In 1995, an estimated 8000 Muslims were slaughtered by Bosnian Serbs in what has been deemed the worst civilian massacre since WWII.
Essentially what happened was, displaced Muslims sought refuge in a UN compound (in Potocari) ‘protected ‘ by Dutch peacekeepers. The Serbs overran the ‘safe haven’ and used the Dutch as human shields. They lined up and shot all of the men and boys, and tortured and raped the remaining women and girls.
Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic (the main culprits in this massacre), were found guilty of several counts of murder, persecution, torture and forced labor in atrocities in and around the Bosnian city of Mostar. A few days ago, they received 20 and 18 years in prison, respectively.

I am curious what the standard for war crimes is. Half a day in prison per atrocity? Does anyone else think this is extremely lenient sentencing?

I agree, as will probably everybody, so this isn't likely to be much of a debate. Is there a devil's advocate in the house?

Good point! I just wanted to rant! I seriously DO wonder what the basis for sentencing a war crime is. How does this ruling affect our 'sentencing' of terrorists, for example? If the open mass murder and torture of human beings by the thousands is worthy of 20 years, what sort of punishment befits the crime of a simple terrorist plot?

Here is the press release and the sentencing statement from the UN:

JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE THE PROSECUTOR V. MLADEN NALETILIC AND VINKO MARTINOVIC

Trial Chamber I Sentencing Judgement Statement

I would say that the punishment was definitely lenient. I don't even think I can play Devil's advocate on this one, but I wanted to provide the links. I perused the sentencing statement, and I couldn't find anything that would lead me to believe that these sentences are just, but I still need to read it in depth. Perhaps the key to the light sentencing is actually in there somewhere.