96-Year-Old Woman Confesses to 1946 Murder: Let Her Go?
(AP) – A murder mystery has been solved with the confession of a 96-year-old woman—and it only took her 65 years to do it. The 1946 killing of Felix Gulje, the head of a construction company who had high political ambitions, rocked the Dutch political landscape at the time. Atie Ridder-Visser confessed to the killing in a letter to the mayor of Leiden, saying it happened in the mistaken belief that Gulje had collaborated with the Nazis. Two subsequent interviews with her, and a review of the historical archives persuaded Mayor Henri Lenferink that her story was true. Ridder-Visser will not be prosecuted, Lenferink said.
http://www.newser.com/story/120588/dutch-woman-atie-ridder-visser-confesses-to-murder-committed-in-1946.html
Let her go!
Side Score: 13
|
Throw the book at her!
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
3
points
Interesting... Allowing her to go free means that we can allow old child molestors to be free as well? I am bringing the two together to make you guys think about this. I say let her go if she is no danger to society. Well she can be but seeing that she is not a serial murder makes me believe that she is not intending to kill anyone else. But this goes for the child molestor as well if he is not danger of children anymore.....if he is no danger to children anymore. Side: Throw the book at her!
1
point
1
point
Interesting, how prosecuting a confessed murder on trial for taking another person's life is a waste of money? Sure, she is not a threat at this point, but murder isn't only present tense. Wasting money is prosecuting non violent drug offenders or traffic violations, but murder, give me a break. Side: Throw the book at her!
3
points
Let her go! She's 96 years old for god's sake! She killed a man who she apparently believed was working with the Nazis. She isn't a danger to society. It seems like her conscience was bothering her anyways. She only has a few years left. Putting her in prison would be a waste of time and money, not to mention a waste of a prison cell where they could put a much more dangerous criminal instead. Side: Let her go!
1
point
She killed a man who she apparently believed was working with the Nazis. The key phrase is apparently believed. It doesn't justify the end to the means. Killing is wrong, and it doesn't matter what age with what cause. How is letting a murderer free justified because someone is old? Protecting life is important, and basically, letting her go is the government saying that this man's life wasn't important. Side: Throw the book at her!
1
point
what life would the government be protecting? The man is already dead, unless she is a threat to other people then the government is saying that life in general is important by their actions, by allowing her to live out her last days in as full of a manner as she chooses, rather then assault her life piecemeal(and considering the likely small amount of time she has left, completely) with jail/prison time. Side: Let her go!
Meh, if she's American, then she doesn't have much life left in her really, so what's the point of putting her in prison for 5 years if she won't live that long? Just do something like put her children in debt for her crimes or something. That's how it usually goes, right? Pin the debt on the Children? Side: Let her go!
1
point
|
2
points
The most important and only legitimate role of government is to protect life, liberty and property, but as history shows, government protects only life it sees worthy, it destroys liberty piecemeal, and rather than protect property, it enacts laws to take property. Granting clemency to this old woman will only set new precedence, for it will only solidify the illegitimacy of the rule of law in relation to governance by government. What about the life of the man killed? Where is his justice? Nowhere, as long as it is more than 65 years, killing is permitted. Murder is the most unforgiving law that has no statutory limitations. This woman killed, it is time for punishment despite being 96. She can die in prison. Side: Throw the book at her!
She killed someone so no matter how old the case is she should still do her time. She was the idiot who confessed. What does this say to others who have commited murders and where only discovered decades later that it's okay, give them a pat on the back and say good job?! Side: Throw the book at her!
1
point
1
point
She must be put in jail, i dont see how you can justify letting her go, she killed someone. She killed him for a good reason but that doesnt excuse the fact that she took the law into her own hands, and was completely wrong in doing so as the person she killed wasn't actually a nazi callaborator. It seems to me that this person knows their time on this earth is almost up and they want to ease their conscience, i mean confessing at this late stage seems to me to be a purely selfish act, shes doing it only for herself, and thus she should suffer the full extent of the law. Side: Throw the book at her!
I would tell you I completely agree but I know you would just tell me I don't so I won't. I originally answered "let her go" but I've changed my mind. By the way, someone down-voted you for some unknown reason... I up-voted. I just didn't want you to think I was being an asshole by not up-voting when I agreed with you. Side: Throw the book at her!
If there is common agreement that very old people shouldn't be prosecuted for murder committed decades ago, let Parliament enact a law saying so. But if there is no such law, she should go through the legal procedures that arise from her actions, including trial and conviction. Deciding that she shouldn't be prosecuted will, as others have said, set a dangerous precedence - not only for non-prosecution of murder, but also for allowing the executive government to make arbitrary decisions on serious matters that ought to be decided by the courts. I'm not opposed to showing leniency in this particular case, but there is plenty of opportunity within the justice system for leniency that do not involve making unconstitutional decisions - e.g. pardon or early release on compassionate grounds. Side: Throw the book at her!
|