Ex-Nazi bookeeper charged [Update: Convicted and sentenced]

[Thanas]

Aly, Flagg, I really don't think it is worth discussing this any further (Not a mod order to stop discussion, just how I feel). I believe we are in agreement on the essential points and the others largely come down to personal beliefs in when (and if) guilt can be lessened to a degree to allow mercy. But these are personal individual beliefs which we should not force others to change.

[Flagg]

I don't believe in forgiveness and I don't believe in redemption, but I do believe in rehabilitation. As for delusions, it's quite common for most people (and I've been guilty of this) to see elderly individuals as the frail, weak, and kindly seeming people they are (or pretend to be) now.

It's not unheard of for an 18 year old to commit horrible crimes, involving multiple rapes and murders and then to stop if their situation in life changes and they are not caught by police due to lack of forensic tech. They then go 70 years leading a normal life with a family and ties to the community and then due to new forensic techniques the cops show up and arrest this poor kindly 90 year old man for multiple rapes, homicides, and robberies. What's the first thing most people who know the man do? They deny he could do such a thing! When all of the evidence is presented they say, "Yeah, but look at the life he's led! Not even a speeding ticket!" So does that mean the people whose lives he took, and the damage he's done to the survivors and rape victims just goes away? Does the wonderful life he didn't deserve to live absolve him of his crimes?

I don't think so. Maybe you do, and that's fine, but I believe it's based on delusional thinking and an inability to reconcile the fact that the dottering old grandpa is also a rapist, robber, and stone cold killer. That's why I used the term delusional. I'm not saying you're a delusional person, but that I think to call a person that has committed crimes against humanity "a kindly old man" is you deluding yourself into only seeing the 90 year old man who has done a bunch of anti-Nazi stuff ever since eluding justice 70 years ago.

[Simon_Jester]

Out of curiosity, do you ever believe in the idea of factoring in any aspect of a person's life outside the crimes they commit into your evaluation of an appropriate punishment? Or do we just base the decision entirely on the nature of what the crime was, and ignore things about how they behave or live outside that specific act of criminality?

[Flagg]

Out of curiosity, do you ever believe in the idea of factoring in any aspect of a person's life outside the crimes they commit into your evaluation of an appropriate punishment? Or do we just base the decision entirely on the nature of what the crime was, and ignore things about how they behave or live outside that specific act of criminality?

Justice is supposed to be blind, last I checked. If you're guilty of a crime, you're guilty of a crime. Mitigating circumstances can be considered in sentencing.

Anyway, that last post was directed at Aly to try and explain my use of the word "delusional". I've already made clear how I feel and I'm not going to go round and round about it.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the debate here is practically all about sentencing. The degree of an SS bookkeeper's personal guilt is not really being argued over so much as whether it makes sense to punish him seventy years later.

[Purple]

Flagg, if I may ask, what in your opinion is the purpose of sentencing? Is it punishment or rehabilitation? That is to say, is the goal for the individual to be reeducated into becoming a productive and non criminal person that can than be released back into society or is it to make him suffer in revenge for the deed commuted?

[Flagg]

Well, the debate here is practically all about sentencing. The degree of an SS bookkeeper's personal guilt is not really being argued over so much as whether it makes sense to punish him seventy years later.

Already answered.

[Flagg]

Flagg, if I may ask, what in your opinion is the purpose of sentencing? Is it punishment or rehabilitation? That is to say, is the goal for the individual to be reeducated into becoming a productive and non criminal person that can than be released back into society or is it to make him suffer in revenge for the deed commuted?

The goal of sentencing is to tell the convicted what the punishment will be for the crime they have been convicted of.

[Thanas]

It is more than a bit of a strawman to suggest that whoever believes the sentence is a bit too harsh must be deluding himself because the target is an old frail man, Flagg.

[Channel72]

I don't believe in forgiveness and I don't believe in redemption, but I do believe in rehabilitation.

Forgiveness and redemption aren't some sort of nebulous "spiritual" concept. They're a reflection of how we behave towards a guilty person. If you believe in rehabilitation, what is your problem with forgiveness/redemption? Humans aren't static 3-dimensional objects. They're 4 dimensional beings with a moving world line. People often say, figuratively, "I wasn't the same person [X] years ago", but in fact that's more literal than figurative. The neural network that makes you who you are is constantly changing, mapping out new pathways, adapting to new experience, etc. Flat out saying "I don't believe in forgiveness/redemption" is sort of saying that a person is simply a snapshot of what they were at the moment they committed some crime. But that's simply not true - and that's not really a subjective matter or personal philosophy - it's just objectively not true. And this notion is pretty intuitive to most people, which is why the legal system includes things like mitigating circumstances, statutes of limitation, etc.

It's fine if your argument is something like "well, I don't believe that anyone who signed up for the SS can ever really change too much because of reasons X, Y and Z...", which I suppose is your argument for the most part. But saying something like "I don't believe in redemption/forgiveness" is pretty extreme, and is totally incongruent with the reality that human beings are constantly changing organisms.

[Purple]

Flagg, if I may ask, what in your opinion is the purpose of sentencing? Is it punishment or rehabilitation? That is to say, is the goal for the individual to be reeducated into becoming a productive and non criminal person that can than be released back into society or is it to make him suffer in revenge for the deed commuted?

The goal of sentencing is to tell the convicted what the punishment will be for the crime they have been convicted of.

Really? Really? Fine, I will reword it for you. What is the purpose of the "sentences" handed out by the criminal justice system? What is the goal said system should be attempting to achieve by handing them out?

[Flagg]

Flagg, if I may ask, what in your opinion is the purpose of sentencing? Is it punishment or rehabilitation? That is to say, is the goal for the individual to be reeducated into becoming a productive and non criminal person that can than be released back into society or is it to make him suffer in revenge for the deed commuted?

The goal of sentencing is to tell the convicted what the punishment will be for the crime they have been convicted of.

Really? Really? Fine, I will reword it for you. What is the purpose of the "sentences" handed out by the criminal justice system? What is the goal said system should be attempting to achieve by handing them out?

In the U.S. It depends on the state but generally it's just warehousing them.

I would prefer a system of rehabilitation oriented incarceration, but that has nothing to do with this thread, so I won't respond to your red herrings any further.

[Flagg]

It is more than a bit of a strawman to suggest that whoever believes the sentence is a bit too harsh must be deluding himself because the target is an old frail man, Flagg.

It's more than putting words in my mouth to suggest that's what I said. It's always a case by case basis because every situation is different. But to call someone who was in the SS and helped a death camp do its job a "kindly old man" just because he's 90 is delusional thinking IMO, and I've never said it was anything other than my opinion. I also said that I believe everyone is susceptible to it, including myself. I think it's just human nature.

[Flagg]

I don't believe in forgiveness and I don't believe in redemption, but I do believe in rehabilitation.

Forgiveness and redemption aren't some sort of nebulous "spiritual" concept. They're a reflection of how we behave towards a guilty person. If you believe in rehabilitation, what is your problem with forgiveness/redemption? Humans aren't static 3-dimensional objects. They're 4 dimensional beings with a moving world line. People often say, figuratively, "I wasn't the same person [X] years ago", but in fact that's more literal than figurative. The neural network that makes you who you are is constantly changing, mapping out new pathways, adapting to new experience, etc. Flat out saying "I don't believe in forgiveness/redemption" is sort of saying that a person is simply a snapshot of what they were at the moment they committed some crime. But that's simply not true - and that's not really a subjective matter or personal philosophy - it's just objectively not true. And this notion is pretty intuitive to most people, which is why the legal system includes things like mitigating circumstances, statutes of limitation, etc.

It's fine if your argument is something like "well, I don't believe that anyone who signed up for the SS can ever really change too much because of reasons X, Y and Z...", which I suppose is your argument for the most part. But saying something like "I don't believe in redemption/forgiveness" is pretty extreme, and is totally incongruent with the reality that human beings are constantly changing organisms.

I didn't say that I don't believe concepts like forgiveness and redemption are real, I simply that that I don't believe in them. AKA "Those are not things I do normally."

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the debate here is practically all about sentencing. The degree of an SS bookkeeper's personal guilt is not really being argued over so much as whether it makes sense to punish him seventy years later.

Already answered.

Well, yes. You've stated your position on the issue. I am not, at this time, directly speaking about it one way or the other.

I'm simply noting that it is entirely fitting and proper to treat this issue as a problem of sentencing. And that you yourself just said that it can be proper to use "what kind of life the defendant lives" as a factor in a sentencing decision.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, the debate here is practically all about sentencing. The degree of an SS bookkeeper's personal guilt is not really being argued over so much as whether it makes sense to punish him seventy years later.

Already answered.

Well, yes. You have in fact stated your position on the issue. I'm not addressing it at this time.

I'm simply observing that:
1) This is almost entirely a question of sentencing, not about personal guilt. We all agree he's guilty of something, something horrible.
2) You yourself have just said that when it comes to sentencing, it is appropriate to factor in questions about the defendant's lifestyle, background, and behavior since the time they committed the crime.

That is all, so far.

It's more than putting words in my mouth to suggest that's what I said. It's always a case by case basis because every situation is different. But to call someone who was in the SS and helped a death camp do its job a "kindly old man" just because he's 90 is delusional thinking IMO, and I've never said it was anything other than my opinion...

Indeed. Him being 90 just means he's an old man. He could be a dirty old man, a stupid old man, a crotchety old man, a vicious old man, a surprisingly healthy old man, or any other number of descriptors.

Whether he is 'kindly' would depend on questions other than how old he is.

Could any evidence establish that he is 'kindly?' Or is it simply impossible for any person who ever willingly affiliated with the SS to ever become kindly in later life?

[Flagg]

Well, the debate here is practically all about sentencing. The degree of an SS bookkeeper's personal guilt is not really being argued over so much as whether it makes sense to punish him seventy years later.

Already answered.

Well, yes. You have in fact stated your position on the issue. I'm not addressing it at this time.

I'm simply observing that:
1) This is almost entirely a question of sentencing, not about personal guilt. We all agree he's guilty of something, something horrible.
2) You yourself have just said that when it comes to sentencing, it is appropriate to factor in questions about the defendant's lifestyle, background, and behavior since the time they committed the crime.

That is all, so far.

It's more than putting words in my mouth to suggest that's what I said. It's always a case by case basis because every situation is different. But to call someone who was in the SS and helped a death camp do its job a "kindly old man" just because he's 90 is delusional thinking IMO, and I've never said it was anything other than my opinion...

Indeed. Him being 90 just means he's an old man. He could be a dirty old man, a stupid old man, a crotchety old man, a vicious old man, a surprisingly healthy old man, or any other number of descriptors.

Whether he is 'kindly' would depend on questions other than how old he is.

Could any evidence establish that he is 'kindly?' Or is it simply impossible for any person who ever willingly affiliated with the SS to ever become kindly in later life?

I take issue with anyone who participated in Hitler's "final solution" being described as a kindly old man as I don't believe anyone who participated in such hateful atrocities has any kindness within them worth noting.

And I never said that how a person lived after they successfully eluded law enforcement for 70 years after robbing, raping, and killing in their youth. Because they had no right to that time in the first place, as far as I'm concerned. I was speaking generally about mitigating circumstances being a factor in sentencing as opposed to in determining guilt. Sorry about the confusion.

[Channel72]

There's definitely some kind of "moral event horizon" that most people subscribe to - it's just highly variable and subjective. But it's usually pretty easy to identify the extremities. I mean, as a simple though experiment, if Josef Mengele publicly apologized and then spent the entire latter half of the 20th century actively campaigning against Neo-Nazism and Holocaust denial, it would still be pretty much impossible to forgive him no matter what. In fact, it would be really, really hard not to spontaneously try and bash his skull in with the nearest rock. But Groening was certainly no Josef Mengele, and his latter life decisions redeem him in my eyes, at least. I guess that's why we use the jury system in the US.

[Purple]

I would prefer a system of rehabilitation oriented incarceration, but that has nothing to do with this thread, so I won't respond to your red herrings any further.

It's not a bloody red herring. It is an important question. You just fail to see it. The point you see is simple. You say you believe in rehabilitation but your behavior here demonstrates that you do not. For this person is a textbook example of someone who has been rehabilitated already. The only possible reason left to sentence him in any way is punishment. And you repeatedly demand not only that this be done but that it be harsh.

[Thanas]

It is more than a bit of a strawman to suggest that whoever believes the sentence is a bit too harsh must be deluding himself because the target is an old frail man, Flagg.

It's more than putting words in my mouth to suggest that's what I said./quote]

It is exactly what you said.

Maybe you do, and that's fine, but I believe it's based on delusional thinking and an inability to reconcile the fact that the dottering old grandpa is also a rapist, robber, and stone cold killer.

[Flagg]

It is more than a bit of a strawman to suggest that whoever believes the sentence is a bit too harsh must be deluding himself because the target is an old frail man, Flagg.

It's more than putting words in my mouth to suggest that's what I said.

It is exactly what you said.

Maybe you do, and that's fine, but I believe it's based on delusional thinking and an inability to reconcile the fact that the dottering old grandpa is also a rapist, robber, and stone cold killer.

I wasn't talking about the sentence handed down to the SS guy.

I was talking about a hypothetical situation where a 20 year old commits a horrible series of crimes, stops for whatever reason, and is then caught using new forensic tech 70 years later and how due to human nature we tend to delude ourselves (some more than others) into thinking that because they've led a "clean" life for 70 years they either couldn't have possibly done the crimes in their youth, or that they should be absolved or that they should have a drastically reduced sentence.

[LaCroix]

I wasn't talking about the sentence handed down to the SS guy.

I was talking about a hypothetical situation where a 20 year old commits a horrible series of crimes, stops for whatever reason, and is then caught using new forensic tech 70 years later and how due to human nature we tend to delude ourselves (some more than others) into thinking that because they've led a "clean" life for 70 years they either couldn't have possibly done the crimes in their youth, or that they should be absolved or that they should have a drastically reduced sentence.

Which wasn't the case, here. This particular man was always upfront about his past, never hid from the authorities, and actively faught against neonazi and holocaust denial. He didn't evade justice or was only caught 70 years later. He, as an accountant, just wasn't guilty of anything according to the law. This law (or better, the interpretation of it) changed, and he was charged. He never tried to fight the charges or denied his guilt. Your hypotetical couldn't have been any further from what we were discussing.

[Jub]

There's definitely some kind of "moral event horizon" that most people subscribe to - it's just highly variable and subjective. But it's usually pretty easy to identify the extremities. I mean, as a simple though experiment, if Josef Mengele publicly apologized and then spent the entire latter half of the 20th century actively campaigning against Neo-Nazism and Holocaust denial, it would still be pretty much impossible to forgive him no matter what. In fact, it would be really, really hard not to spontaneously try and bash his skull in with the nearest rock. But Groening was certainly no Josef Mengele, and his latter life decisions redeem him in my eyes, at least. I guess that's why we use the jury system in the US.

What if we advanced far enough that we could 'cure' the kind of dangerous behaviors of a person like Mengele through some form of counseling and medication in a matter of weeks with the treatment bringing them to at least the mean likelihood of committing any further offense? Would you hold actions taken by a 'sick' person against them after they've been cured? Should they still be locked up beyond the time the treatment takes as punishment for actions taken by an essentially different person?

How does this moral event horizon work when you assume that even the worst person can be changed for the better?

[salm]

What if we advanced far enough that we could 'cure' the kind of dangerous behaviors of a person like Mengele through some form of counseling and medication in a matter of weeks with the treatment bringing them to at least the mean likelihood of committing any further offense? Would you hold actions taken by a 'sick' person against them after they've been cured? Should they still be locked up beyond the time the treatment takes as punishment for actions taken by an essentially different person?

How does this moral event horizon work when you assume that even the worst person can be changed for the better?

If you want to rehabilitate instead of punish it would be logical to release Mengele after this therapy. But there is also the question of deterrence which most people find to be a useful tool and which would be a reason to keep him locked up for longer than the therapy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Is deterrence really worth anything? Their seems to be a great deal of crime despite the possibility of prison. Hell, there was a great deal of crime back in the days when theft could mean execution. And this seems especially true in a case like Mengele, where they had the backing of their state and were probably a fanatic who fully believed in what they were doing.

As far as I see, the reasons for keeping someone like that imprisoned forever, besides simple vengeance, are two-fold: to ensure that they can never hurt anyone again, and to make a statement that society does not condone their actions. If we could be sure, somehow, that the person was reformed and would not do anything horrible and illegal again (hypothetically, because I'd never be confident enough of that to let someone like Mengele lose short of God himself saying it was so), then only the last one would stand.

Edit: Mind you, you can argue that the last one alone is reason enough, especially for something so heinous.