That is The Question

Megan McArdle suggest that we have too choice peaceful transfers of power from tyranny to something, presumabley, better or justice when it comes to violent tyrannts:

We satisfy the requirements of justice--but we make it more likely that dictators will cling to power, inflicting bloody purges on their people rather than share Pinochet's fate.
Of course, that's far from certain, because presumably hounding and/or prosecuting former dictators must have some deterrent effect.  Along with satisfying the requirements of justice, one hopes that it makes a would-be strongman think hard, and maybe take a gulp or two, before he orders that first mass execution.

She also asks if men who

 come to power through bloody conflicts that put them at great risk of losing their lives, and the violence and repression usually start during those conflicts.  Are they going to worry more about The Hague than the guy with the rival army?  Or the radical guerillas operating in the hinterlands?  By the time they're worrying about, um, succession planning, it may be too late to assure a secure future by being on their best behavior--the nasty process that brought them to office and cemented their power in the face of threats has probably pretty much guaranteed prosecution.

Well, one might answer, if we increase the likelihood that seizing and maintaining power through violence leads to successful prosecution and imprisonment then yes? Of course you could also could also make the argument that you can either have one thing or another but never both.

At any rate, it's something we should think about.  Which do we want more: peaceful abdication? Or justice?

Can we not have both?