NationStates Jolt Archive


To Arrest or not to Arrest?

RealAmerica
22-09-2006, 21:13
An 83-year-old woman living in the US was found to have been a member of the SS and a guard at a concentration camp. When interviewed, she showed no remorse for the crimes against humanity which she committed. As such, she was deported back to Germany. Was this the correct course of action to take? Or do you think there should be an age limit on prosecution for such crimes (poll coming)?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nazi20sep20,0,4349466.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Sarkhaan
22-09-2006, 21:18
I'd say no. She accepts her past...that isn't always a bad thing. Without actually seeing her speak, and hearing what she had to say, I can't definatly say she likes what she did, but she does accept it as something she did.

As for the crimes she commit...I don't know. I would say that she deserves a trial, but perhaps "guilty with term served" type of thing

*shrug*...I'll have to give it more thought.
Damor
22-09-2006, 21:19
There should be no statute of limitation for warcrimes, simple as that.
The Nazz
22-09-2006, 21:20
Well, she wasn't arrested--she was deported. She may well face charges in Germany, but it'll be their call.

You know, it may hurt some to say this, but I think the Nazi hunts need to end. The Holocause was horrible, absolutely, but it was also over 60 years ago. Most of the people who were guards--even the higher-ups--are dead from old age by now, and if they aren't, then they will be soon.
German Nightmare
22-09-2006, 21:21
Murder never prescribes. That's the law. Arrest her, give her the trial, and when she's found guilty, lock her up.
RealAmerica
22-09-2006, 21:22
Well, she wasn't arrested--she was deported. She may well face charges in Germany, but it'll be their call.

Do you think that if turned out she executed a Jew 50 years ago, she should be incarcerated right now? Or do you think crimes against humanity have a time limit -- if you're old enough, you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions?
Drunk commies deleted
22-09-2006, 21:23
I voted arrest her because she was a guard at one of the nazi death camps I think she should be arrested and held to account for her actions, but I also voted indifferent because whether she's punished or not it makes no real difference to me.
Ice Hockey Players
22-09-2006, 21:25
She ought to go to prison, just as many did, but when she dies, she should be allowed to be buried next to her husband. No point in us punishing her corpse.
The Nazz
22-09-2006, 21:26
Do you think that if turned out she executed a Jew 50 years ago, she should be incarcerated right now? Or do you think crimes against humanity have a time limit -- if you're old enough, you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions?

Are you asking how I feel personally? Look, I'm not a Holocaust survivor, so I can't begin to imagine how they might feel faced with this situation. But if you think this woman didn't suffer some consequences for her actions just because she didn't do jail time, then you've got a limited view of consequence in my opinion.
PsychoticDan
22-09-2006, 21:28
I need to see what she did while she was a guard. Many were let go after the war because they didn't do anything but follow orders and weren't directly involved in anyone's death. If she was having thiose guard dogs of hers attack and kill people, hang her out to dry. But if she was just walking a wall, maybe we just let this one go.
Sarkhaan
22-09-2006, 21:29
Well, she wasn't arrested--she was deported. She may well face charges in Germany, but it'll be their call.

You know, it may hurt some to say this, but I think the Nazi hunts need to end. The Holocause was horrible, absolutely, but it was also over 60 years ago. Most of the people who were guards--even the higher-ups--are dead from old age by now, and if they aren't, then they will be soon.

I'm leaning towards this. Why waste our time and money on this case when there are enough others going on (and should be going on) around the world? Really, putting this one 84 year old woman into prision isn't going to prove anything...it isn't going to teach a new lesson. Also, it is entirely possible that, while working at this camp, she didn't commit a war crime. Not all guards killed. Not all guards performed medical tests...which is why I support a trial, but not incarceration.
PsychoticDan
22-09-2006, 21:32
I'm leaning towards this. Why waste our time and money on this case when there are enough others going on (and should be going on) around the world? Really, putting this one 84 year old woman into prision isn't going to prove anything...it isn't going to teach a new lesson. Also, it is entirely possible that, while working at this camp, she didn't commit a war crime. Not all guards killed. Not all guards performed medical tests...which is why I support a trial, but not incarceration.

We're not wasting our time and money. Germany is.
German Nightmare
22-09-2006, 21:41
I'd say no. She accepts her past...that isn't always a bad thing. Without actually seeing her speak, and hearing what she had to say, I can't definatly say she likes what she did, but she does accept it as something she did.

As for the crimes she commit...I don't know. I would say that she deserves a trial, but perhaps "guilty with term served" type of thing

*shrug*...I'll have to give it more thought.
What kind of term did she serve? None. She lived her life, based on a lie, too. I hope she'll get a trial here.
There should be no statute of limitation for warcrimes, simple as that.
Murder does not prescribe under German law. If she is found guilty, she will face 15 years of prison and after that, possible parole. (Which, of course, will probably not happen considering her age)
Well, she wasn't arrested--she was deported. She may well face charges in Germany, but it'll be their call.
I hope the authorities give her a trial. Many of her victims didn't even receive as much before they were murdered.

You know, it may hurt some to say this, but I think the Nazi hunts need to end. The Holocause was horrible, absolutely, but it was also over 60 years ago. Most of the people who were guards--even the higher-ups--are dead from old age by now, and if they aren't, then they will be soon.
It may be over for 60 years - but that doesn't mean the crimes prescribed. The Nazi hunt will end once the people involved are dead. Not a single day earlier.
Do you think that if turned out she executed a Jew 50 years ago, she should be incarcerated right now? Or do you think crimes against humanity have a time limit -- if you're old enough, you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions?
Yes, I hope she will be arrested, lil' ol' lady or not. Murder is murder, no matter how long ago it occured.
I voted arrest her because she was a guard at one of the nazi death camps I think she should be arrested and held to account for her actions, but I also voted indifferent because whether she's punished or not it makes no real difference.
Maybe not to you and me, but to those Holocaust/Shoa survivors who are still alive it will. And it would serve my sense of justice, too.
She ought to go to prison, just as many did, but when she dies, she should be allowed to be buried next to her husband. No point in us punishing her corpse.
While I like that notion, how likely is it for her family to be allowed to return her body for burial?
Are you asking how I feel personally? Look, I'm not a Holocaust survivor, so I can't begin to imagine how they might feel faced with this situation. But if you think this woman didn't suffer some consequences for her actions just because she didn't do jail time, then you've got a limited view of consequence in my opinion.
Suffering some consequences and accepting the rule of law are two different things in my book. She should be tried.
German Nightmare
22-09-2006, 21:46
We're not wasting our time and money. Germany is.
Giving her a trial would not constitute a waste of time and money. It would, however, emphasize the rule of law in this country.
Vacuumhead
22-09-2006, 22:00
Giving her a trial would not constitute a waste of time and money. It would, however, emphasize the rule of law in this country.
Does anyone know if whatever she did was against the law back then, or did Hitler actually get around to making Jew killing legal?
PsychoticDan
22-09-2006, 22:13
Does anyone know if whatever she did was against the law back then, or did Hitler actually get around to making Jew killing legal?

Of course it was legal under Hitler. The question is whether it was a violation of international law.
German Nightmare
22-09-2006, 22:25
Does anyone know if whatever she did was against the law back then, or did Hitler actually get around to making Jew killing legal?
Sadly enough, following the Enabling Act, the German law system was completely corrupted and in the hands of the nazis, and it did indeed become pseudo-"legal".
Then again, "regular" murder was still illegal, and your "average" murderer still went to prison or camp.
But no matter whether it was "legal" or not during those 12 years, murder does not prescribe, even if one was "only following orders" (which were based on the skewed nazi-laws).
Sinmapret
22-09-2006, 22:30
She should face trial for her participation in commiting war crimes. The fact that she showed no remorse for her actions makes her unworthy of pity or mercy.
German Nightmare
22-09-2006, 22:32
Of course it was legal under Hitler. The question is whether it was a violation of international law.
I'm not sure whether it indeed became legal in the true sense, or whether the nazis found a way around the law, simply not prosecuting it since their directives called for it.
Call to power
22-09-2006, 22:33
women in the SS? why does it say she was a guard?

I think she should have a trial (and thus be arrested) just so we can get the records strait other than that I say let her go she’s already lived years with the memory of what happened there and not once telling anyone about where she worked and so I say let her go no point in letting a dog trainer be hung/spend years (months?) in jail because she worked somewhere and may have been classed for some odd…odd reason as SS

and WTF is a liberal some sort of Iberian?

edit: and she’s lived in America for years and years surely that is enough to make her American?
H N Fiddlebottoms VIII
22-09-2006, 22:36
It sure is nice to know that all recent murders, rapes and warcrimes have been settled so that the governments of the world now have the time to go back and hunt down 80-year old women who'll probably be dead in a year or so anyway.

(This is my "get over it, jackass"-face I'm directing at those of you who support this woman's persecution, just so you know)
Call to power
22-09-2006, 22:41
It sure is nice to know that all recent murders, rapes and warcrimes have been settled so that the governments of the world now have the time to go back and hunt down 80-year old women who'll probably be dead in a year or so anyway.

ah but old German ladies are the easiest to prosecute they don’t tend to have armies and people care about what the Nazi’s did far more than what happens in a piss poor African country

Sad but true (plus I'm wondering what RealAmerica is trying to prove by the poll other than the fact that barely anyone on NS is conservative)
Laerod
22-09-2006, 22:45
An 83-year-old woman living in the US was found to have been a member of the SS and a guard at a concentration camp. When interviewed, she showed no remorse for the crimes against humanity which she committed. As such, she was deported back to Germany. Was this the correct course of action to take? Or do you think there should be an age limit on prosecution for such crimes (poll coming)?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nazi20sep20,0,4349466.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Meh. She won't be facing a trial in Germany. She's too old for prison.
Laerod
22-09-2006, 22:46
Sad but true (plus I'm wondering what RealAmerica is trying to prove by the poll other than the fact that barely anyone on NS is conservative)Hey, at least you can vote on the poll. :D
Call to power
22-09-2006, 22:56
Hey, at least you can vote on the poll. :D

not if I already voted :p *tries to get rid of that weird election ink they use*
Vittos the City Sacker
22-09-2006, 23:15
I don't like charges for war crimes in the first place (not as imposed by the winners of the war), but if Germany wants to charge her, I have no problem with it.
RealAmerica
23-09-2006, 00:13
Sad but true (plus I'm wondering what RealAmerica is trying to prove by the poll other than the fact that barely anyone on NS is conservative)

According to the results so far, conservatives are more forgiving and have more of a live and let live philosophy.
German Nightmare
23-09-2006, 00:22
women in the SS? why does it say she was a guard?

Helferin Corps

The SS-Helferin Korps, translated literally as “Helper Corps”, comprised women volunteers who joined the SS as auxiliary personnel. Such personnel were not considered actual SS members, since SS membership was closed to women.

The Helferin Korps maintained a simple system of ranks, mainly SS-Helfer, SS-Oberhelfer, and SS-Haupthelfer. Members of the Helferin Korps were assigned to a wide variety of activities such as administrative staff, supply support personnel, and female guards at concentration camps.
Hope that helps.
Kinda Sensible people
23-09-2006, 00:28
According to the results so far, conservatives are more forgiving and have more of a live and let live philosophy.

Not at all. It prooves that Liberals understand better than Conservatives forgive and forget. I'm perfectly willing to forgive the woman, but I'm not going to forget what she did just because of her age.

She was an accomplice to murder. She has not received any treatment for her actions. She is still a risk to society.

So all this prooves is that Conservatives are hypocrites who are willing to let an accomplice to mass murder go untreated and unjailed.

I'm perfectly willing to live and let live... So long as the other person is letting live. This isn't such a case.
RealAmerica
23-09-2006, 00:30
She is still a risk to society.

That is patently false. She is 83 years old, uses a cane, is blind in one eye, and has not engaged in any remotely Nazi-like activity for the past 50 years. In fact, she even married a Jew (and no, she did not kill him). How in any way does she pose a threat to society?
Kinda Sensible people
23-09-2006, 00:31
That is patently false. She is 83 years old, uses a cane, is blind in one eye, and has not engaged in any remotely Nazi-like activity for the past 50 years. In fact, she even married a Jew (and no, she did not kill him). How in any way does she pose a threat to society?

Because she is unapologetic. You don't need to be hale and hearty to kill someone in this day and age. Her Nazism is not the only aspect of this. If she is not sorry, even though she was an accomplice in mass murder, then she has no qualms about killing. That is a danger.
German Nightmare
23-09-2006, 00:51
Not at all. It prooves that Liberals understand better than Conservatives forgive and forget. I'm perfectly willing to forgive the woman, but I'm not going to forget what she did just because of her age.

She was an accomplice to murder. She has not received any treatment for her actions. She is still a risk to society.

So all this prooves is that Conservatives are hypocrites who are willing to let an accomplice to mass murder go untreated and unjailed.

I'm perfectly willing to live and let live... So long as the other person is letting live. This isn't such a case.
I agree, except for the bolded part. I doubt that she still poses a risk to society. None the less, she has yet to face due process of law.
In Germany (as probably in many other countries worldwide) prosecution of murder and even accomplice to murder don't become time-barred.
Laerod
23-09-2006, 00:57
According to the results so far, conservatives are more forgiving and have more of a live and let live philosophy.Ahahaha! You proved that wrong when we were discussing death penalties handed out in Texas.
RealAmerica
23-09-2006, 01:01
Ahahaha! You proved that wrong when we were discussing death penalties handed out in Texas.

I never said I had that philosophy -- simply that more conservatives seem to endorse that point of view than do liberals.
Soheran
23-09-2006, 01:03
She can't harm anyone anymore. She should have been left alone.
Laerod
23-09-2006, 01:03
I never said I had that philosophy -- simply that more conservatives seem to endorse that point of view than do liberals.11 people is not a sound statistical base.
German Nightmare
23-09-2006, 01:08
She can't harm anyone anymore. She should have been left alone.
She should be given a trial to establish whether indeed she has harmed prisoners.
Now, whether she might actually serve a prison term or even be there for her trial is another matter. Those "poor, old, sick" nazis usually get around it due to ill health - that doesn't make it right, though.
RealAmerica
23-09-2006, 01:11
11 people is not a sound statistical base.

Fine, more conservatives that frequent this forum and happened to vote on this poll. Satisfied? Or do you want to incarcerate more octogenarians to make yourself feel better? :)
Laerod
23-09-2006, 01:17
Satisfied? Or do you want to incarcerate more octogenarians to make yourself feel better? :)I see. Kicked any puppies lately?
Not bad
23-09-2006, 01:36
She should face trial for her participation in commiting war crimes. The fact that she showed no remorse for her actions makes her unworthy of pity or mercy.

Why should remorse come into play?
I am of the opinion that a person physically accomplishing a crime is the problem and not how that person might claim to feel about accomplishing a crime after they are caught.

Why is a murderer with alligator tears on his cheek better than a dry murderer?
Vacuumhead
23-09-2006, 01:37
From reading the article, I'd say she shouldn't be arrested. All she did was work as a guard, I'm guessing just patrolling the place with a dog. If it's possible then I suppose someone could research into her past, to see if she did actually murder people. Although even if she did it would be difficult to find evidence, but like they say: Innocent until proven guilty. I don't think she should be punished just for being a guard, even if it was a concentration camp she worked at.
Vacuumhead
23-09-2006, 01:39
Why should remorse come into play?
I am of the opinion that a person physically accomplishing a crime is the problem and not how that person might claim to feel about accomplishing a crime after they are caught.

Why is a murderer with alligator tears on his cheek better than a dry murderer?

I agree. If remorse had any effect on punishment, then good actors would get away with murder.
Not bad
23-09-2006, 01:41
Fine, more conservatives that frequent this forum and happened to vote on this poll. Satisfied? Or do you want to incarcerate more octogenarians to make yourself feel better? :)

Can we start with the dozy bewildered ones who drive through crowds of pedestrians because they mistake their accellerator pedal for their brake pdal please?
Laerod
23-09-2006, 02:03
From reading the article, I'd say she shouldn't be arrested. All she did was work as a guard, I'm guessing just patrolling the place with a dog. If it's possible then I suppose someone could research into her past, to see if she did actually murder people. Although even if she did it would be difficult to find evidence, but like they say: Innocent until proven guilty. I don't think she should be punished just for being a guard, even if it was a concentration camp she worked at.You're kidding, right?
German Nightmare
23-09-2006, 02:11
All she did was work as a guard, I'm guessing just patrolling the place with a dog.
She worked as a female volunteer SS-guard in the concentration camp Ravensbrück using a trained watch-dog, a weapon so to speak.
You make it sound like she was walking her puppy in the park. That is so wrong.
Killinginthename
23-09-2006, 02:27
There is no statute of limitations for murder in the United States or, as far as I know, in Germany.

They just arrested 5 men for the murder and rape of a motel clerk in 1975 here in the U.S.
They are all over 50 years old now.
Should they not be punished because they got away with murder 30 years ago?

If she was a prison guard in a concentration camp she should be tried for her crimes.
Concentration camps were the epitomy of evil and even if she "was only a guard" she contributed to hundreds (thousands?) of deaths.

She got away with it for 60 years.

Now it is time for her to get a fair trial, and if convicted, to be punished.
This is not about how dangerous she is to society now.
It is about justice.
Vacuumhead
23-09-2006, 02:28
She worked as a female volunteer
''She admitted being assigned to the camp, explaining that she had a less desirable job as a factory worker and volunteered to be a dog handler at the camp for better wages.''

She had a job there, she wasn't a volunteer. She did it for money, not because she enjoyed it. Or maybe I shouldn't give people the benifit of the doubt, she must of worked there because she hated Jews and took some sort of sick pleasure in it. :rolleyes:

SS-guard in the concentration camp Ravensbrück
''She said she never joined the Nazi Party, just did its bidding.''

Again, it was just a job. I'm guessing that she didn't actually agree with the views at the time, as she went on to marry a Jew.

using a trained watch-dog, a weapon so to speak.You make it sound like she was walking her puppy in the park. That is so wrong.
''But she insisted she never used her dog as a weapon against the prisoners''

Why do you automatically presume she was a murderer? :confused:

You may think I'm too believing. But I don't think she should be punished unless this is proven to be a lie and she did actually murder people. All I've seen so far is her admitting to working as a guard there.
Killinginthename
23-09-2006, 02:36
From the article
In Germany during World War II, a much younger Elfriede Lina Rinkel, then single, a girl with blue eyes and striking red hair, had worked as an SS guard at one of the Nazi regime's infamous concentration camps. Called Ravensbruck, it was a slave labor prison for women, and during the year she worked there with a trained attack dog more than 10,000 women died.

Some succumbed to starvation and disease. Others were gassed. More died after cruel medical experiments. Some perished from sheer exhaustion.

More than 10,000 people died in the camp!
Do you think she did not know that they were being killed?

At best she is an accessory to murder.
At worse a murderess.

Dead is dead.
Those women did not have the luxury of living out their lives.
They did not get married, have children or grow old with "the love of their life".
They were innocent human beings who's lives were snuffed out and this woman was a party to it becuase she did not want to work in a factory!
She made money watching people get gassed!

She deserves whatever punishment she gets if she is found guilty.
Novemberstan
23-09-2006, 02:47
Give the old lady to the Germans, she seems to be the real deal. At least she won't be tortured. Just locked up until she dies.

And please stop giving innocent Canadians to be tortured in Syria like you gave Maher Arar. Come to think of that, think about who you give to be tortured.
Laerod
23-09-2006, 02:48
''She admitted being assigned to the camp, explaining that she had a less desirable job as a factory worker and volunteered to be a dog handler at the camp for better wages.''

She had a job there, she wasn't a volunteer. She did it for money, not because she enjoyed it. Or maybe I shouldn't give people the benifit of the doubt, she must of worked there because she hated Jews and took some sort of sick pleasure in it. :rolleyes: "Volunteered". Note it. She didn't have to be part of the mass murder of human beings.


''She said she never joined the Nazi Party, just did its bidding.''

Again, it was just a job. I'm guessing that she didn't actually agree with the views at the time, as she went on to marry a Jew. We call people like that "Mitläufer". They are dispicable. There's a wonderful tale about another nazi that pretended to be a jew. You're guessing she didn't agree with the views at the time, why didn't she quit her job?


''But she insisted she never used her dog as a weapon against the prisoners''

Why do you automatically presume she was a murderer? :confused:

You may think I'm too believing. But I don't think she should be punished unless this is proven to be a lie and she did actually murder people. All I've seen so far is her admitting to working as a guard there.Virtually no one that participated in running concentration camps is innocent.

A murderer? Not necessarily. A monster? Most certainly. Especially if she shows no remorse.
German Nightmare
23-09-2006, 03:17
"She admitted being assigned to the camp, explaining that she had a less desirable job as a factory worker and volunteered to be a dog handler at the camp for better wages."
So she worked in a factory, but because she wanted more pay, became a concentration camp guard. Way to go!

She had a job there, she wasn't a volunteer. She did it for money, not because she enjoyed it. Or maybe I shouldn't give people the benifit of the doubt, she must of worked there because she hated Jews and took some sort of sick pleasure in it. :rolleyes:
To be able to get a job there, she had to be part of the Helferin Corps, because otherwise concentration camps were off limit.
To become part of the Helferin Corps, a female subdivision of the SS, you had to volunteer for it, because the SS didn't accept, nor draft women. Volunteering is the only way she could have gotten that job in the camp.

And I honestly don't know what is more despicable: Doing that job out of conviction or because the pay was good, or at least better than in some factory.


''She said she never joined the Nazi Party, just did its bidding.''
Oh, so she wasn't a party member but a concentration camp guard instead. What kind of an excuse should that portray? Way more Germans were party members than concentration camp guards. That doesn't excuse anything.


Again, it was just a job. I'm guessing that she didn't actually agree with the views at the time, as she went on to marry a Jew.
You know, working in a factory is just a job. Working on a farm is just a job. Working as a guard in a concentration camp definitely is not just a job.
If she didn't really agree with the views at the time, why the fuck would you choose to work in such a hell-hole to begin with?!?
Marrying a Jew after the war does not change a single thing.
Quite the opposite - could it be that she felt guilty because of what had happened in the camp, and after the war she tried to make up for it?


''But she insisted she never used her dog as a weapon against the prisoners''
The whole purpose of a trained watchdog is for it to be used as a weapon.


Why do you automatically presume she was a murderer? :confused:
Because she had a job in a nazi concentration camp, which makes it more than plausible that she at least was an accomplice to murder, if not a murderer.
Please, go check the stats on the concentration camp Ravenbrück during the timeframe 1944-1945 and ask yourself how many people have died during the time that she stood guard in that camp.


You may think I'm too believing. But I don't think she should be punished unless this is proven to be a lie and she did actually murder people. All I've seen so far is her admitting to working as a guard there.
No, I think you are quite the vaccumhead.

Working as a guard, someone who makes sure you cannot escape from that nazi concentration camp, automatically makes her complicit to everything, everything that has occured in that closed environment.

Complicity to a crime, like murder in this case, is the same as if you committed the crime yourself. Her job there is complicity to the thousands of murders that have taken place in that camp, under her watch so to speak.

I say give her a fair trial, something that the inmates she stood watch over for some extra numbers on her paycheck never received - and when found guilty, dish out the maximum penalty.

I don't feel particularly affectionate to anyone who has worked in concentration camps and tried to get away with it.