Red Army Faction members being released.

[miked10270 0]

Hi All,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6352903.stm

"A former member of the Baader-Meinhof gang is to be freed on probation after serving 24 years for her involvement in kidnappings and murders in the 1970s.

A German court ruled that Brigitte Mohnhaupt, 57, qualifies for early release after serving a minimum proportion of her five life sentences.

The group, also known as the Red Army Faction, were behind kidnaps and killings in West Germany...."

Of course, they're now a political irrelevance, so are unlikely to pose any threat to society...

But... Should they continue to be punished since they haven't shown any remorse?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[warpedskydiver 0]

She should serve all five life sentences.

[StreetScooby 5]

They should never be released. IMO, they should have been put to death.

We are all engines of karma

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

"The decision for probation was reached based on the determination that no security risk exists."

I oppose this woman's parole, and think the court was wrong. Here's why:

I have written before, explaining the multiple "justifications" of punishment:
-retribution (society's revenge)
- specific deterrence (protecting society from the offender herself by physically disabling her from committing more crimes)
- general deterrence (making an example of the offender, to deter others from committing crimes)
- rehabilitation (reforming the offender so she is no longer an anti-social person. This can be done in various ways, such as: (a) causing the person to understand that what she did was wrong, and to be truly remorseful, or (b) so "breaking" the person's spirit by the severity or length of the punishment that she simply no longer has it in her to commit crimes again.
- restitution (specifically making the person re-pay the victim or society for the harm done, such as through fines, compelled labor or services, etc.)

Let's ignore "retribution" for a moment just to facilitate the discussion. "Security risk" only addresses specific deterrence. But for something like cold-blooded murder (this was not a heat-of-the-moment killing), there (in my opinion) must be rehabilitation, also. I see no rehabilitation, as might be expressed through remorse. And the court is not saying that she's been rehabilitated by her years of imprisonment having "broken" her spirit. Therefore, the court's analysis is inadequate, for it ignores this important element.

And as for "security risk", is she truly a changed person? This doesn't seem to be addressed. She's only age 57. That's still plenty young enough to remain radicalized, and to have the physical capacity to act it out.

In the absence of true rehabilitation, I don't have any problem with her serving the rest of her life in prison. Or at least another 20 years or so, until she's so hobbled by age that she can no longer do much harm.

[mpohl 1]

An "Eye for an Eye" will leave everybody blind!

Thank God for societies more advanced than the US; let's talk again in about, shall we say, 2,000 years. Should give the Americans enough time to catch up w/ their European or Arab counterparts.

Edited to add: Suffice it to say that per the German Supreme Court, an unlimited time of punishment is unconstitutional and in violation of HUMAN RIGHTS (a concept possibly unfamiliar to the US). Hence, a life-sentence in Germany now translates to 15 yrs, and a life-sentence w/ aggravated circumstances is 25 yrs.

Quote

She should serve all five life sentences.

[mpohl 1]

How much do you really know about the RAF, Germany, Stadtguerilla, etc.? The theory behind it.

Care to engage above the level of Fox News? Also, are you German or just another fucked-up American trying to meddle in everyone's business?

Quote

Quote

"The decision for probation was reached based on the determination that no security risk exists."

I oppose this woman's parole, and think the court was wrong. Here's why:

I have written before, explaining the multiple "justifications" of punishment:
-retribution (society's revenge)
- specific deterrence (protecting society from the offender herself by physically disabling her from committing more crimes)
- general deterrence (making an example of the offender, to deter others from committing crimes)
- rehabilitation (reforming the offender so she is no longer an anti-social person. This can be done in various ways, such as: (a) causing the person to understand that what she did was wrong, and to be truly remorseful, or (b) so "breaking" the person's spirit by the severity or length of the punishment that she simply no longer has it in her to commit crimes again.
- restitution (specifically making the person re-pay the victim or society for the harm done, such as through fines, compelled labor or services, etc.)

Let's ignore "retribution" for a moment just to facilitate the discussion. "Security risk" only addresses specific deterrence. But for something like cold-blooded murder (this was not a heat-of-the-moment killing), there (in my opinion) must be rehabilitation, also. I see no rehabilitation, as might be expressed through remorse. And the court is not saying that she's been rehabilitated by her years of imprisonment having "broken" her spirit. Therefore, the court's analysis is inadequate, for it ignores this important element.

And as for "security risk", is she truly a changed person? This doesn't seem to be addressed. She's only age 57. That's still plenty young enough to remain radicalized, and to have the physical capacity to act it out.

In the absence of true rehabilitation, I don't have any problem with her serving the rest of her life in prison. Or at least another 20 years or so, until she's so hobbled by age that she can no longer do much harm.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

An "Eye for an Eye" will leave everybody blind!

Thank God for societies more advanced than the US; let's talk again in about, shall we say, 2,000 years. Should give the Americans enough time to catch up w/ their European or Arab counterparts.

Edited to add: Suffice it to say that per the German Supreme Court, an unlimited time of punishment is unconstitutional and in violation of HUMAN RIGHTS (a concept possibly unfamiliar to the US). Hence, a life-sentence in Germany now translates to 15 yrs, and a life-sentence w/ aggravated circumstances is 25 yrs.

Quote

Well then I guess she must be fully rehabilitated and ready to rejoin society.

Care to have her live near you?

if life in germany is 15 years no problema

last time I checked 15yrs x 5 = 75yrs

Oh and I did live in germany back when those animals ran loose

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites