Some posts worth responding to (and some not, but needing it):
000Ronald said:
This is a bad question. Not just the "Does old man Nazi deserve to die" thing, but the idea that AMERICAN JUSTICE! is in the right.
Another reason this whole scenario is wrong? It's too easy. "Send poor Nazi man to jail or don't, either way, you might have to go without sleep for a couple nights."
Here's the real question you have to ask yourself; would you have harbored The Jewish during WWII? The easy answer is yes, but it's not that simple. If you were found out, you were treated just the same as them; you and your whole family were stripped of your possessions, your home, marched off to a slave camp, fed the same rotten soup day in and day out, watching people die all around you...
And consider what was thought about these people then.
My great-great-grandmother did harbor The Jewish in her home. Her and all but one of her daughters were killed for it. My great-grandmother told her grandchildren in explicit detail what had happened. And my father told me, in explicit detail, what happened....
I don't know. I don't know if I would be willing to put everyone I cared about in that kind of risk. I would like to think I would, but I just...don't know.
Canadian justice, actually, but that's beside the point. The question arose from a conversation. There is a built-in desire within humans to make "bad people" pay for their crimes, sorry or not. "Would you obey that if you knew better?" is sort of the point behind it. I apologize for exploiting a situation such as this to demonstrate that. In hindsight, I could easily have put in "would you hide a serial rapist" for the point I was trying to get at. Changing the scenario to one where you must already have figured out "they're not evil, they've done nothing wrong" to hide them, while accepting a personal risk is a different question altogether. One that it would be a good idea to start your own thread about. It is good one.
Again, apologies for abusing a hypothetical situation. I picked one that would be most easily identifiable, though it appears I did it wrong.
Hardcore_gamer said:
This is stupid.
People can change, but they cannot just go from one extreme to the other within the timeframe of a single lifetime.
If a person is so morally bankrupt that he has no problem with people being gassed to death in a death camp then there is zero reason for why he would ever regret it later on.
I suggest you read this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon
Did, a while ago. Life isn't made of tropes. Well, it is, but no one group universally follows the same one.
Who says he never regretted anything? He was probably trying to make up for it his whole life (what with the philanthropy) and likely did it because there weren't any other options. He might even still dislike Jews. I never gave anything that specific, just that he regretted the forced labour and deaths.
Jedihunter4 said:
My question to you would be what gives you the right to judge?
How do you know he is telling you the truth?
Hence hand him over to the police and the international community can judge him, which is the case with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Also there is a difference between being a Nazi and being in the German army during world war 2. Nazi's were members of the political party and openly supported the regime in every way including their "final solution". where as unless they had direct interaction with it most German soldiers would not have even known about the holocaust.
And as for the people being so harsh on the term of people saying "I was only following orders" I think many people are being very dismissive, German soldiers made an oath to the regime, which i know to some people their word does not mean allot, but it should tbh. Also their commanders and superiors would have known where their family were and were probably ensuring their safety and looking after during the conflict .. . Also there is the simple fact that soldiers especially of that era were trained to have no emotion and carry out their orders regardless of what they were, being as the horrible things that happen in war, this is a self defence mechanism for the mind to shut off as not their moral responsibility. so its not just some switch to turn off. Not saying any of it is the right thing, but just seems a bit stupid these "dr who" children's morals put to such a serious event.
1. What gives you the right to judge? The power he has given you.
2. How do you know he is telling you the truth? You don't.
3. Not the point. I said nazi officer that served in a concentration camp, nazi was used because long titles turn people away. If you had said that I never specified death camps, then you'd be getting at something as most people have taken it to mean that he was involved with the gas chambers. Should I have been more specific? Possibly. Done now.
4. As above, this was a simple morality-based question: "Would you make someone pay?". And yes, people can and have felt bad and tried to change it after the fact. This isn't one of Hitler's personal advisors.
5. I do not view the Holocaust as an unimportant event. That's why I asked the question; because it's one I couldn't necessarily answer myself. Does a lifetime of repentance make up for a few short years of despicable acts? Not entirely sure on that one. Even with the measure of the acts in question.
jeretik said:
Drake_Dercon said:
READ BEFORE VOTING!
You live in a small town. In it, there is a man.
He is a generous man, kind to all and very into philanthropy. He is by any definition a good neighbour and friend.
One day he asks you to house him for a while. He tells you he was an officer in a concentration camp. He cries for a long time. He is very sorry for what he's done (which happens to be a lot). He knows he will never be able to fix what he has done, but is afraid of what will happen to him if he is incarcerated.
Police soon come to your door asking for him. What do you do?
I was talking about something similar with my english teacher. We are both very convinced that rehabilitation is the best solution to crime, but for very severe crimes there is an instant desire to make someone pay. Usually harshly. This is that internal debate at its logical extreme.
Edit: Crimes against humanity, in case you were wondering.
*Drake_Dercon watches "Apt Pupil" and decides to throw a mind-bendingly wise question at The Escapist crowd. The world stands still as he puts the ballsy option of "kill them myself" in the poll.*
Do not make an ass of yourself. Please refer to earlier portions of this for most of the answer to your statement. "Kill them myself" is because it's a valid option for something as horrible as the Holocaust. I might consider it in such a situation. I asked it to see what other people think, so please answer it rather than posting worthless taunts.
