Romanian Communist prison commander gets 20-year final jail sentence for crimes against humanity
83 replies, posted
[QUOTE=elowin;49713060]Because in order to intentionally kill someone for no reason you must be pretty fucked in the head and should get rehabilitated so you hopefully wont do it again. Preferably you should be getting some kind of psychological treatment as well as the jail sentence.[/QUOTE]
Psychology doesn't work on a person with a criminal mindset
and besides it's not like we only prosecute war criminals based solely on their current threat to society. i mean if he was able to segue into a peaceful life apparently pretty smoothly, he couldn't have been a whole lot more dangerous immediately following the regime's collapse than he is now, right? i mean without his prison camp and armed guards and regime backing him up he was pretty much a closeted sociopath like any other, that's not something that only happened when he turned 90.
so would we still find the tribunal pointless if it happened immediately after the regime collapsed and he was no longer capable of committing crimes against humanity, or does the pathetic and circuitous nature of so many war criminals just seem more obvious to us when they're old?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49712114]Who gives a shit, he'll get the punishment he deserves.[/QUOTE]Why do you always have a hard-on for revenge?
[QUOTE=Feuver;49711801]There's a difference in social culture and norms between now and 50 years ago, let alone 70. Yeah, this guy committed atrocities, but during the USSR era, this was kind of the norm of Goulags - terrible forced labor with barely any living facilities. You can't just expect him to have made it a fun camp where everyone was well fed and had nice beds, this just wasn't how things operated back then. He's 91, killing him off in a prison is a vindictive act with almost no value whatsoever. He isn't a danger to humanity anymore, nor is he still running prisons.
I mean, sure, you can keep a narrow-sighted view and call a Nazi sympathizer in the 40s a nazi today, but don't you think that would be stretching it?[/QUOTE]
Social norms and government policies aren't the same thing.
You really think the society of Romania approved of gulags, political imprisonment and torture?
[QUOTE=GunFox;49711905]Criminal justice systems aren't about revenge.
Clearly in the decades since he hasn't proven to be a threat to society. Incarceration serves zero purpose.[/QUOTE]
The idea is to send a message that crimes against humanity aren't acceptable.
I don't feel sorry for the guy btw, i just don't see the point. It's kind of pathetic.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49713598]The idea is to send a message that crimes against humanity aren't acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, crimes against humanity stem from ambitions that far overshadow any message.
This is not going to prevent the next Hitler or anything.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49713039]Imagine me killing a person (without any other reason), out of the blue, then continue on living my life as if nothing happened and not doing anything remotely criminal for the rest of my life
Do I deserve jail time? I mean, I function pretty normally in every day life, why should I go to jail then?
[editline]10th February 2016[/editline]
People heavily miss the point of prisons. They serve as punishment first, rehabilitation second, not exclusively the latter, and preferably not exlusively the former.[/QUOTE]
Uhm, a pretty normal life? I'm sure that everyone knew what he did and that he had to be very careful where he went and how he lived his life. I doubt he was able to live life like a free man that everyone loves.
Also, do we really have to give more proof that prisons as punishment doesn't work?
[QUOTE=EdvardSchnitz;49711846]Auschwitz guard? "He is so old, what is the point? He didn't have a choice then!"
But Communist Commander? "Age does not matter, throw him in a cell!"[/QUOTE]
was about to post this.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49711850]I don't care about age for either of them. Crime does not go away with the years.[/QUOTE]
that's good, but you gotta recognize it's odd the sheer amount who defend the arrest of the communist guy compared to most opposing the arrest of the nazi guys(it wasn't just one).
[QUOTE=Fantastical;49711651][URL="http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-communist-torturer-to-spend-20-years-in-prison-for-crimes-against-humanity/164799/"]Source[/URL]
[IMG]http://www.dailybusiness.ro/imgs/uploads/articles/35/51f1033924656.jpg[/IMG]
The gulag he ran. Dunno how soon he'll die, but glad his last years of life are gonna be shit.[/QUOTE]
did it look like that when he ran it maybe a picture from then would be nice
I'm always trying to figure out who's jurisdiction it is to arrest people for crimes that aren't against the law, and weren't applicable to the laws at the time.
Who's the retroactively appointed judge and jury here, who's even got the authority to do this without themselves being a bit of an arbitrarily appointed position
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49712114]Who gives a shit, he'll get the punishment he deserves.[/QUOTE]
Nice revenge fetish you've got there.
should've been done earlier but i mean he's old what's the point, he'll die within a few years. he deserves the sentence obviously but in my opinion i think it's just a waste of time to imprison him with what little life he has left. should have been done way earlier though, i don't know why it's this late.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49711803]I will never fucking understand this pants-on-head retarded argument.
"He's old now so he's automatically absolved of all of his crimes", good god, what kind of line of thinking is that?
So I'll go out and kill someone, and just wait a heck of a long time, and then when I'm super old they'll go "aww shoot looks like he's too old!".[/QUOTE]
Well the thinking behind it is the mindset that prisons exist to re-intergrate criminals into society or keep them out of it if they are dangerous, not to punish.
Personally, I agree with it. He isn't actively threatening anyone, his crimes were an action of the times, and he has already re-intergrated into society.
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49713089]Psychology doesn't work on a person with a criminal mindset[/QUOTE]
But that's wrong. Look at Sweden's re-incarceration rate. It's low as hell, almost nonexistent.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49717731]I'm always trying to figure out who's jurisdiction it is to arrest people for crimes that aren't against the law, and weren't applicable to the laws at the time.
Who's the retroactively appointed judge and jury here, who's even got the authority to do this without themselves being a bit of an arbitrarily appointed position[/QUOTE]
If we are really going to go radically relativist like that then why shouldn't we have such laws? More to the point, why can't it be the case that such a sentence is meant to discourage people from acting against basic morality independent of government. Sure it is a strange law and thing to uphold in the face of law, but it is still a moral being upheld. To not punish someone like this is to say "It's okay so long as you get away with it - have a stable government."
[QUOTE=GunFox;49717221]YOU CANNOT PLACE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THAT WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN THEY DID THEM[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure crimes against humanity were on the books when this guy did what he did.
And even if they weren't, and even if what he did was sanctioned by his government, it was still morally reprehensible and unforgivable.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;49717993]I'm pretty sure crimes against humanity were on the books when this guy did what he did.
And even if they weren't, and even if what he did was sanctioned by his government, it was still morally reprehensible and unforgivable.[/QUOTE]
Morally reprehensible.
What does that mean unless you define every term, and you define morality in every situation. Theoretically we could make laws to charge the morally reprehensible acts of people who currently have committed no crimes.
I just can't get behind such a vague statement for a legal system
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49711850]I don't care about age for either of them. Crime does not go away with the years.[/QUOTE]
Statute of limitations says otherwise (maybe not in this instance).
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;49717924]If we are really going to go radically relativist like that then why shouldn't we have such laws? More to the point, why can't it be the case that such a sentence is meant to discourage people from acting against basic morality independent of government. Sure it is a strange law and thing to uphold in the face of law, but it is still a moral being upheld. To not punish someone like this is to say "It's okay so long as you get away with it - have a stable government."[/QUOTE]
I don't have the answers to this, its a moral quandary. How does one determine which crimes carry what weights? What jury of his peers can judge him? I think what he did was wrong for sure, but he was also following orders, so to what degree is he guilty? A trial isn't the part that gives me worries, it's the ability to retroactively re determine what guilt is that bothers me in a lot of ways.
Send him to jail I guess. It's just weird beyond that
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49718051]Morally reprehensible.
What does that mean unless you define every term, and you define morality in every situation. Theoretically we could make laws to charge the morally reprehensible acts of people who currently have committed no crimes.
I just can't get behind such a vague statement for a legal system[/QUOTE]
I never meant to imply that it was a legal term, or should be used as one.
When I say "morally reprehensible", I mean vicious, cowardly, cruel, disgusting and utterly inhuman. Those words reflect my sentiment towards the offender. My sentiment has no bearing on the legal system. I am only saying that I have zero sympathy for this person.
He tortured and killed fellow human beings. Anyone who willfully strips and degrades the value and dignity from a human life deserves whatever the justice system gives them.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49718078]I don't have the answers to this, its a moral quandary. How does one determine which crimes carry what weights? What jury of his peers can judge him? I think what he did was wrong for sure, but he was also following orders, so to what degree is he guilty? A trial isn't the part that gives me worries, it's the ability to retroactively re determine what guilt is that bothers me in a lot of ways.
Send him to jail I guess. It's just weird beyond that[/QUOTE]
Some people argue that basic reason begets principles for action independent of subjective reasons. Nagel for example argues that altruism is dependent on the basic reasonable assumption of non-solipsism, both of the temporal individual and between different individuals. The assumption that you are an existing person across time and that, furthermore, there are others with that quality.
All this moral theory doesn't really get at what you are asking however because what you are asking is essentially
"What are we to make of the fact that a person, totally morally and legally convinced, can later be reprimanded for his conviction?"
What I say about that is that it basically sums up to a team mentality. To pick and accept a certain mentality is to take the responsibility that comes with it. One can either maintain he is justified, or renounce his beliefs. In the former case he can reasonably be reprimanded on the grounds that he is a fundamental different belief system incompatible with current society, and therefore he too must accept his punishment on the grounds that he knows he is an enemy of current law or morality. In the latter case he still can be reasonably reprimanded on the grounds that what is being denounced is not the person but the "other team". The other system of morality is being denounced and, generally speaking, when such judgements occur, much reasoning will be given for their moral superiority.
Of course sheer force of power can force this issue. Therefore it seems that, unfortunately, might still does make some right, and the victor does write his own volume of history. What seems to be the case then is that all this progress is tending towards some system that will either collapse entirely, along with humanity, or otherwise endure. In the end the final victor will be able to write the nice and naughty list of whoever is still around to be remembered and judged.
[quote][IMG]http://www.dailybusiness.ro/imgs/uploads/articles/35/51f1033924656.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
1. That picture looks like Nova Prospekt, so I guess Valve did some good research on eastern european prisons
2. I wonder what the unique factor is about the Romanians with communism; not all former soviet block countries executed party members, but Romania wasted no time in executing Ceausescu on TV. In Russia, for example, the communist party is still around (not the same one), and is the 2nd largest in the country. The former party members and governors ended up in Yeltsin's new government (including Yeltsin himself)
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49718272]1. That picture looks like Nova Prospekt, so I guess Valve did some good research on eastern european prisons
2. I wonder what the unique factor is about the Romanians with communism; not all former soviet block countries executed party members, but Romania wasted no time in executing Ceausescu on TV. In Russia, for example, the communist party is still around (not the same one), and is the 2nd largest in the country. The former party members and governors ended up in Yeltsin's new government (including Yeltsin himself)[/QUOTE]
The communists stuck around under different labels, and the effect of their corruption is still evident in many parts of the Romanian bureaucracy. Communism fucked shit up, and destroyed the hopes and dreams of a lot of people.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49717221]Following the end of a conflict, you set terms with your opponent on exactly what happens. Which prisoners stay where and all that mess. The rank and file are generally sent home and the officers may or may not be kept. The ones kept are placed on trial, but honestly the trial is a sham. Just execute them and call it a day. It isn't justice, it is revenge, but at least it generally doesn't pretend.
Then you have what is happening here. This isn't at the end of a conflict. This was a guy doing his job. It was likely sanctioned entirely by the government he operated under. Now you have placed a guy on trial for doing something that was legal when he did it. You have put forth a civilian trial. This is a fucking lie and an insult to justice systems everywhere. YOU CANNOT PLACE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THAT WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN THEY DID THEM.
This means no going after old Nazis. No old communists. Shit is over. Done. The justice system is supposed to operate with rules and limitations because without them it is tyranny. When you place people on trial for crimes that weren't actually crimes, it is tyranny. No matter how good you feel about it.
[editline]10th February 2016[/editline]
Wouldn't affect this. He was adhering to orders. The famous Milgram experiment stemmed from this. Orders from an authority figure are shockingly powerful.[/QUOTE]
Starving people to death in a prison cell wasn't legal even under communist regime. It's just that by the power of hipocrisy and totalitarianism combined it never mattered.
Why are you so hell-bent on excusing someone who committed crimes against humanity? Yes, this trial is probably to placate the families of victims. People want to believe that a modern democracy is just, that actions have consequences and committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY has consequences too. People who have done such things living comfortably on a pension they earned doing these deeds does nothing to reinforce people's trust in the legal system or any notion of fairness, which should be the basis of democracy. And, again, this is not a random mook who stood around with gun in hand while human rights abuses happened, this is one of the men in charge who MADE those abuses HAPPEN and MADE others CARRY THEM OUT on his behalf.
[QUOTE=GunFox;49711905]Criminal justice systems aren't about revenge.
[/QUOTE]
this literally isn't true
where do people get this really weird idea of criminal justice from
you do realise that criminal justice is a split between rehabilitation and retribution
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;49717221]Following the end of a conflict, you set terms with your opponent on exactly what happens. Which prisoners stay where and all that mess. The rank and file are generally sent home and the officers may or may not be kept. The ones kept are placed on trial, but honestly the trial is a sham. Just execute them and call it a day. It isn't justice, it is revenge, but at least it generally doesn't pretend.
Then you have what is happening here. This isn't at the end of a conflict. This was a guy doing his job. It was likely sanctioned entirely by the government he operated under. Now you have placed a guy on trial for doing something that was legal when he did it. You have put forth a civilian trial. This is a fucking lie and an insult to justice systems everywhere. YOU CANNOT PLACE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THAT WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN THEY DID THEM.
This means no going after old Nazis. No old communists. Shit is over. Done. The justice system is supposed to operate with rules and limitations because without them it is tyranny. When you place people on trial for crimes that weren't actually crimes, it is tyranny. No matter how good you feel about it.
[editline]10th February 2016[/editline]
Wouldn't affect this. He was adhering to orders. The famous Milgram experiment stemmed from this. Orders from an authority figure are shockingly powerful.[/QUOTE]
[quote]YOU CANNOT PLACE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THAT WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN THEY DID THEM.[/quote]
illegal where?
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what crimes against humanity actually are
('this was a guy doing his job' is a defence that does not work in the context of crimes against humanity. you're not charging a guy for how well or badly he did his job, you're charging him for lacking the moral character to stand against the atrocities he was committing)
(also milgram is patently inapplicable to acts such as this and other atrocities, as specified right in the wikipedia article. note: orders from [I]scientific[/I] authority figures in the [I]context of an experiment where the subject is assured there would be no repercussions or consequence[/I] are powerful)
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;49717791]Nice revenge fetish you've got there.[/QUOTE]
what zillamaster posted is LITERALLY the definition of justice
you think you're taking a moral stance on this - you're not, you've just got a critical misinterpretation of justice
in posting "he'll get the punishment he deserves", zillamaster is literally saying "he'll receive justice"
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
what you guys are describing is some sort of extremist form of rehabilitative justice that doesn't exist
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;49719371]what zillamaster posted is LITERALLY the definition of justice
you think you're taking a moral stance on this - you're not, you've just got a critical misinterpretation of justice
in posting "he'll get the punishment he deserves", zillamaster is literally saying "he'll receive justice"[/QUOTE]
Zilla replied to a post saying this guy will die in prison, claiming it as punishment he deserves.
Being satisfied someone will die in prison is justice? I am simple minded but yeah, still finding it pretty weird.
You won't be reforming him, he's way past that. You aren't showing you are strong to the other people that did this crime, since they would all be around a similar age and clearly aren't going to go out and reoffend if they haven't been caught doing so already, this isn't paying back to the community, most of the community he would have been affecting would be dead now, or well into their 90s or 100s.
Just seeming like retribution to me, which doesn't seem like justice. Seems more like the aforementioned revenge fetish.
So if a mass shooter gets wounded and paralyzed he should face no jailtime as he's no threat?
[QUOTE=GunFox;49717221]YOU CANNOT PLACE PEOPLE ON TRIAL FOR THINGS THAT WEREN'T ILLEGAL WHEN THEY DID THEM.
This means no going after old Nazis. No old communists. Shit is over. Done. The justice system is supposed to operate with rules and limitations because without them it is tyranny. When you place people on trial for crimes that weren't actually crimes, it is tyranny. No matter how good you feel about it.[/QUOTE]
So if Hitler had fled to Argentina (like some conspiracy theorists allege) and he lived comfortably there into his 90s before being caught, would he be let off scot-free on account of his advanced age?
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;49711850]I don't care about age for either of them. Crime does not go away with the years.[/QUOTE]
Age of the times does though...
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;49713089]Psychology doesn't work on a person with a criminal mindset[/QUOTE]
What in actual fuck?
[QUOTE=Tomo Takino;49719551]Zilla replied to a post saying this guy will die in prison, claiming it as punishment he deserves.
Being satisfied someone will die in prison is justice? I am simple minded but yeah, still finding it pretty weird.
You won't be reforming him, he's way past that. You aren't showing you are strong to the other people that did this crime, since they would all be around a similar age and clearly aren't going to go out and reoffend if they haven't been caught doing so already, this isn't paying back to the community, most of the community he would have been affecting would be dead now, or well into their 90s or 100s.
Just seeming like retribution to me, which doesn't seem like justice. Seems more like the aforementioned revenge fetish.[/QUOTE]
retribution is an inherent part of justice
if that doesn't seem like justice to you, then you have a definition of justice which differs from the definition used in criminal justice systems
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
retribution in this sense being "bad deeds lead to bad outcomes" - there is no pragmatic need for it in this case, other than to reinforce "bad deeds leading to bad outcomes": to get what is coming to you, is widely accepted as justice
[editline]11th February 2016[/editline]
like it or not, justice cannot be considered as such without both rehabilitative aspects and retributive
in this instance, it is the sense that this man committed crimes of such disgusting moral distortion, that he must suffer punishment as a result otherwise [B]he did morally perverse actions but evaded punishment - despite people knowing that he did it. Is that justice?[/B]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
