man charged with 28000 murders
Discussion
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
15yrs maximum sentence! i agree with his son, farcical.
15yrs maximum sentence! i agree with his son, farcical.
I've always understood that "punishing" somebody for a crime was done for 2 reasons;
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
G_T said:
I've always understood that "punishing" somebody for a crime was done for 2 reasons;
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
If some of your relatives died in the holocaust you probably wouldn't be saying that.(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
thunderTS said:
G_T said:
I've always understood that "punishing" somebody for a crime was done for 2 reasons;
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
If some of your relatives died in the holocaust you probably wouldn't be saying that.(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
shirt said:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
15yrs maximum sentence! i agree with his son, farcical.
For a moment i though i was going to see a photo of Blair and Bush...15yrs maximum sentence! i agree with his son, farcical.
thunderTS said:
Course it does.
What your saying is if the crime was a long time ago and the criminal is old then it doesn't matter, they have learnt their lesson.
I'm not saying that as such. I am however suggesting that this is not "Justice". What your saying is if the crime was a long time ago and the criminal is old then it doesn't matter, they have learnt their lesson.
There's no potential for him to recommit the crime. The victims families are probably not even aware of his existence or may no longer even be alive. There is also no need to sentence this man "as a warning to others" with ladening the point further.
What happened in those days was horrific but I can see no point in sentencing this elderly man for anything other than vengeance. Especially if the evidence is anything but completely air-tight which I suspect it probably isn't.
This, IMO, is not "justice". It is simply using the legal system to satisfy a vendetta which, moral highground or not, should not be the purpose of the legal system.
It's just my two pence anyway. I mean no offence.
G_T said:
thunderTS said:
Course it does.
What your saying is if the crime was a long time ago and the criminal is old then it doesn't matter, they have learnt their lesson.
I'm not saying that as such. I am however suggesting that this is not "Justice". What your saying is if the crime was a long time ago and the criminal is old then it doesn't matter, they have learnt their lesson.
There's no potential for him to recommit the crime. The victims families are probably not even aware of his existence or may no longer even be alive. There is also no need to sentence this man "as a warning to others" with ladening the point further.
What happened in those days was horrific but I can see no point in sentencing this elderly man for anything other than vengeance. Especially if the evidence is anything but completely air-tight which I suspect it probably isn't.
This, IMO, is not "justice". It is simply using the legal system to satisfy a vendetta which, moral highground or not, should not be the purpose of the legal system.
It's just my two pence anyway. I mean no offence.
Its just like saying if someone you know was murdered and from a DNA break-through they caught the murderer when he was 85 years old dying of cancer; would you say he should not be tried in court?
G_T said:
I've always understood that "punishing" somebody for a crime was done for 2 reasons;
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
You understand wrong.(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
It's simply punishment for breaking the law. Of course incarceration should discourage repeat offending, but that's a side effect. Oh, it has naff all to do with the victims.
thunderTS said:
Its just like saying if someone you know was murdered and from a DNA break-through they caught the murderer when he was 85 years old dying of cancer; would you say he should not be tried in court?
I don't think thats a fair anology. Did this man actually murder someone first hand? Or was he simply involved? If he was involved, then who did he kill? Does anybody actually know, even rough numbers? If they do, is there anybody left who knew the deceased?
It's really not the same. Those involved in the holocaust, albeit morally abhorrent, did not commit the same crime as a murderer. Although I suspect in many ways their crime was worse.
hornetrider said:
You understand wrong.
It's simply punishment for breaking the law. Of course incarceration should discourage repeat offending, but that's a side effect. Oh, it has naff all to do with the victims.
Then it isn't justice. Which is my point. It's simply punishment for breaking the law. Of course incarceration should discourage repeat offending, but that's a side effect. Oh, it has naff all to do with the victims.
These trials are held under the guise of "bringing someone to justice", I fail to see what justice can possibly be had now that the human element has effectively been removed. All that's left is as an act of vengeance which benefits nobody.
He is a frail old man and his victims are long dead. This isn't like a murder in that there is no message to be made that hasn't been done already. I see no benefit to the world at large which is why I think, he should be tried, but punishment seems both unnecessary and largely irrelevent. Again, in my opinion.
Justayellowbadge said:
Why is punishment for a crime not justice?
I have rarely heard anything less well thought through.
I have rarely heard anything less well thought through.
I think this is a side issue but of course it isn't the same thing. Justice infers that morality is satisfied. A punishment is simply a sentence handed by a judge.
For example; a judge giving a child murder a six month suspended sentence or at the other end of the spectrum issuing a 4 year prison term for speeding. Neither of two is really justice as they are not morally balanced. Then if you take the time to assess why they are not morally balanced you always get back to the human issue. Which, as I've said, has become largely non-existent in this case.
Anyway, that aside to take the time to explain my position. I am suggesting that this does not satisfy "utilitarian justice". Because giving a 15 year sentence to this particular criminal is effectively pointless for society at large. I am instead suggesting that the only purpose of this exercise is "retributive", i.e. Tit-for-tat. Which again, I believe, in benefits nobody in this instance.
I've probably explained that last bit poorly but I'm taking a more "Fyodor Dostoyevsky"/utilitarian, line to the whole business and I am only going on what I've read in the article and what I know. There could certainly be information out there that would mean I'm incorrect.
G_T said:
thunderTS said:
Its just like saying if someone you know was murdered and from a DNA break-through they caught the murderer when he was 85 years old dying of cancer; would you say he should not be tried in court?
I don't think thats a fair anology. Did this man actually murder someone first hand? Or was he simply involved? If he was involved, then who did he kill? Does anybody actually know, even rough numbers? If they do, is there anybody left who knew the deceased?
It's really not the same. Those involved in the holocaust, albeit morally abhorrent, did not commit the same crime as a murderer. Although I suspect in many ways their crime was worse.
hornetrider said:
You understand wrong.
It's simply punishment for breaking the law. Of course incarceration should discourage repeat offending, but that's a side effect. Oh, it has naff all to do with the victims.
Then it isn't justice. Which is my point. It's simply punishment for breaking the law. Of course incarceration should discourage repeat offending, but that's a side effect. Oh, it has naff all to do with the victims.
These trials are held under the guise of "bringing someone to justice", I fail to see what justice can possibly be had now that the human element has effectively been removed. All that's left is as an act of vengeance which benefits nobody.
He is a frail old man and his victims are long dead. This isn't like a murder in that there is no message to be made that hasn't been done already. I see no benefit to the world at large which is why I think, he should be tried, but punishment seems both unnecessary and largely irrelevent. Again, in my opinion.
I still don't understand your arguement that because it was a long time ago the guy shouldn't be punished? Of course there will still be people around that knew the deceased.
thunderTS said:
Of course there will still be people around that knew the deceased.
If that's true, and they can be sure the killer was reponsible, then basically my arguement falls apart. I think I've come across as a bit of an a
hole here and I think I'd rather step aside than continue to dig myself in.In my defence I was just wanting to explore the issue further but I've become seriously sidetracked and you're absolute correct my arguement is flawed. Indeed perhaps there is no arguement in defence of not sentencing the accused.
G_T said:
thunderTS said:
G_T said:
I've always understood that "punishing" somebody for a crime was done for 2 reasons;
(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
If some of your relatives died in the holocaust you probably wouldn't be saying that.(1) To try to prevent the offender doing it again, and;
(2) To alleviate the suffering of the victims.
I fail to see how sentencing an 89 year old man for a crime committed 60 years ago will accomplish either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff