CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
24
Let her go! Throw the book at her!
Debate Score:37
Arguments:26
Total Votes:38
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Let her go! (10)
 
 Throw the book at her! (16)

Debate Creator

Hellno(17753) pic



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

old

 

Let her go!

Side Score: 13
VS.

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!
2 points

At this point, all they would be doing is wasting money. let her go, she's not a threat at this point.

Side: Let her go!
TheThinker(1697) Disputed
1 point

She does not seem like a threat but that does not neccessarily means she isnt. Priests are old people but yet some of them hurt children.

Anyway, i know you didn't meant it like that unless you are serious that she is not threat.

Side: Throw the book at her!
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
1 point

she assassinated some political guy. If she's still getting paid to assassinate people, it would be a mistake to let her go... but I don't see that being the case.

Side: Let her go!
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!
1 point

I'm leaning towards letting her go. Normally I wouldn't but at age 96 she doesn't have much time left on earth. I know that shouldn't really matter but I just can't see the point in locking her up for her last few years alive.

Side: Let her go!
whatever19(6) Disputed
3 points

Well the person she falsely accused or whatever hasn't been able to live the last 65 years so why should she be allowed to live peacefully for so long and be let off scotch-free.

Side: Throw the book at her!
Hellno(17753) Disputed
1 point

I didn't see anything in the article about her falsely accusing anyone... no one every got accused of the crime as far as I know?

Side: Let her go!
1 point

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!
casper3912(1581) Disputed
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!
1 point

She killed someone a long time back and she had her reasons! And now that she confesses at 96, there is no point jailing her. It will yield her no good! Neither the World. She was wrong. Yes! But, she is 96! I don't think jailing her is any good!

Side: Let her go!
1 point

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!
Hellno(17753) Disputed
1 point

if she's American, then she doesn't have much life left in her really

It says that she's Dutch and even if she were Japanese she wouldn't have much life left in her.

Side: Throw the book at her!
1 point

There is not much point, she is old and will die soon. She is not a full time murderer she didn't do it again.

Side: Let her go!
4 points

Murder is still a crime, no matter how old it is.

Side: Throw the book at her!

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!
1 point

Granting clemency to this old woman will only set new precedence

That's an excellent point that I hadn't thought of... I was on the fence on this one but you and Gary make very good points. The old woman needs to go to jail.

Side: Throw the book at her!
2 points

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

What the hell! She killed somone she only came forward with it beacuse she figured she was close to dying, put the wrinkled hag in jail for that last year of her life.

Side: Throw the book at her!

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!
1 point

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!
1 point

Unfortunately for her, the statute of limitations does not run out on a murder case.

Side: Throw the book at her!
1 point

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!