You shouldn't be aloud to escape punishment by dodging police until you're 90. It's a victory for the legal system.
91 year old sentenced to jail for his role in killing Jews.
- Thread starter SovietSecrets
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Did you? The very same article stated he was found not guilty of being the infamous "Ivan the Terrible" prison guard. They actually got his Identity wrong, which saddens me since he'll have to live with that title and the disgust, contempt, and fear of every person he meets for the rest of his short life.ravensheart18 said:
Another person who hasn't bothered to look at the article.9999squirrels said:
This man was not escaping punishment. This man was a captured POW who was made to be a guard at a camp. This man had been found innocent by courts previously. There was no evidence that this man had hurt or killed anyone. This man was given guilt by association. You know, something that is outlawed in pretty much every court worth its salt?
Still think it's a victory for the fucking legal system? This should have been thrown straight out of court. This man was convicted solely on the basis of a grudge.
exactly, i bet most of the people who are saying "screw that old POS" didn't even read the article...Arachon said:
These trials are a reminder of what has happened, that sitting down and ignoring what is bad is wrong and should never be done. The holocaust was a result of pure inaction, there was not a person alive in that time period who knew what was happening and didn't know to the core of their being that it was wrong on every level of human ethics. This trial happened and is being pursued because if it didn't happen then genocide is being condoned and once again that is wrong.
How the hell do you know this? You have absolutely nothing to go by. He was a captured PoW and forced to do this. What gives you the right to pretend that you wouldn't do exactly the same thing he did under his horrific circumstances?HG131 said:
And also, the legal system does not punish people for "not being good people". It punishes people through evidence that they have committed crimes. There is no evidence that this man has committed a crime. The last court that actually bothered with evidence (I know, what idiots!) found him completely innocent. And that was a Jewish court in Israel. Then these idiots with their kangaroo court come along and even blatantly admit that there is no evidence, yet they lock him up anyway. Why? A grudge. A ridiculous revenge complex.
That is not how a legal system should operate. It doesn't matter if HG131 thinks this man is evil, any decent court in the world should not work like this. They went against the entire concept of basic elements of the legal system. The rule of law. Natural Justice. Innocent until proven guilty. The right to a fair trial. They threw all these amazing customs we are so lucky to have, right out the fucking window. You cannot convict someone because of guilt by association, and that is exactly what has happened here. It's a complete farce and I'm happy to say my country would never let a case like this through. Germany is so ridiculously sensitive about this that they don't even care about evidence, they just want to appease their own emotions. This is not law.
It seems everyone has completely lost their marbles. They hear "Nazi" and go into some kind of blood rage. Thank you, Sillybear, for helping me maintain my faith in humanity. I'm sorry folks, but being conscripted by the Nazis doesn't make you a criminal, it makes you another victim.
And as for the allegations that this guy was actually "Ivan the Terrible", there is absolutely no proof that it's him. It's just another baseless accusation thrown at this guy just because he was one of those wacky Nazis.
And as for the allegations that this guy was actually "Ivan the Terrible", there is absolutely no proof that it's him. It's just another baseless accusation thrown at this guy just because he was one of those wacky Nazis.
Who ever said that? The guy I quoted. Riigght before you attacked my post.SillyBear said:
On the whole, however, I agree with you.
Also, I'm not the one persecuting the guy. You assume alot.
People are put to jail to prevent them from causing (any more) damage to society. 91 year old man, who probably can't even walk anymore seems quite harmless to me, skinheads do not. Also we should factor in that the whole nation was committing such atrocities with him, he was just doing what he thought was right.Steve5513 said:
Also: There are "nazi hunters"??? People willingly commit their lives to avenge their parents? Vengeance and Justice aren't the same thing, just ask Anders [http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Anders].
This is just ridiculous, especially after reading the article.
The Nuremberg trials have already been held, and those deemed responsible for the Holocaust have been tried and that was supposed to be the end of it. The man is old enough as is, and it seems like if he was actually responsible for anything, then he would have been convicted at this point; especially after being put on trial before.
The Nuremberg trials have already been held, and those deemed responsible for the Holocaust have been tried and that was supposed to be the end of it. The man is old enough as is, and it seems like if he was actually responsible for anything, then he would have been convicted at this point; especially after being put on trial before.
He was a prisoner of war forced into becoming a guard. And the only thing they convicted him with was having been a guard at a death camp for a total of 7 months, not any specific crime. The prosecution relied upon contemporary documents and an ID card because there were no living witnesses, so the actual actions he took even if he had been a guard could not be verified.
Fundamentally, it's a case of a Nazi being condemned for the crime of being a Nazi instead of violating any statute. That's certainly damning in modern-day culture where Nazis have been scientifically proven to be 302% more evil than concentrated Satan, but the law is supposed to be above such prejudice. It's not.
Fundamentally, it's a case of a Nazi being condemned for the crime of being a Nazi instead of violating any statute. That's certainly damning in modern-day culture where Nazis have been scientifically proven to be 302% more evil than concentrated Satan, but the law is supposed to be above such prejudice. It's not.
That is one of the reasons. Another is to help maintain a sense of justice, a feeling by the populace that people who break laws are punished and innocents are not. If that's not kept up, the legal system loses credibility, which can pose a lot of problems down the road.Soods said:
Letting an accused Nazi go free could have been a nasty blow to PR and therefore credibility-affecting, regardless of whether or not said Nazi was one voluntarily or committed any crimes himself.
Not to say that this result won't affect legal credibility either.
The evidence was sufficient to convince the judge that he worked at the camp. If you accepted that (and I don't think that would have been too unreasonable), you could argue that he was supporting the Nazi cause, and therefore was effectively one regardless of his personal views.SillyBear said:
That would not have established that he participated in crimes nor that he was voluntarily a member of the party. That should matter by the letter of the law, but when the word "Nazi" gets flung around, people get hungry for vengeance.