unarmed Emperor after defeating Vader nor could Frodo stab Gollum out of hand.

What about redemption? The TechCentralStation article questions the wisdom of showing mercy:

Is this the purpose of mercy -- to turn evil against itself? But if we know that evil won't turn against itself -- for, in the real world, it rarely does -- can mercy have any value?

Is this true? Granted a high percentage of criminals go on to commit additional crimes after serving their sentence. Not all do, though.

Things get more interesting on an international level. Nazi Germany was as evil a country as I can think of. It was bent on purifying itself and conquering a good chunk of the world. Japan during the same period was brutal and militaristic and bent on conquering the Pacific. Both countries have reformed, in part because we showed mercy after WWII.

I've pointed out before that the tipping point finally pushing Anakin over to the Dark Side was seeing Mace Windu about to kill Palpatine. It might seem logical but it would ruin the story.