If it's absolutely necessary to imprison these old, dying men, just put them into house arrest if it makes you feel better. I'm sure they would do the exact thing they'd do in prison: lie still in bed and wait for death.
[QUOTE=maxumym;43993724]"Guten tag, I am Hans and I've been conscripted by the Wermacht to serve in the army, namely, this weird camp."
"Oh god it's a concentration camp, Scheiße! This is fucking horrible, why do I have to do this?"
"That's it, I'm fed up, I'm leaving this piece of shit army [B]OH NO I CAN'T BECAUSE I WILL BE SHOT ON THE SPOT AND MY FAMILY WILL BE ENDANGERED WELP FUCK IT SEEMS I'LL JUST HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS[/B]"
Seriously, what do you expect them to do? A person's own life and family will always be more important to them than the other's, that's nature.[/QUOTE]
It could also be the other way around, we don't know it and that's why it's up to the judge to decide.
[editline]21st February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;43993847]It is kinda funny how Japan has completely taken a different approach to observing the past unlike the Germans.
Rape of Nanking
Bataan Death March
Korean Comfort Women
Etc....
Nah, let's just remember Hiroshima and only that.[/QUOTE]
And Mandschuko
Why is FP blowing this way out of proportion yet again?
Imagine living 70 years with regret and the fear that your past will catch up to you.
edit: like fearing people recognising you
[editline]21st February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tudd;43993847]It is kinda funny how Japan has completely taken a different approach to observing the past unlike the Germans.
Rape of Nanking
Bataan Death March
Korean Comfort Women
Etc....
Nah, let's just remember Hiroshima and only that.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-japans-bbc-is-rewriting-its-role-in-second-world-war-9115827.html[/url]
Some argue that those things never happened and that any evidence of it was just propaganda by the west.
Scary thought.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;43992267]What is with you guys and going hard or going home? an Auschwitz guard would have been able to resist enabling genocide in a way which doesn't involve some obviously outlandish heroic act of resistance.[/QUOTE]
It wasn't that simple, asking for a transfer away from the camp led to a firm reminder about the oath that the SS men swore.
[quote]The relative tranquillity that Gröning's job gave him was once again broken, and he once again complained to his boss. His boss, an SS-Untersturmführer, listened to him, but reminded him of the pledge that he and his comrades made to accept it, and so he returned to work.[/quote]
Life in Auschwitz wasn't black and white.
I'm disgusted reading this thread.
Genocide is a buzzword.
If someone is no longer a threat the law doesn't apply to him.
The law doesn't apply to old people.
You people are just fucking crazy.
This is not about revenge, it's about justice. The law applies equally to everyone. It doesn't matter that they are old now. There is no point in jailing them, that's true. But if they were accessories to genocide they have to be judged with accordance with the law.
Law is the law you can't pick and choose who it applies to or not.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43994601]I'm disgusted reading this thread.
Genocide is a buzzword.
If someone is no longer a threat the law doesn't apply to him.
The law doesn't apply to old people.
You people are just fucking crazy.
This is not about revenge, it's about justice. The law applies equally to everyone. It doesn't matter that they are old now. There is no point in jailing them, that's true. But if they were accessories to genocide they have to be judged with accordance with the law.
Law is the law you can't pick and choose who it applies to or not.[/QUOTE]
This is your view point on the law.
You can treat criminals or you can punish them. You can rehabilitiate or vindictively punish.
Why make someone miserable it will solve nothing. He and his family will feel ashmed and he will already have suffered through years of fear and self loathing.
Vindictive punishment is so medieval.
Oy vey, they better avenge the 6 billion that died in the holohoax
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43994632]This is your view point on the law.
You can treat criminals or you can punish them. You can rehabilitiate or vindictively punish.
Why make someone miserable it will solve nothing. He and his family will feel ashmed and he will already have suffered through years of fear and self loathing.
Mindless punishment is so medieval.[/QUOTE]
You can't pick and chose who the law applies to.
I wonder would you say the same shit if they caught Ted Bundy at the age of 80?
And how do you know the guards feel ashamed and were self loathing?
Also, if say a pilot of a bomber or something decided to drop an extra bomb on a hospital, would you punish him or just disallow him from flying a bomber again. Since you know, that would make him unable to do that again so there is no threat anymore right?
I thought that "A choice between action and death is no choice at all" was a pretty common philosophy.
You cannot, under any circumstances, [I]expect [/I]someone to do something that they believe is likely to lead to their death. No matter who they are or what that action is.
By refusing to do their job, they'd be putting their life in danger, therefore they had no choice but to do their job.
[QUOTE=Tudd;43993847]It is kinda funny how Japan has completely taken a different approach to observing the past unlike the Germans.
Rape of Nanking
Bataan Death March
Korean Comfort Women
Etc....
Nah, let's just remember Hiroshima and only that.[/QUOTE]
thing is, in japan there was never something similar to the denazification in germany , after the war with japan, most of the old guard stuck around, this is the result.
i'd argue the japan probably needed a similar initiative more than germany did(ffs, rape of nanking managed to disgust a nazi dude [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rabe[/url]).
also there are in fact quite a few japanese who were(and are) just as disgusted at their government for their atrocities and constant denial(especially those at okinawa), but since the old guard remained in power... welp.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43994682]You can't pick and chose who the law applies to.
I wonder would you say the same shit if they caught Ted Bundy at the age of 80?
And how do you know the guards feel ashamed and were self loathing?
Also, if say a pilot of a bomber or something decided to drop an extra bomb on a hospital, would you punish him or just disallow him from flying a bomber again. Since you know, that would make him unable to do that again so there is no threat anymore right?[/QUOTE]
I believe if someone does a crime they either have something wrong with them or a different moral code, the 2 might not be mutually exclusive, that is to say someone might have a different moral code and something wrong with them.
Punishing people, in some cases, will not help. It will just cause resentment and potentially psychological damage. Punishment for crimes has been done for centuries, from this one might argue that people now have a better understanding of criminals and draconian punishments should be replaced with more scientific and objective methods.
To make a person not offend you need to target the causes of the crime and understand that crimes are different. Someone stealing bread to eat is breaking the law for a totally different motive than a serial rapist. The person stealing bread can be "fixed" by providing them with food through wellfare and support.
The rapist might have different reasons. Upbringing (rape is more common place in different countries), different moral code or some kind of mental issue (psychopath, lack of empathy). The rapist needs to be locked up. Not as punishment but as a way of keeping the public safe. While they are locked up they should undergo treatment to tackle the root of the issue.
You could lock a guy up for 10 years and he would still have the same mental issues and possibly worse morals from the treatment/experience inside. He could go on to reoffend.
I'm not saying pick who the laws applies to I'm saying take an objective approach. Illogical and emotional punishment of an 80 year old who might have been forced into doing it is nothing short of folly.
For Ted Bundy I'm not sure what could be done. For such a sociopath I do believe it might be best to kill them or lock them away indefinately, to keep the public safe. If he had been caught at age 80 and posed no more threat I'm not sure what would happen. The families would emotionally and irrationally call for justice, killing him would not achieve justice just another dead old man.
If a pilot of a bomber dropped a bomb on civilians willingly and knowingly with full ability to not bomb those civilians. (note civilian implies there can be no threat against him). I would want him to not be in a position where he could bomb people again and since he displays such characteristics it might be in public interest to take measures that he can't harm others in other ways. I would probably suggest a jail sentence but only for as long as it would take to assess whether he is a threat to others (or likely to commit other offenses) and if not then release him.
We are in the 21st century an should approach issues objectively.
[QUOTE=Covalency;43990105]it's not about it being okay, it's about these guys basically being in their last years of their life, 60 years later they're going to jail just for being a guard?
that's absurd, let them live. I doubt they're going to start some camp force shoving Jews into it any time soon.[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure you understand justice. It's not a matter of "Well he may have killed a few people, but he's not gonna do it again so let's let him get away with it."
Most people operate under the assumption that they were merely following orders and regretted having anything to do with it but that is just as baseless of an assumption as assuming they were all secretly in favor of the whole thing.
Would you be as opposed to these arrests had the guards been devoted supporters of the Nazi regime? Or does that not come into account when the crime in question has been committed a long time ago? Because if it's the latter, that is purely daft logic you'd be using there. It has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with the fact that justice is timeless and crimes should not be forgotten and brushed under the rag simply because they happened a long time ago.
It isn't something as trivial as breaking a car window 70 years ago, it's taking part in what is basically one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed and the argument of 'they were forced to' is highly debatable.
[QUOTE=Melnek;43994915]Most people operate under the assumption that they were merely following orders and regretted having anything to do with it but that is just as baseless of an assumption as assuming they were all secretly in favor of the whole thing.
Would you be as opposed to these arrests had the guards been devoted supporters of the Nazi regime? Or does that not come into account when the crime in question has been committed a long time ago? Because if it's the latter, that is purely daft logic you'd be using there. It has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with the fact that justice is timeless and crimes should not be forgotten and brushed under the rag simply because they happened a long time ago.
It isn't something as trivial as breaking a car window 70 years ago, it's taking part in what is basically one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed and the argument of 'they were forced to' is highly debatable.[/QUOTE]
I semi-agree, we need to first know more details about these men before we throw accusations on both ends.
Honestly though, if they were devout supporters, it's pointless now since they already won by living a full life. It's pretty much getting away with it.
[QUOTE=Melnek;43994915]Most people operate under the assumption that they were merely following orders and regretted having anything to do with it but that is just as baseless of an assumption as assuming they were all secretly in favor of the whole thing.
Would you be as opposed to these arrests had the guards been devoted supporters of the Nazi regime? Or does that not come into account when the crime in question has been committed a long time ago? Because if it's the latter, that is purely daft logic you'd be using there. It has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with the fact that justice is timeless and crimes should not be forgotten and brushed under the rag simply because they happened a long time ago.
It isn't something as trivial as breaking a car window 70 years ago, it's taking part in what is basically one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed and the argument of 'they were forced to' is highly debatable.[/QUOTE]
Theres still the question of why. What is the purpose of their incarceration?
Don't say justice. An actual quantifiable gain in their being punished.
[editline]21st February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=mchapra;43994934]I semi-agree, we need to first know more details about these men before we throw accusations on both ends.
Honestly though, if they were devout supporters, it's pointless now since they already won by living a full life. It's pretty much getting away with it.[/QUOTE]
Quick! we can still rob them of their dying breath! :v:
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43994940]Theres still the question of why. What is the purpose of their incarceration?
Don't say justice. An actual quantifiable gain in their being punished.[/QUOTE]
[quote]Don't say justice.[/quote]
what
How can I not say justice when it's literally the whole point of this entire thing? Their incarceration is based purely on the simple logic of 'commit crime=go to jail'. If you bring up time into the equation you've no idea how the basis of the justice system is supposed to work. It's a meaningless thing to say because it bares absolutely no relation to the concept of justice itself.
They've already gotten away with it thus far, sure. But to just let them off because they were getting away all this time is retarded. Do police officers just stop chasing after bank robbers because they got away? Are all charges dropped simply because it's been a while now? In what fantasy world are you guys living in, seriously.
As I've said, this isn't some trivial mediocre little crime they've taken part in. The world has an obligation to treat every single part of the holocaust in the most serious and just way possible and this includes persecuting those who have had something to do with based on new evidence even decades later.
[QUOTE=Melnek;43995003]what
[/QUOTE]
I said don't say justice to make you think.
There is no practical gain in punishing him. Its not about time.
Justice is a notion going back 1000s of years. Its not about righting wrongs or stopping wrongs from happening. Its about revenge being dispensed by authority to make the victim feel better.
Just because something is cultural doesn't mean its right.
"you stole my goat so I'm going to humiliate you infront of a crowd of people"
"what will that solve?"
"shut up! justice is being done!"
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43994799]I believe if someone does a crime they either have something wrong with them or a different moral code, the 2 might not be mutually exclusive, that is to say someone might have a different moral code and something wrong with them.
Punishing people, in some cases, will not help. It will just cause resentment and potentially psychological damage. Punishment for crimes has been done for centuries, from this one might argue that people now have a better understanding of criminals and draconian punishments should be replaced with more scientific and objective methods.
To make a person not offend you need to target the causes of the crime and understand that crimes are different. Someone stealing bread to eat is breaking the law for a totally different motive than a serial rapist. The person stealing bread can be "fixed" by providing them with food through wellfare and support.
The rapist might have different reasons. Upbringing (rape is more common place in different countries), different moral code or some kind of mental issue (psychopath, lack of empathy). The rapist needs to be locked up. Not as punishment but as a way of keeping the public safe. While they are locked up they should undergo treatment to tackle the root of the issue.
You could lock a guy up for 10 years and he would still have the same mental issues and possibly worse morals from the treatment/experience inside. He could go on to reoffend.
I'm not saying pick who the laws applies to I'm saying take an objective approach. Illogical and emotional punishment of an 80 year old who might have been forced into doing it is nothing short of folly.
For Ted Bundy I'm not sure what could be done. For such a sociopath I do believe it might be best to kill them or lock them away indefinately, to keep the public safe. If he had been caught at age 80 and posed no more threat I'm not sure what would happen. The families would emotionally and irrationally call for justice, killing him would not achieve justice just another dead old man.
If a pilot of a bomber dropped a bomb on civilians willingly and knowingly with full ability to not bomb those civilians. (note civilian implies there can be no threat against him). I would want him to not be in a position where he could bomb people again and since he displays such characteristics it might be in public interest to take measures that he can't harm others in other ways. I would probably suggest a jail sentence but only for as long as it would take to assess whether he is a threat to others (or likely to commit other offenses) and if not then release him.
We are in the 21st century an should approach issues objectively.[/QUOTE]
First you go "I'm not saying pick who the laws applies to" then you go "if Ted Bundy would be caught at 80 I'm not certain if he should be judged in accordance with the law", and "if a bomber pilot would bomb civilians and we would be fairly certain that he hurts people only if he has a bomber at his disposal, we should not judge him in accordance with the law".
The atrocities committed by the guards at execution camps were not all ordered under the pain of death. For instance there was no penalty for shooting a prisoner without any fucking reason. These people need to go on trial, for justice. The aim isn't to put them in jail, there is no point to that. The point is to find them guilty in accordance with the law if they were committing crimes even if there is no jail sentence due to their health and age.
Either you have a law that's equal to everyone and doesn't forgive or forget or you don't. If you don't have a law that finds and judges everyone that has committed a crime, why would anyone be afraid of the law?
[QUOTE=Melnek;43995003]
They've already gotten away with it thus far, sure. But to just let them off because they were getting away all this time is retarded. Do police officers just stop chasing after bank robbers because they got away? Are all charges dropped simply because it's been a while now? In what fantasy world are you guys living in, seriously.
[/QUOTE]
[b]If the police could be sure the bank robbers will never offend again[/b] (robbing or threatening) and the society got their money back + fair compensation (read not 10000s of pounds because "i got scared") for the damage they did.
Then what would punishing them for the rest of their life serve?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43995033]
Justice is a notion going back 1000s of years. Its not about righting wrongs or stopping wrongs from happening.[/QUOTE]
yeah alright buddy
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43995038]
Either you have a law that's equal to everyone and doesn't forgive or forget or you don't. If you don't have a law that finds and judges everyone that has committed a crime, why would anyone be afraid of the law?[/QUOTE]
You shouldn't rule through fear.
If the law is the only thing stopping people from doing bad then you have a pretty scary society to begin with.
thats not to say there should be no law, but the law shouldn't be a threat it should be a guideline, people outside that guideline should be put in a postiion where they can't leave it again or have whatever caused they to leave the guideline fixed.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43995043][b]If the police could be sure the bank robbers will never offend again[/b] (robbing or threatening) and the society got their money back + fair compensation (read not 10000s of pounds because "i got scared") for the damage they did.
Then what would punishing them for the rest of their life serve?[/QUOTE]
holy shit
i didn't realize i was arguing with one of your type of people. i'm sorry.
[QUOTE=Melnek;43995003]what
How can I not say justice when it's literally the whole point of this entire thing? Their incarceration is based purely on the simple logic of 'commit crime=go to jail'. If you bring up time into the equation you've no idea how the basis of the justice system is supposed to work. It's a meaningless thing to say because it bares absolutely no relation to the concept of justice itself.
They've already gotten away with it thus far, sure. But to just let them off because they were getting away all this time is retarded. Do police officers just stop chasing after bank robbers because they got away? Are all charges dropped simply because it's been a while now? In what fantasy world are you guys living in, seriously.
As I've said, this isn't some trivial mediocre little crime they've taken part in. The world has an obligation to treat every single part of the holocaust in the most serious and just way possible and this includes persecuting those who have had something to do with based on new evidence even decades later.[/QUOTE]
Because Justice means different things to different people.
Besides, if you believe that the purpose of prison is to protect the general population and to rehabilitate criminals, then you've not a leg to stand on in this case.
Locking them up won't make the public any safer, because they're like 90 years old.
Rehabilitation is pretty much out of the question for someone that might not even require it, or might be dead before the end of the sentence.
The only argument one can make for locking these men up stems purely from vengeance. Vengeance doesn't have a place in the justice system.
I know it's hard to swallow the idea of simply letting a criminal go free because they got away with it for x length of time, but that doesn't mean anything. We only find the idea strange because we're so used to the idea of punishment following a misdemeanor; "It's how things are" isn't a very strong argument.
[editline]21st February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Melnek;43995055]holy shit
i didn't realize i was arguing with one of your type of people. i'm sorry.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should try answering the question.
[QUOTE=opti2000;43992657]Time is not a reason to pardon a crime that happened years back. Those 3 men helped in the concentration camp and also probably killed people.
Some guys here say it is senseless to imprison them and it is some kind of revenge, but no it's not. It's justice.
No difference between someone who killed anyone before 7 days / 7 months / 7 years or even 70 years and get away with it without penalty.[/QUOTE]
Convicting peoples of crimes that they 'probably' committed is only justice if that assumption is correct, making it a pretty dangerous assumption.
There are a few people in this thread who would benefit about reading about Milgram's experiment.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43995050]If the law is the only thing stopping people from doing bad then you have a pretty scary society to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the real world where a number of people doesn't hurt other people because they are afraid of getting caught and punished. As long as these people exist and until we all live in your fantasy world we have to show that the law always finds and judges you.
[QUOTE=Bazsil;43990331]But surely we must have benefited in some way from capturing/killing them.[/QUOTE]
It gives a kind of closure to the victims of concentration camps. They suffered indescribable atrocities, and suffered their entire life because of them. For them, this is justice, no matter how late it comes. I think convicting the guards is very important in that regard.
Just think about how many people the killed or helped getting killed. Why should they be able to rest at peace?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;43995120]Welcome to the real world where a number of people doesn't hurt other people because they are afraid of getting caught and punished. As long as these people exist and until we all live in your fantasy world we have to show that the law always finds and judges you.[/QUOTE]
How about instead of making things worse with revenge, make things better by addressing societies problems and stopping people wanting to commit crime in the first place. If that fails then lock them away to keep the public safe. Just don't go treating them badly because ~justice~.
There are bad people but I bet a lot of them could be avoided either through fixing the social situation they are in or addressing underlying mental issues. Then the minority who can't be fixed can just be kept away from those they can harm.
These people were likely cornered by the society that the Reich created in to doing something they really didn't want to do. It's so unlikely that even 1% of those who aided the Reich by means like this actually wanted to and enjoyed it. A persons super-ego isn't something that gets changed so quickly and makes them feel fine about doing something as bad as aiding in the murder of so many people.
These people have had the rest of their lives to think about what they've done, and I'm willing to bet that-with very, very few exceptions-they feel terrible about it. They've had close to 70 years to be shamed by society (maybe not directly, in the case of those who "ran away") and, as mentioned before, so very few of them would have enjoyed what they were doing.
What happens when you say "no" during a war?
Luckily for us Americans and Europeans (mostly) there wasn't much in the way of mass punishment. There are records of executions, of course, but they're nowhere near the number of those that were carried out by the Reich. If you were not helping them eradicate an entire people, then you were helping the enemy. I can understand that there's still some revenge lust, but that's really all this is. You're taking people who had no choice and punishing them for it. Publicly humiliating them one last time before they die. Germany is still shame faced for what it did (despite most of the people actually not being so, as it wasn't them) and is still somewhat kicked around by its victims, despite how strong a country it has grown to.
I am not saying that we should forget about what they have done. I am saying that we should be forgiving them for it. Most had no choice other than death, and you'll be hard pressed to find somebody during that time who had a such a warped ego that their id was set loose.
An entire new generation had been birthed and grown, yet this witch hunt of revenge and warped "justice" is still going on. If "justice" was actually carried out the way that an absurd amount of people wished, then there wouldn't be much left of Germany right now. There's no need to publicly denounce these people for things they had no choice in doing, especially after such a long time.
[editline]I am secretly German[/editline]
I'd also like to say that it's kick-ass how a country like Germany has become one of the most well liked in the world. As much as we British like to mock-hate them, it's actually amazing what they've achieved. I believe that there was a censure of sorts not many months ago that asked people around the world what their favorite country was, and with the exception of their own, Germany was really up there. Not relevant to the topic of discussion, but it's still badass.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.