German Court to Free Woman That Killed US Soldier

Why did I click this thread. Why.
Well, at least there is hope, most people in here seem to be sane.....

Now, my 2 cents, as I won't say more because I will get showered with negrep if I do:

I think the main difference (I have learned that from Discovery Channel & Louis Theroux) between a prison in the US and Germany is that in the American prison, you are locked into an overcrowded jail where you have to fight for your life, choose a gang etc. not to be murdered, raped or beaten to pulp. Of course, in German jails there is bullying (see: suicide of inmates), but not to the extend I have seen in multiple documentaries about American jails. Our jails focus on the inmate as a human being, not as inventory, we try to resocialize them, educate them and offer them a future outside of jail instead of humiliating them and forming them into mindless survival fighters. Our society actually allows former inmates to get a job, live a normal life etc. after being released, however, from what I gathered, in the US once you are branded "ex con" you can basically just survive by being criminal again or join the biggest company you have, the military, as the society does not accept you as an equal member again.
 
One must not mix up Terrorists and evil multiple killers as opposed to a wife or husband going bonkers at their partners for an affair and killing them. These people I have plenty of sympathy for and are never going to commit that crime again. I think an 8 - 12 year sentence is suitable. But the sentence upon Birgit Hogefeld is, I am afraid, just too short.

On parole it should also be made crystal clear that any future misdemeanours will reactivate the whole part of her sentence, and she must never associate in any form with current or former members of the Red Army Faction - or face recall. I am not sure of the German Parole rules but they should be similar to those above.
 
The Red Army Faction does not exist any more. The issues they were "fighting for" have long since gone out of fashion and the sort of people they fought against are now either too old to be "enemies" or simply deceased. I'm about as worried about Hogefeld's return to terrorism as I am worried about a pigeon feeding on some grains.
 
I don't think a person like that should ever be released.

So, shes sorry for what she did. Well, so what?

Not including the first guy who was shot in the head, only one person (not only, but you know what I mean) died in this attack, but from what I remember of this base...thousands of people could potentially have been killed.

And while I'm no mind reader, I'm assuming that the intent was to kill as many people as possible in the attack. And they knew that this would include civilians as well, but they obviously didn't care.

The fact that only one person died was almost a miracle. But if their plan had gone better and hundreds of people had died...would she still be getting out?

I'm also guessing (or hoping) that intent plays a role in sentencing. If I wanted thousands of people to die in a bombing, but no one did...and by sheer blind luck no one got hurt...would I walk away scott free? Hell no. Just because I screwed up in my plans for murder doesn't count. Not in my opinion anyway.

And thats what these attacks are: murder. And she was part of a plan to kill as many people as possible.

And the article doesn't say, but was this her first planned murder spree? Or was she involved in any of the others? Including the ones where no one died.

How about the ones that never were finished? Was she involved in them?

If she hadn't been arrested, how many other attacks would she have done?

Lock her away and throw away the key. Screw her.
 
Strange, I feel the sudden urge to copy and paste, what I wrote above.
 
MacGuffin said:
Strange, I feel the sudden urge to copy and paste, what I wrote above.
Click to expand...
same here

Attempted murder is sentenced differently from murder for very good reasons - such as not having got people killed.

That American Girl said:
If she hadn't been arrested, how many other attacks would she have done?
Click to expand...
Congratulations, you've just made 1984 look like a children's book. If you want to punish thought crimes and criminal minds, you'll end up "locking people away and throwing away the key" for saying that they could murder a sandwich.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I think, that some people on the forum would feel very comfortable under a judiciary like they have it in Iran or Burma.

I wonder why they do not immigrate there then?

Oh wait... right. Bloody dictatorships there with a complete disregard for human life. Surely they cannot really want that, can they?

Can they?
 
Last edited:
I have to repeat one point said above multiple times:

The German government and state prosecutors consciously decided to not threat this "terrorists" different then any other run-of-the-mill murderer. They did so because they felt that giving them special treatment (i.e. higher sentences) would lend credibility to their "cause".

And because of that they get parole just like any other murderer, because, as far as the government and prosecution is concerened, they are just that.
 
So that's why they beat confessions out of a lot of them? :p
 
Dr_Grip said:
I have to repeat one point said above multiple times:

The German government and state prosecutors consciously decided to not threat this "terrorists" different then any other run-of-the-mill murderer. They did so because they felt that giving them special treatment (i.e. higher sentences) would lend credibility to their "cause".

And because of that they get parole just like any other murderer, because, as far as the government and prosecution is concerened, they are just that.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Seems strange that they would treat all murderers the same. I can actually understand crimes of passion, killing someone that screwed you over or ruined your life. I can totally understand that and even forgive it, although I don't think it's an excuse to kill and you should still face some sort of charges for it. But when people just kill because they enjoy it? Eeeeh, they probably should be in prison for life. Some people are just mentally fuhkd up and I don't think locking them with a bunch of other killers and rapists will make them 'see the light'. Or when people kill for political reasons... eh, I just don't know. Killing people because OTHER people made decisions you don't agree with...? I think you would need to be mentally disturbed, or constantly on drugs or something. Rehabilitation is great, assuming certain types of killers can be rehabilitated.

But hey, I don't know this woman or her reasoning for doing what she did, nor if she truly regrets it and wouldn't make such decisions again. You guys have to live with her, not that she kills her own anyway.
 
nomix said:
So that's why they beat confessions out of a lot of them? :p
Click to expand...
I have no data available on police brutality towards murder victims. But seeing how police treats peaceful demonstrators against neo-nazi rallies, I don't think beating up the RAF was special treatment...

The Bad Kleinen incident, that was another story....
 
Victoria said:
No one is beyond forgiveness. Forgiveness liberates the soul. It removes fear. That is why it is such a powerful weapon.
Click to expand...
Exactly. People who want violence can seldom deal with it when their actions cause pity rather than vengeance. They can't win a fight that nobody is fighting.

TomCat said:
Seems strange that they would treat all murderers the same.
Click to expand...
That must have been a reference to the laws of our country, which allow (and possibly allowed for back in the days of the RAF) for true life imprisonment. It's called preventive detention and particularly dangerous criminals are sentenced to it.

Those laws were not changed for the RAF terrorists, hence they were treated in accordance with the same laws as every other murderer - but judges were certainly free to interpret the laws, as they always are.

On the issue of rehabilitation, Hogefeld seems to be a very good example of what is possible. She made some despicable choices when younger, was punished severely for them and started doing something useful with her life, while in prison. The society that she decided to fight no longer exists and factoring all of that in, she doesn't pose a threat any longer.
 
Last edited:
That American Girl said:
But if their plan had gone better and hundreds of people had died...would she still be getting out?
Click to expand...

Yes, she would :nod:
Maybe not today, but some day she would - given good development during her sentence, which appears to be the case.

TomCat said:
Seems strange that they would treat all murderers the same.
Click to expand...

They don't, that may have been phrased badly. The circumstances, reasons, etc in a murder all are considered, no two murder cases are equal. The point is, they treated these murders as murders. There was no special treatment in either direction.

In principle, every time a judge decides the crime was murder, not manslaughter, the sentence must be life (German life, that's a minimum of 15 years, judges may decide on parole etc. after that). There are certain cases where lower sentences may be applied though. These obviously were no such case, hence the punishment is life.

Without good development or if there are only the slightest concerns of danger to public safety someone convicted to life will not be set free properly at all. Apparently a few judges decided this is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Grip said:
I have no data available on police brutality towards murder victims. But seeing how police treats peaceful demonstrators against neo-nazi rallies, I don't think beating up the RAF was special treatment...

The Bad Kleinen incident, that was another story....
Click to expand...
Well, I've heard what I've heard. With regards to police brutality, it's always been a problem in every society. How do German police treat peaceful protests nowadays?

calvinhobbes said:
Those laws were not changed for the RAF terrorists, hence they were treated in accordance with the same laws as every other murderer - but judges were certainly free to interpret the laws, as they always are.
Click to expand...
They weren't? I seem to remember laws against 'participation in unlawful organisations'?
 
Yeah, it's OT, but since the question has been asked:
nomix said:
How do German police treat peaceful protests nowadays?
Click to expand...
Depends for or against what the protest is. If it is against government policy, they can treat protesters quite violently, and like to use agents provocateurs to justify it (so they can claim the protests were violent). See Heiligendamm a few years ago or Stuttgart last autumn ("bloody friday", which essentially made the Greens (!) win the following state elections in March this year). A few months ago in Dresden the police unlawfully sniffed the cell phone data of the whole town during a anti-nazi demonstration.
And of course, all police is masked and therefore not identifiable during such operations. So, effectively they are above the law and abuse that fact.
 
Last edited:
Any more information, perhaps articles in English?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top