Many thanks to JLH for the translation from Politically Incorrect.
Justice in Cologne: Manslaughter and Education
by Sebastian N.
PI reported exhaustively on the cases of killer Ayoub B., of Erdinc K. who beat someone into a coma, of the 20-Cent-Murderer Onur K. and on the case of Thomas Fechner who was beaten almost to death by three culture-enrichers. In all these judicial farces, the leading actors all walked free in spite of established guilt. In every case, the perpetrators got probation.
Meantime, we will read in the newspapers whether they turn up again as killers, perhaps with their German names to protect their identities.In the first and last of the cases mentioned above, the venue was Cologne regional court.
So I wrote the president of the regional court, Mr. Helmut Zerbes (photo) and received an answer. I would like to present it here because I think it is symptomatic of the unspeakable gobbledygook of the successor generation to the ’68ers. A plea for the educability of killers and against the protection of the victims, for that is the logical result of this deviant form of justice:
Dear Mr. N.,
for the understanding of the verdict you address, I refer you to the fact that the juvenile law is dedicated first and foremost to the education of the youthful perpetrator.
Wow! I thought that the justice system was intended to serve justness. What a fatally flawed idea of mine!
By law, except with adults, general protective considerations (such as “making an example”) can play no role.
Right. Why should punishment scare anyone? Just because it was effective for millennia. And the comment that tough sentences are “making an example” and that is not a part of juvenile law, does not change the fact that justice should be about protecting the people. But that seems to play no role here.
Instead, it is a question of assuring that the defendant lives punishment-free.
Training in boxing will certainly educate him and a talking-to from the judge will strike him to his core! It is too bad that it doesn’t have anything to do with protecting potential new victims or even those already victimized from the violent perpetrator. “Too bad” is the wrong expression. It is a crime against one’s own people.
Whether this goal can be achieved through serving a sentence in a juvenile enforcement institution or through other means (as here: several years in an institution for educational support and maintenance of the standards of behavior maintained there), must be decided in each individual case. In this case, it is first and foremost a question of the defendant’s personality, so generalized considerations are not possible.
Fortunately, it is still not forbidden to consider things, so the forbidden thought comes to me: why does this system not bear fruit among the 80% Muslim multiple offenders in Berlin? Or in the rest of Europe? The answer is irrelevant. The fact is, it does not work. Behind it all is the certainly laudable belief in the goodness of human beings, which can be brought to the surface by use of appropriate measures, so that this person is changed in a positive way.
That is a very decent thought, but is not much help when it comes to people who really do not care whether the German judicial system sees them as good or bad, because they have a whole different value system — namely that of Islam. Islam presents us as “infidels” and motivates to violence against us. You cannot do away with this kind of thinking with a boat trip and a whack on the butt. It is deeply rooted and blocks out any intervention by do-gooders.
That in particular victims of violent acts and their friends and relatives cannot manage understanding for the sanctions imposed is in my opinion quite understandable, cannot however alter the view that the education of the youthful perpetrator must be in the forefront of juvenile justice.
Yours truly.
by order: Zilius justice employee
Dear Mrs. Zilius,
It is actually very difficult for someone who has been beaten to death to work up understanding for something done here in Germany in juvenile justice, because he is dead. The continuing repetition of the importance of the task of educating in German courts does not change the fact that killers, near-killers and even murderers are set loose en masse. The families of victims must undergo great emotional pain and in some cases even be in fear of the perpetrators, who could seek them out and harm them. The blindness, naiveté and criminality-nurturing tendency in such verdicts are a threat to society. What would you have to say to the victims of a repeat offender who had gone through the whole pedagogical coddling program of German justice after his first offense?
We must recognize with such comments as those in this letter that do-gooderness is deeply rooted in the German justice system. We hear this often in relation to scandalous court decisions. For the perpetrators, the result is often that they have no respect for the police and the judicial system and feel justified in their actions. The result for the victims is that they become victims again — of the German courts. This coddling of murderers consequently produces further victims, if the perpetrator strikes again, And rage among the people, who — the more they are affected by such catastrophic verdicts — are no longer willing to accept the psychologizing, ’68er drivel as an excuse for failed justice.
It is quiet clear: A society that does not punish its criminals creates more crime for itself. And everyone suffers the consequences — including the coddling judges. For they too, have children, grandchildren, wives and siblings who live in this land. Needed above all are the policies which will make the determinations that are appropriate to protect the people, rather than exterminate them.
7 comments:
Were it a white perpetrator ,would this judges sensitivities be the same?We has seen times without question that they would not,therefore another agenda must be at work.
Whether criminals are coldly rational or hopelessly programmed by their previous social indoctrination is a point of great and wonderful dispute among those concerned with including 'fairness' in the operation of the justice system.
But when you simply pick either explanation for the behavior of any particular criminal, suddenly you realize that it doesn't make a bit of difference in how you ought, in justice, to treat them. Take two brutal murderers, one who has acted out of a reasoned analysis of his relative risks and benefits, and the other of whom is little more than an animal trained to attack those his trainers dislike. The various reasons for punishing them to the full extent justice demands differs, but ultimately there can be no reason for 'leniency' if one is fully responsible for his own actions and the other is basically just a dangerous animal devoid of the faculty of human reason.
The arguments for leniency always involve the dishonest tactic of using whichever premise about the motives of the criminal is suited to rejecting the current argument for punishment, without regard for the fact that a moment ago quite the opposite assertion about their motives was used to defeat a different argument in favor of simple justice.
Of course, the distressing truth is that there is a mixture of rational self-interest and irrational instinct in every human being, and it is not always easy to tell them apart given that instincts generally have their own reasons for existing in benefiting an organism and strict rationality only orders the pursuit of motives, no logical proposition in the world could ever produce the initial impulse to seek a given end. Not only do individuals vary innately in their mental capacity to reason, and of the strength of their various instinctive drives, but vary over their life-time in the proportion of one to the other.
But the fact remains, that to exactly the degree that a person "cannot help" committing a crime, they forfeit the right to be treated with the dignity of an individual with free will. To exactly the degree that a given person really does possess the faculty of reason and self-determination, they are fully accountable for their actions. Whatever the difficulty of assessing just how much a given person is free to have done other than what they did, once you do settle on a determination, any determination, the argument for justice is fully intact and irrefutable.
As they have done of their own will, so be it unto them in return. What has occurred as the inevitable result of their nature, let the natural response to that occurrence be just as inevitable.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
Like Michael Savage says, " liberalism is a mental disorder.!" These thugs should have been locked away and then if they are immigrants deported back to Turkiye at the end of their sentence.
The liberal mindset does not work!
Just another reason why judges or
magistrates should not be involved
in sentencing. Their role should be
determination of guilt/innocence,
with a recommended sentence. The case then goes to a Sentencing Court which would comprise a panel of 3 or 4, with representations from both sides if serious enough. This will lead to fairer outcomes.
Great post Chiu, you should have your own section!
Anestis - it's a form of Magical Thin king
"In midst of one of the most amazing displays of irrationality in modern Western history, Americans are left to ponder: What the devil has happened to the USA? Arguably, roots of America’s current confusion are traceable to an infection of leftist Magical Thinking.
This is essentially the thought pattern of how children perceive the world, a mindset based upon substituting wishful thinking for reality. One of the chief characteristics of Magical Thinking is a denial of the principles of science. It is a dangerous belief system because it causes folks to assume that as long as their motives are right, all their plans and undertakings will work out.
The unrealistic thought pattern of Magical Thinking now informs American public policy and statecraft at every level—on economics, foreign relations, rule of law, environmentalism, etc. It is a world-view based upon the notion the “right” people will provide successful leadership for America, simply because they are “good,” and not the old “bad” leaders. Most intriguingly, this outlook is characteristic of not just children, but also sufferers of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which Dr. Ali Sinan believe is a diagnosis fitting Barack Obama."
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22701
An interesting article on Magical Thinking and liberalism. Though the truth is that a certain degree of magical thinking is endemic to all effective human cognition, since the world as it really is cannot be apprehended without being conceptually simplified to a very great degree.
The difference is in choosing to embrace the simplistic models rather than attempt to articulate them to produce better fidelity to reality. A child's thinking, that things generally tend to happen because someone wanted them to happen, is not entirely wrong even if it grossly oversimplifies how the world really works and leaves out all the hard work that goes into turning a desire into reality.
The problem doesn't come about until people start refusing to adopt a more accurate model of reality because it is more complex and therefore requires greater mental effort to apply. If two models of reality provide results with equivalent (or nearly equivalent) accuracy, it is perfectly sensible to choose the model that can be applied more easily. Those who choose a more complex conceptual model despite the fact that it shows no improvement in accuracy, just because it is complex and complex models are generally better, is engaged in (ironically) magical thinking too, by ignoring the fact that it is the accuracy of the model that matters, not the complexity.
Ultimately, "magical" thinking occurs because of a desire to avoid taking responsibility for the accuracy of one's conceptual model of reality. All conceptualization of reality necessarily involves simplification of the real into the conceivable. But unnecessary simplification of one's concepts at the expense of their accuracy reflects a desire to evade rather than engage reality. But the only part of reality that can, in the end, be evaded is awareness of the truth about the causal connection between personal actions and their consequences.
After all, while perception is not reality, it cannot exist without it. Descartes' famous insight, "Cogito ergo sum" depends absolutely on the idea that cognitive activity is dependent on real existence of an entity capable of carrying it out that activity in reality. One cannot retreat from reality into imagination, because the imaginative faculty is necessarily dependent on reality, we are always subject to a "rude awakening" (even if it takes the form of dying in one's sleep).
So we cannot escape from reality itself, "to be" means to be subject to reality. Consequences are inevitable. But understanding of how our actions effect those consequences is a matter of choice. And many people choose, for whatever reason, to have less understanding of how their actions affect reality than they might have.
Chiu Chun-Ling.
The juvenile penal code in Germany was worked out at a time when almost only Germans or members of closely related cultures could conceivably be affected by it, and therefore the preference of education over punishment seemed justified. That the mass influx of people of completely incompatible upbringings would lead to its utter failure, and at such a grand scale, was not foreseen at that time. However, it is glaringly visible now, and we are not acting upon it, paralyzed like a rabbit seeing a snake. Not paralyzed by an enemy, but by the well-trained inability to stand up for ourselves. When this folly finally ends, there will be some very ugly times, followed by a generation of shame yet again for not having been more realistic in the first place.
Post a Comment