>Upvoting because it's a good question, but I couldn't disagree more with the premise.

I love this! This is what we ought to be about, right?

What you say makes a lot of sense. I do agree that there is room for studying what we do to criminals and why. We came a long way from what you described to, for example: https://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=60 (read some 20 or so pages, perhaps 15 minutes?)

I guess that my concern is more about the practical. What's the point in determining that if Putin should be imprisoned given that we can't do it,

In practice, I do see use in that we might get the definition right and then teach our kids so well that we potentially raise a society that would never wage an unjust war (for whatever definition of unjust you want).

Or I suppose that maybe some 15 year old in Azerbaijan or whatever will in 30 years be the leader of the nation and maybe he'll remember Biden wagging his finger at Putin and learn right from wrong and he'll not wage a war because he learned morals that way.

But I just read and article proclaim that Biden is calling Putin a war criminal like it's some big proclamation that is going to have any effect on this war and I think that is bullshit. The outcome of this war is unaffected by such a proclamation.

In conclusion, studying war so that we can teach our kids morals around war is good. Beyond that, these moral judgements on an active war seem pointless.

As before, please disagree, up vote, and educate me!