Alexander Laban Hinton, Man or Monster? The Trial of a Khmer Rouge Torturer

A question that has perplexed scholars over time is the mindset of mid-level and low-level perpetrators of mass atrocities — in particular, those relying on the defence of being mere ‘puppets’ or ‘cogs in the wheel’ during trials. Addressing this topic could contribute towards studies on genocide prevention, provide the long sought-after retribution desired by victims and affect the evaluation of perpetrators’ guilt at trial. Alexander Hinton, in Man or Monster? The Trial of a Khmer Rouge Torturer provides a detailed account of the trial of Kaing Guek Eav, also known as ‘Duch’. Duch was tried at the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) for his actions as the then deputy chairman of ‘S-21’ — a security centre, also known as ‘Tuol Sleng’. The ECCC holds jurisdiction over ‘senior members or persons most responsible’.1 Hinton recounts the many times Duch referred to himself as a ‘German Shepherd’,2 evoking the qualities of obedience, loyalty and servility towards his superiors. Duch further elaborated his desire to be a good student, akin to his namesake, which he discovered in a textbook as a student, and to learn and follow orders from his teacher ‘whatever it might be, well’.3 Such arguments given by the accused raise the question whether defence strategies are merely that: strategies that, like judicial precedents, are learnt, passed down and conveniently adapted to the issues at hand by defendants in international criminal trials. If so, this would convey a notion of artificiality to trials as a system, and push for the thesis that trials are unsuitable venues for deciding matters of such complexities.4

Art · Criminology · Literature · Monster · Political science · Sociology · Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography · Cambodian History and Society · Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts · Psychology · Law