Due Thursday, 11/3
Choose one of the following to answer:
*Should someone under the age of 18 be tried as an adult in a court of law (ie. when should someone become legally responsible for their actions)? If no, why? If yes or maybe, then
what would be the determining factors?
* If someone is a soldier in the Nazi army to what degree is it their fault that Jews, gypsies and homosexuals were systematically murdered? To what degree does someone have choice in that situation - as a soldier or as a Jew?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
People under 18 should be tried as an adult if they are competant. If they are under age with some sort of mental defect, they are not really responsible for their actions. If they are sane and they commit a murder, they are responsible because people know the difference between right and wrong from a young age.
If someone is a nazi i think that depending on what their rank is in the military determines what their degree of fault is. Like if it is a lowly private then they dont have much fault because all they are doing is following orders, but as you go up the chain of command the degree of fault grows. So, I think that it defintiely depends on what your role is in the military because the military teaches you to not disobey orders.
I feel anyone under the age of 18 should not be tried as an adult because they are not at the point where they completely taking care of themselves. Therefore, once you are 18, I believe, would be the minimum age that one should be tried as an adult because it is the age when most people are starting to make a transition in their lives and ready to go off on their own and start making their own decisions. Then they are responsible for their actions. So if they do something wrong, then they have the right to be tried as an adult in a court of law and handle the consequence on their own.
Everyone should be tried in court equally. Their should not be extra factors put into the decision if someone is guilty or innocent. The facts should be the only persuading factor that could sway the decision of right or wrong. Everybody may learn things, but it is a personal choice whether you will follow those teachings or will form your own ideas and opinions.
A soldier in the Nazi army should be tried on where they were. If there were running the death camps then they should be tried more harshly, but if they were a soldier on the front lines they shouldn't be tried as harsh. Someone has a choice to be either. You can drop the judaism religion and join a new one. A german didn't have to be a nazi. They could say no, but then they'd probably get hanged. Free will is shown in both those situations.
If a Nazi soldier in some way shape or fashion had involvement in the systematic murder of the Jews during World War 2 I believe that they should be tried in court, but their punishment shouldn't be ridiculously severe. They were following orders, that they maybe didn't even necessarily believe in in the first place. So in that way I don't feel that they should be held fully accountable. Maybe higher up generals and officials in the Nazi party should face more severe punishment, but a general footsoldier shouldn't. I believe that every soldier involved in the Nazi party should have maybe been given somewhere between 5 and 10 years of jailtime for their crimes, and all of the higher up officers 10-20 years.
In this situation the Jews didn't have a choice in their death. They had free will to hide and try to escape but that would most likely end bad for them. A Nazi soldier joined to fight for their country, and Hitler decided to systematically kill people that he didn't like. The soldier was following orders and doing what they thought to be justified according to their orders and leadership.
I believe that the Nazi soldiers are completely responsible for their actions because everyone is entitled to make their own decisions. People can argue they were brainwashed but that takes away from the heroic actions of those German soldiers who stood up to Hilter. If the soldiers had each individually decided that what they were doing was wrong, the Holocaust may have been avoided and so many lives could have been spared. In times of desperation, people often make stupid decisions to get out of their state of depression, but people need to realize the cost of their actions before they do them.
It's a soldier's fault if they aided the murders in anyway. If they followed orders to send people to camps or plain killed people themselves, they still hold some responsibility. Their options may have been limited because if they didn't follow orders they could have been put in prison or killed, but they shouldn't have harmed other people to save themselves. As a Jew, the situation is the same if they helped the Nazis in killing others, but if they worked in labor camps and helped in that minor way, they shouldn't be punished because that was the lessor of two evils, the other being death.
Whether someone under the age of 18 should be tried as an adult should depend on the severity of the crime committed. If the underage person committed a serious offense, had planned it out and knew the consequences before committing the crime, the person should be tried as an adult. If the crime was spontaneous and not planned at all, then whether that person should be tried as an adult is debatable.
I think that someone under the age of 18 should by no means be tried as an adult. Since our country has set 18 to be the age standard of turning to adulthood, it is unjust to try them as such. Even though they may be responsible for their actions and know what they were doing, the country set that as our age of adulthood, and that is what it should stay at.
I think that soldiers in the Nazi army are entirely responsible for the Holocaust. They were the only ones who had the power to stop the awful actions committed. I believe in free will and think that it was their choice to murder all of those people. They chose to kill the people. They could have walked away from the situation or chosen not to be in the army.
I believe that people under the age of 18 can be tried as an adult, but very dependent upon the circumstances under which they are being tried. If the circumstances are evidently clear that the person was completely aware of what they were doing, and that it wasn't a act of poor judgement based upon their maturity level, then no, they should not be tried as an adult. In most cases I would expect that a child committing a crime is committing a crime off of childish reasoning, naturally. But if somebody is just killing somebody in cold blooded murder for no apparent reason, that may just mean they're crazy and should more than likely be charged as an adult.
I think that maybe someone could be tried as an adult on trial depending on what they did. If they are close to the age of 18 and did a heinous crime then they should be tried as an adult. A lot of kids today get tried as an adult if they murdered someone. I think everyone should be legally responsible for there actions because if they are willing to do a crime then they should be willing to pay the price of that crime. Sometimes though I think that they should not be charged as an adult because under certain circumstances they might not have done it on purpose. All in all I think it depends on the crime, case, age of defendant, and the evidence to be able to judge if a person under the age of 18 be charged as an adult.
A Nazi solider should be held at least partially responsible for his/her actions. First off, if they didn't want to be in Hitler's army because they disagreed with either violence, Hitler's views, or any other reason, they could have fled Germany (i.e. The Sound of Music). Also, if they willingly joined the army they knew what they would be doing; torturing/killing thousands of Jews and other minorities as well. Those soldiers who willingly joined the army and willingly tortured and killed thousands are to be held 100% responsible for their actions. However, those who thought it too dangerous to attempt to flee Germany, and were forced to join the army and forced to commit these terrible crimes,but hated it with every fiber of their being should not be held totally responsible, but responsible to some lesser degree if they can prove that they did not willingly join the army and hated what Hitler and Eichmann were making them do.
1. Yes, but to a point. I think if you commit a murder, you should be held responsible for your actions, but smaller things such as theft or even a different crime that might be bad but not as severe as murder should be dealt with in other ways, like community service or other punishment when you'r not 18. Whats the point of calling people over 18 adults if everyone, even under that age, is supposed to be one? I also think that there should be a sort of age-gradient where the older you get, the more sever your punishment is. Something like 18-21 perhaps with a gradually increasing punishment factor could result in people who were irresponsible at age 17 and continued until 18 are still punished accordingy, but it's not in such a way that a number defines who you are and all the decisions you make.
I think they can be held accountable. They had the choice to rebel and organize a group to counteract Hitlers plans but didn't. If we don't hold people who do these things then there is a possibility it could happen again. because of this i think nazis had some degree of free will. I think the jews had no free will. if they tried to escape they'd die and if they stayed they'd die. They were victims of determinism.
Maybe, it depends on the crime they are believed to have committed. For example if this person committed an armed robbery, the consequences would be very high if they were tried as an adult, and this person may not deserve those consequences when they are not an adult. Also if no one was harmed or killed while this robbery took place the consequences should be more lenient. However if this person was a sociopath then different consequences would have to apply. If a 17 year-old were to commit a mass murder then, they should be tried as an adult and put in an adult correctional facility to ensure the safety of civilians
Everybody is responsible for their own choices no matter who they are. If a soldier is told to do something that they are morally against and they do they should have to deal with the result. Everybody has choices. Even if the choices are kill someone or get killed yourself, it's sill a choice.
*2
A Nazi who participated in the murdering of the Jews, gypsies and homosexuals should take full responsibility in what they did. They can't blame anyone or anything else because they had the free will to choose what to do. Of course there was pressure from their gov. and from other Nazis. But in the end they had the choice to join, and to kill. They have the full choice to choose. Sartre said that with free will comes responsibility. And the Nazis who chose to participate have to handle the outcome because they chose that they could handle it.
I believe that in the case of World War II, Nazis had the choice whether to rebel or to take Hitler's orders, so I think they should be held accountable. However, some knew that if they didn't do what Hitler said, they or their families could be murdered in return. It's kind of a hard situation to judge considering we weren't even alive, but I do believe that murdering is wrong, and never justifiable. As a solider, you had the choice to kill or not to kill, and it's as simple as that. As a Jew, you really didn't have the choice- you could try to escape, but if you were caught, then you'd die. I think trying to beat the law, especially in those circumstances, is never really a choice you can makes.
It depends for if someone under the age of 18 should be tried as an adult, so maybe. I chose maybe because some crimes might not be bad as they seem because we don't know what may be going on in their life when it happened. They could have been abused at home, their told if they don't do something someone will kill them or their family. Theres different factors that lead up to a crime that need to be considered. Now if the kid sees a parent being beaten by someone or by the other parent, the kid might attack the person causing the harm and might accidentaly kill that person, but they were doing it as self defense not for themselves but for their parent whom they didn't want to get hurt. Now if they purposuly do something bad like murder or a school shooting or whatever yes they should be responsible for their actions because they chose to do it they didn't have to but they did.
Everyone should be tried equally for their crimes despite age. The most important factor in judging someone for a crime is their mental capability and the probability they will repeat an offense.
Being a nazi was pretty much deciding to survive in my opinion. But there contribution to the murder of the other people was based on what orders they were given. In either perspective there is really no choice because the nazis either kill or be killed and replaced, but as far as the jews they really couldnt do much because they were out powered by the power of the germans
If you were a nazi who would oppose the reich in any way,you were dead.The rank would determine your orders and the privates were no doubt coerced into doing horrible disgusting things.You can oppose the ranks and its order but,you bring that threat to yourself regardless of you wanting to protect the jews or oppressed in any way.It is possible to "wound" oneself as one solider did in Vietnam,not wanting to hurt a village that possibly could have been their enemy.But,the solider opted out by shooting himself in the foot and wasn't forced to follow orders.I agree with free will and this soilders actions,theres always a choice and we cannot lead everything to just "orders".Responsibility would be as meaningless as dust.
I believe that a person under the age of 18 shouldnt be tried as an adult, society set the age of becoming an adult at 18 so people under 18 should not be tried as an adult. I do believe however there are exceptions, like if the person was mentally competant and understands there actions and the concequences that go with it and have commited a very serious offense like murder should be tried as an adlut
Post a Comment