Support NeoGAF

[Prologue]

Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation and the safety of society, not revenge. He poses no danger to anyone and it seems he has been rehabilitated already. Sending him to prison at 96 years of age is wrong. It shows cruelty and vindictiveness which may be desirable by some as payback but it's not how a civilized society should function.

.

 

[Drencrom]

I hope he'll be able to talk more about what happened at Auschwitz in videos from prison to counter holocaust deniers and to generally gives us a clearer picture what happened there. Not a lot of people that were there live anymore and he's important in that regard.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

How many people sticking up for this SS officer go to fucking town when it comes to threads about other people who have escaped 'timely' justice like Roman Polanski?

 

[David___]

You tell me.

Honestly, guess.

EDIT: Sorry, these are just too amazing to not share

 

[Westbahnhof]

Like all those he helped wipe out from existence in excruciating and inhumane fashion?

He deserves no right to die in peace

What do you think should be done to him, actually?
A prison sentence in Germany will not make his end any less peaceful.
If he feels like he finally got what he deserved, he may even die more peacefully.

 

[Sylas]

Like all those he helped wipe out from existence in excruciating and inhumane fashion?

He deserves no right to die in peace

He's going to die quietly and in a facility with proper healthcare regardless. Peace is subjective, but objectively he's going to be comfortable. Are you advocating he dies how my great grandparents did?

 

[D4Danger]

what better symbol that the holocaust happened than bringing to justice those who committed the crimes

 

[excelsiorlef]

Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation and the safety of society, not revenge. He poses no danger to anyone and it seems he has been rehabilitated already. Sending him to prison at 96 years of age is wrong. It shows cruelty and vindictiveness which may be desirable by some as payback but it's not how a civilized society should function.

He literally helped commit genocide!

This isn't even revenge, this is proper justice.

 

[Vital Tundra]

On one hand he's an old fucking guy. On the other I feel he should have been in prison for the rest of his life since the end of the war. He got off easy.

 

[iapetus]

This thread seems increasingly full of personal nastiness, shoddy straw man arguments and inability to read. Please can we all try to keep the discussion civil?

 

[LegitMcfalls]

What do you think should be done to him, actually?
A prison sentence in Germany will not make his end any less peaceful.
If he feels like he finally got what he deserved, he may even die more peacefully.

If he goes to prison he may die peacfully there but will have better health care than most americans too!

 

[zoukka]

A prison sentence in Germany will not make his end any less peaceful.

Of course it will come on. It's not US, but the prison is still a fucking grim place to be.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Obviously all of them do, but you're the one that bizarrely defined all law enforcement to be based on retribution. This is a meaningless point without first establishing that is true, which will be difficult because it patently isn't.

I disagree, at least with respect to the intent of society in setting up law enforcement.

Here's an experiment: criminal justice/law enforcement is about rehabilitation. Suppose we invent a pill that can push a person to this state of rehabilitation in less than a week. Do you think many places, if any, use this pill and eliminate all measure of punishment or retribution from their criminal justice systems?

I don't. The idea of, say, a murderer going to work the next week, going home to their family, etc... is likely not palatable to many citizens. Criminal justice systems existing at all implies that society at large has accepted that even though there are more useful things to do with criminals, it is preferable to punish them as a form of tit-for-tat.

 

[jph139]

This honesty feels like a series of undergrad discussion questions.

"Should a Nazi go to prison?"
"What if he's 96?"
"What if he's an outspoken opponent of Nazism and Holocaust denial?"
"What if German prisons are relatively comfortable?"

 

[cartographer]

What do you think should be done to him, actually?
A prison sentence in Germany will not make his end any less peaceful.
If he feels like he finally got what he deserved, he may even die more peacefully.

You keep bringing this up.

Are you operating under the assumption that most here only want a prison sentence if it's a miserable shit hole?

 

[Cocaloch]

I was thinking more Locke/Rousseau where the citizens have consented to the state/social contract and granted the state a monopoly on violence and law enforcement, but to be honest I find this dancing around labels pretty pointless.

Where do you think both of them got the contractualism from? Locke in particular is directly addressing Hobbes. And sure, the labels don't matter as much as what I was actually saying, but what I was actually saying still stands. Hobbesianism lacks any sort of explanatory power. States did not form by people contracting with each other to escape the state of nature. I'd lean towards Hobbes not even actually positing this as what happened and instead offering it as a thought experiment, while Locke and Rousseau just misinterpreted him.

I guess my two questions for you are, 1. why do states punish lawbreakers?

Like I said earlier, for different reasons.

2. what vests a state with the power to strip a citizen of its rights, if it is not the violation of the social contract/laws?

Because they have power and people go along with it because people feel like they are powerless to resist or that the power being wielded is legitimate for any number of reasons.

Philosophical justifications for state power tend to be post-hoc. Especially in the Anglo-sphere.

If the violation of a law leads to a punishment for that offense, how is that not in some way - by definition - retributive?

I honestly don't see how you are making this leap. For instance, sentencing someone with a mental illness to a psychiatric ward is clearly not motivated by some sense of retribution.

 

[excelsiorlef]

What do you think should be done to him, actually?
A prison sentence in Germany will not make his end any less peaceful.
If he feels like he finally got what he deserved, he may even die more peacefully.

He's going to die quietly and in a facility with proper healthcare regardless. Peace is subjective, but objectively he's going to be comfortable. Are you advocating he dies how my great grandparents did?

I'm advocating he go to prison nothing more.


Maybe instead of getting mad at me, why not focus on the person I responded who thinks that just because he's old he deserves freedom despite what he did.

 

[Westbahnhof]

You keep bringing this up.

Are you operating under the assumption that most here only want a prison sentence if it's a miserable shit hole?

The person I replied to said he shouldn't die in peace.
That doesn't sound like the prison sentence a guy of that age can expect.
So I wanted to bluntly ask what kind of punishment this person would see fitting.
Of course as a discussion point, but also because I'm curious.

I'm advocating he go to prison nothing more.
Maybe instead of getting mad at me, why not focus on the person I responded who thinks that just because he's old he deserves freedom despite what he did.

That's fine, then. The phrasing about not dying in peace just seemed like you wanted... more? I don't know.

 

[Fugu]

Wow, there sure are a lot of balls in the air on this one. It surprises me that people can be so self-assured in cases like these where there are so many factors to consider.

I'm inclined to think that he shouldn't go to prison, but I'm not sure. How much agency did he have? Would he be punished if he were merely a soldier, and not employed at the death camp itself? Are the footmen of the Nazis not also actualizing genocide?

War is tricky business. World War 2 is especially tricky business. Not sure what to make of any of this.

 

[excelsiorlef]

The person I replied to said he shouldn't die in peace.
That doesn't sound like the prison sentence a guy of that age can expect.
So I wanted to bluntly ask what kind of punishment this person would see fitting.
Of course as a discussion point, but also because I'm curious.

I said he doesn't deserve the right to die in peace... in response to someone advocating that we just leave him alone because he's old.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Wow, there sure are a lot of balls in the air on this one. It surprises me that people can be so self-assured in cases like these where there are so many factors to consider.

I'm inclined to think that he shouldn't go to prison, but I'm not sure. How much agency did he have? Would he be punished if he were merely a soldier, and not employed at the death camp itself? Are the footmen of the Nazis not also actualizing genocide?

War is tricky business. World War 2 is especially tricky business. Not sure what to make of any of this.

So you are asking what would happen if the man who was part of the SS and worked at Auschwitz wasn't part of the SS and didn't work at Auschwitz?

 

[Xando]

If he’s deemed healthy enough i don’t see why he should be spared from serving his sentence

 

[Dmax3901]

I don't really understand war crime standards, I thought you had to be an active and willing participant in atrocities against human beings. Like being part of the chain that kills innocent civilians.

While taking their money and belongings and counting it is distasteful and should be soul crushing, is it really a war crime? Wouldn't that also then basically classify anyone who made products used at the concentration camps, or transported prisoners to there, or washed guards clothing, etc part of the crime of complicity?

Anyone who could work at somewhere like Auschwitz and not make it their lifes one goal to get away from it, putting their life in danger or not, deserves everything they get, I don't care how old they are.

 

[excelsiorlef]

That's fine, then. The phrasing about not dying in peace just seemed like you wanted... more? I don't know.

Again I was literally responding to someone saying he should be left alone to die in peace just because he's old.

 

[Cocaloch]

I disagree, at least with respect to the intent of society in setting up law enforcement.

Explain Norway.

Here's an experiment: criminal justice/law enforcement is about rehabilitation. Suppose we invent a pill that can push a person to this state of rehabilitation in less than a week. Do you think many places, if any, use this pill and eliminate all measure of punishment or retribution from their criminal justice systems?

I mean I don't think America would go with the pill, at least for a while, because of its frankly horrible attitude towards justice. I think other places after demonstrating that it works in the long term would indeed do so. Certainly I would advocate for that.

I don't. The idea of, say, a murderer going to work the next week, going home to their family, etc... is likely not palatable to many citizens.

You're doing a pretty massive disservice to your thinking with the word citizen then. Citizens of where? I can assure you that people in different places have different ideas about things like this. There will probably always be some desire for justice based purely on hurting the offender because its an easy gut reaction. The difference is the culture of some countries, like the US, supports the idea that this is uncritically a good thing.

Criminal justice systems existing at all implies that society at large has accepted that even though there are more useful things to do with criminals, it is preferable to punish them as a form of tit-for-tat

How does that follow? Historically the justice system exists as it does because it serves the interest of the state to take direct control of it. The great victory of state justice over traditional and culture justice only really dates from the 18th century at best, though one could perhaps argue for the 17th century in England.

 

[Oersted]

I love how every single of these threads is a carbon copy of the previous ones.

Bonus points for the lie they didn't have a choice, which was debunked centuries ago.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Again I was literally responding to someone saying he should be left alone to die in peace just because he's old.

Yeah, sorry, the phrasing threw me off because to me, prison doesn't mean not being able to die in peace.
I absolutely agree that his age doesn't mean he should avoid punishment.

 

[phisheep]

IMaybe instead of getting mad at me, why not focus on the person I responded who thinks that just because he's old he deserves freedom despite what he did.

This is one of those threads where paraphrasing doesn't really work, eh?

There's a rather narrow line between saying he deserves freedom, and saying it's a bit late to prosecute him - which after all is what all statutes of limitation everywhere are all about. I can see the argument for the latter, particularly since Groening has been so open about his involvement, though I tend to come down in favour of the sentence.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Not sure if I should want him imprisoned at this point or not, but at least he fought against Holocaust denial and shared his experiences

he should go do his sentence and apologise on his way in and die there.
I'd forgive him for taking that road. Dude was guilty and aided the Nazis with book keeping. He knew what he was doing and was a nazi, not a violent one, but a nazi.

I love how every single of these threads is a carbon copy of the previous ones.

Bonus points for the lie they didn't have a choice, which was debunked centuries ago.

see my above for how I feel about what should happen to this guy, but don't imagine yourself above it. If dumbass trump somehow fixed healthcare, united everyone and made america 'great again' and then when the population was riding high took a dark swerve, there'd be more people around you than you think that would turn a blind eye until it was far far too late.

 

[Sad Affleck]

He literally helped commit genocide!

This isn't even revenge, this is proper justice.

Justice hasn't been served in this case. He should have paid for his involvement in the atrocities and he didn't. It's too late now, he is too old and too much time has passed for his incarceration to have any meaning.

 

[cartographer]

The person I replied to said he shouldn't die in peace.
That doesn't sound like the prison sentence a guy of that age can expect.
So I wanted to bluntly ask what kind of punishment this person would see fitting.
Of course as a discussion point, but also because I'm curious.



That's fine, then. The phrasing about not dying in peace just seemed like you wanted... more? I don't know.

I'd keep in mind then that there are perfectly rational lines if thought that are OK with him going to prison and are OK with prison not being like American prison.

"If you want him to suffer he's not really going to suffer" can be a borderline bad faith argument and is pretty reductive no matter the level of assumption involved.

 

[Cocaloch]

Bonus points for the lie they didn't have a choice, which was debunked centuries ago.

You are aware that the second world war did not take place a full century ago right?

 

[Occam]

Good thing that those 30% who voted for Hitler in the last free election (November 1932) before the Third Reich began are already dead (since you had to be 20 to vote, they had to be born 1912 or earlier), or maybe they could be sent to prison next. After all, they certainly are complicit, too.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Certainly I would advocate for that.

This is logically consistent but I'd certainly argue that maybe 5% of the world would agree with you.

You're doing a pretty massive disservice to your thinking with the word citizen then. Citizens of where? I can assure you that people in different places have different ideas about things like this. There will probably always be some desire for justice based purely on hurting the offender because its an easy gut reaction. The difference is the culture of some countries, like the US, supports the idea that this is uncritically a good thing.

Again, I don't agree that this pill would replace incarceration.

How does that follow? Historically the justice system exists as it does because it serves the interest of the state to take direct control of it.

I mean that it is obviously better for society that every punishment be replaced with very little community service and near immediate release (taxing your salary is a better benefit than not). And yet we jail killers. Society has decided to do that even though it is objectively a detriment to society (well, only a detriment if their punishment isn't a benefit by itself, which is my point).

 

[Oersted]

You are aware that the second world war did not take place a full century ago right?

Pardon, autocorrect. Over half a century. But you are aware of that, right?

 

[Wvrs]

The old "just following orders"

He got to live a full life, unlike the people he robbed and sent to slaughter

I think the "just following orders" 'debate' completely reduces the climate of total fear, authoritarianism, suppression of freedom, xenophobia, fierce nationalism and indoctrination that went on in Nazi Germany (he's 96 now, so he was, what, 12 when Hitler came to power? If your ideologies were so pure and incorruptible when you were 12, well, you're a better person than I am.) And since the war he was in a POW camp, and risked a shot at a regular life by coming out against Holocaust Deniers.

I find this all to be quite frankly disgusting and endemic of the problematic 'anyone associated with the Nazis = total evil inhuman scum' mantra that totally detracts from just how human a phenomena the movement was (and therefore, something we should be always be very conscious of going into the future).

Let the poor old man die in peace.

 

[excelsiorlef]

This is one of those threads where paraphrasing doesn't really work, eh?

There's a rather narrow line between saying he deserves freedom, and saying it's a bit late to prosecute him - which after all is what all statutes of limitation everywhere are all about. I can see the argument for the latter, particularly since Groening has been so open about his involvement, though I tend to come down in favour of the sentence.

There are no statue of limitations for being an active participant in the Holocaust.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

You are trying to derail a thread about the Holocaust with 'America too!' Making a false comparison between Germany's war of extermination (google Generalplan Ost) and genocide of the Jewish people is a common tactic by Nazi apologists to stifle discussion and diminish the Holocaust. Nice attempt at condicention, but going by your confused here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt say you're just ignorant and stupid rather than a Nazi apologist.

Hmm...

Again, perhaps you should take the time to read what I posted. But I firmly think you are confused as to what you are even arguing about, since I responded to a post about a hypotetical war between NK and the US, which was a response to an even more ridiculous post. You seem to think that I don't understand how the Holocaust compared to other atrocities and how vile the Nazis were in committing genocide against the Jews? Perhaps instead of assuming an agenda, you could ask me to clarify what I meant? Which I did? I can even admit it was an off the cuff reaction to ignorance of the US's compliance in lesser, but still harmful atrocities. If you want to continue by PM I'd be happy too.

 

[Violet_0]

Good thing that those 30% who voted for Hitler in the last free election (November 1932) before the Third Reich began are already dead (since you had to be 20 to vote, they had to be born 1912 or earlier), or maybe they could be sent to prison next. After all, they certainly are complicit, too.

this guy was in the SS. He wasn't innocent at all, even if he didn't actively take part in the killings

 

[Mr_Antimatter]

I suppose the law is the law, and justice is justice. His age matters not, he knew what the price would be when he spoke out.

 

[excelsiorlef]

I think the "just following orders" 'debate' completely reduces the climate of total fear, authoritarianism, suppression of freedom, xenophobia, fierce nationalism and indoctrination that went on in Nazi Germany (he's 96 now, so he was, what, 12 when Hitler came to power? If your ideologies were so pure and incorruptible when you were 12, well, you're a better person than I am.) And since the war he was in a POW camp, and risked a shot at a regular life by coming out against Holocaust Deniers.

I find this all to be quite frankly disgusting and endemic of the problematic 'anyone associated with the Nazis = total evil inhuman scum' mantra that totally detracts from just how human a phenomena the movement was (and therefore, something we should be always be very conscious of going into the future).

Let the poor old man die in peace.

Ahh yes that's the problem.. people are too mean to actual nazis, who actually partook in the Holocaust, that's what;s disgusting and not you reducing a man who worked in Auschwitz to a "poor old man"

He's not a poor old man, he's an active participant in genocide who lived a free life far far far far longer than he deserved.

He joined voluntarily the SS, he wasn't a kid, trying to invoke age 12 is pretty fucked up

 

[Westbahnhof]

I'd keep in mind then that there are perfectly rational lines if thought that are OK with him going to prison and are OK with prison not being like American prison.

"If you want him to suffer he's not really going to suffer" can be a borderline bad faith argument and is pretty reductive no matter the level of assumption involved.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

 

[Muffin1611]

Good thing that those 30% who voted for Hitler in the last free election (November 1932) before the Third Reich began are already dead (since you had to be 20 to vote, they had to be born 1912 or earlier), or maybe they could be sent to prison next. After all, they certainly are complicit, too.

What are these bullshit arguments without quoting the people which arguments you're trying to discredit?

Voting badly in a free election and cooperating when the NS regime started to put people into death camps are the same following your logic?

Furthermore, willingly joining the fucking SS. Not just the party, the fucking SS.

 

[Cocaloch]

This is logically consistent but I'd certainly argue that maybe 5% of the world would agree with you.

Alright, but this is a meaningless assertion without data, and even if true could be changed. That's part of the reason I post frequently in threads here that touch on questions of justice.

I mean that it is obviously better for society that every punishment be replaced with very little community service and near immediate release (taxing your salary is a better benefit than not). Society has decided to do that even though it is objectively a detriment to society (well, only a detriment if their punishment isn't a benefit by itself, which is my point)

Is it? Crimes themselves usually hurt society, deterrence, though I'm not quite sure this works, and reforming behavior reduce the damage done to society through crimes. Also I'm not arguing people don't place any value in retribution, some obviously do. I'm arguing that they shouldn't.

Pardon, autocorrect. Over half a century. But you are aware of that, right?

Of course I'm aware of that. What did I say that made you think that maybe I wasn't?

 

[Occam]

this guy was in the SS. He wasn't innocent at all, even if he didn't actively take part in the killings

Didn't say he was innocent.

 

[jtb]

Where do you think both of them got the contractualism from? Locke in particular is directly addressing Hobbes. And sure, the labels don't matter as much as what I was actually saying, but what I was actually saying still stands. Hobbesianism lacks any sort of explanatory power. States did not form by people contracting with each other to escape the state of nature. I'd lean towards Hobbes not even actually positing this as what happened and instead offering it as a thought experiment, while Locke and Rousseau just misinterpreted him.



Like I said earlier, for different reasons.




Because they have power and people go along with it because people feel like they are powerless to resist or that the power being wielded is legitimate for any number of reasons.

Philosophical justifications for state power tend to be post-hoc. Especially in the Anglo-sphere.




I honestly don't see how you are making this leap. For instance, sentencing someone with a mental illness to a psychiatric ward is clearly not motivated by some sense of retribution.

If there is no justification for the state to exist or to wield political power (which obviously there is no one-size-fits-all descriptive explanation for why states exist, so that's fine), then is your argument that the criminal justice system cannot inherently be motivated by anything?

Alright, but this is a meaningless assertion without data, and even if true could be changed. That's part of the reason I post frequently in threads here that touch on questions of justice.

Is it? Crimes themselves usually hurt society, deterrence, though I'm not quite sure this works, and reforming behavior reduce the damage done to society through crimes. Also I'm not arguing people don't place any value in retribution, some obviously do. I'm arguing that they shouldn't.

Of course I'm aware of that. What did I say that made you think that maybe I wasn't?

Aren't you arguing that society has no relationship to the criminal justice systems by which they are governed?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Justice hasn't been served in this case. He should have paid for his involvement in the atrocities and he didn't. It's too late now, he is too old and too much time has passed for his incarceration to have any meaning.

It's not too late , it's never too late for paying for this atrocity. This is justice being served.

 

[Muffin1611]

Didn't say he was innocent.

You implied people voting shit in an election are as complicit as a literal voluntary SS member.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yeah, sorry, the phrasing threw me off because to me, prison doesn't mean not being able to die in peace.
I absolutely agree that his age doesn't mean he should avoid punishment.

Peace to me means free. He shouldn't die free

 

[phisheep]

I mean that it is obviously better for society that every punishment be replaced with very little community service and near immediate release (taxing your salary is a better benefit than not). And yet we jail killers. Society has decided to do that even though it is objectively a detriment to society (well, only a detriment if their punishment isn't a benefit by itself, which is my point).

Well, there's the yet another purpose of criminal punishment beyond the retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation that have already been covered in this thread. That's the protection of society, which is probably sufficient reason to keep killers - or at least non-crime-passionel killers - off the streets.

I've always had my doubts about this for lesser crimes though. Pretty sure there's a stable proportion of burglars that a society can sustain, and if you lock up all the burglars more burglars will emerge - but if you let them all go at least you know who the burglars are.

But that's taken us way off-topic for this thread. I don't think there's any suggestion at all that Groening is likely to do it again.