Problem
As we have learned in this lesson, crimes against humanity and genocide are different forms of gross violations of human rights from a legal point of view, but not in terms of gravity: if you are prosecuted for crimes against humanity, it does not mean that your case is less serious or that your sentence may be less severe than if you had been indicted for genocide. Nonetheless, many scholars and activists evoke frustration when gross violations are not labelled as genocide.
Why is it so? Why do victims of major crimes want their case to be labelled as "genocide" rather than "crimes against humanity"? Is it really important in which way a crime is categorized if its classification does not mollify the sentence?