Among the causes the Woodstock Generation assisted was that of the Khmer Rouge, and Paul Chesser over at The American Spectator’s blog has been drawing attention to the ongoing trial of a former torturer and murderer for the regime. What makes the trial remarkable is that the defendant not only admits his crimes, but rejects testimony that would lessen his culpability and accepts the legitimacy of any sentence, including execution (though the U.N. weenies running the trial have apparently ruled out the death penalty):

“I will accept without challenges… all judgments which will be made by this chamber, the judgment of my role as the chairman of S-21 and all the crimes committed there,” he said.
“I am humble before the Cambodian people, I accept all of these crimes and would like the Cambodian people to condemn me to the strictest level of punishment.”

His repentance apparently stems from his conversion to Christianity, which some observers doubt is genuine. I, of course, have no idea if he’s truly found Christ, but it’s plausible precisely because he accepts the justice of any punishment he may receive. People appealing death sentences often claim to have seen the error of their ways, but the very fact of their asking for a reprieve proves the falsehood of such conversions. I don’t mean that someone who’s been born again on death row should necessarily want to be executed, but no one who genuinely has come to appreciate the monstrous nature of his crimes would lift so much as a finger to prevent whatever punishment Caesar metes out to him. (I’m sure the better-educated Cornerites could come up with classical examples, but Brother Edward is the one that comes first to my mind.) If the state decides to spare his life, it is an act of grace which he must understand he does not deserve (and obviously the same goes for judgments by the Higher Authority).