On Apr 7, 11:54 am, Will in New Haven
<bill.re...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 7, 12:05 am, Joe Ellis <synthfil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > In article <ftc2d8$90...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > Sean O'Hara <seanoh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > Why? Germany still prosecuted genuine crimes like rape and murder
> > > > under the Nazi regime, ...
>
> > > Anyone convicted of those genuine crimes by the Nazi regime should
> > > have been given the benefit of the doubt, and freed.
>
> > Oh, come on.. Overturn a legitimate conviction at the local level
> > simply because upper level government was evil? You're compounding the
> > problem, not righting a wrong.
>
> I think it's not clear and that he makes a good case for just letting
> them go. The maxim that it is better to free ten guilty persons than
> imprison one innocent person could also be invoked in support of his
> position. The deterrent purpose of punishment would not, in my
> opinion, be impaired. The new government would still be able to
> imprision people and would-be criminals would still know that.
> Recidivism among those released would be a problem but their are
> always criminals in society.
Well, you just made the argument for never jailing anyone, for any
crime, in any society. That was quite... silly of you...
> > > If a criminal gang temporarily took over your town, should its
> > > decisions be honored as the acts of a legitimate government?
>
> > Show me that the Nazi regime was not a "legitimate" government. I'm
not
> > arguing good vs evil.. that is all too clear. Demonstrate that, in
> > broad terms, they were not the "legitimate" government of Germany at
> > that time. If not them, then who? Yes, they manipulated the people,
and
> > murdered. However, the people DID put them into power. Scoundrels at
> > best, liars, cheats, and even murderers.. but the fact remains they
> > WERE the "legitimate" and internationally recognized government of
> > Germany.
>
> That doesn't mean we can't release the people they imprisoned.
" Just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean that we must do a
thing. "
anon.
> The lost a war; they just have to live with the consequences.
Now, you just made the argument for allowing victorious armies to
rape, loot
and plunder the losers. Quite the blood thirsty revenge enabler you
seem to
be on this matter...
> > > > Simply reversing every conviction from 1933 to 1945 would set
loose
> > > > people who belonged in jail,
>
> > > Yes. And when a hospital emergency room saves someone who had been
> > > shot, they may be setting loose someone who the world is better off
> > > without. Just because someone was shot by a criminal gang member
> > > doesn't necessarily mean they're a good guy.
>
> > The hospital doesn't confine someone, therefore "setting them loose"
is
> > not an option. They simply treat injuries. However, they are required
to
> > report all apparent gunshot wounds to the police... and the officers
> > standing outside the patient's room ARE empowered to hold them. You're
> > confusing and conflating geography with authority.
>
> And you are confusing existing authority with the former authority of
> a nation that has lost a war. We could have quartered troops in their
> homes and made them wear their underwear on the outside. They had no
> rights.
Yes, the Allies could have done that. No doubt that it would have
added to
the long term hard feelings of the conquered people, and we all know
that
that didn't help, from 1919, when the 1930s came around.
> > > > and given the state of Germany at the time, giving everyone a new
> > > > trial (which would require tracking down witnesses, many of whom
> > > > were dead, and evidence, much of which would've been destroyed)
> > > > would've been infeasible.
>
> > > That's why I think they should all have simply been freed and had
> > > their records expunged. Any who were genuine criminals would be
back
> > > in jail soon enough. If they'd victimize a few innocent people
first,
> > > well, the damage to innocent German civilians would be far less than
> > > the Allies had already done.
>
> > So you think it wise and just to add to the list of victims? That's
> > ridiculous. The potential harm far exceeds the perceived benefit. And
> > what makes you think only _Germans_ would be harmed?
>
> There are criminals at large in every society. For the most part, it
> is a good thing that some of them get apprehended and put out of
> action. However, adding some number of possible criminals to the
> population doesn't seem so terrible. Ask the parole boards.
Ask your parole board if they'd free Charlie Manson...
> > Free Jews? Of course. Free homosexuals? Absolutely. Free rapists and
> > murderers? Don't be silly.. the ONE thing we can agree with the
Nazis
> > on is those people were bad eggs.
>
> > This has to be one of the most... bizarre... ideas you've promulgated
> > here... and that's saying something.
>
> It's a bizarre idea and I am far from 100% convinced. But it isn't so
> outlandish that I have made up my mind.
No, its batshit crazy. Even for Keith.
Andre
|
