How should those who have participated in genocide or mass murder (such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, and the list goes on)be dealt with by society. To what degree should individuals be held accountable? What about those who give orders and those who carry them out? Do experiments such as those conducted by Milgram, Zimbardo and others mitigate responsibility? Why or why not? In order to get full credit on this response, you must cite specific evidence from Ordinary Men, as well as other class sources.
50 comments:
How those who have participated in genocide or mass murder, such as the Holocaust, should be dealt with by society is a very difficult question. While their actions are incredibly wrong and terrible, it is a challenge to tell how much he or she as a single person should be punished. In my opinion, individuals who carry out orders should not be held accountable so much as those who give those orders. The human mind is very complex, and it seems as if many perfectly kind, normal people end up following cruel instruction because of the situation they are put in. As Browning stated regarding the Reserve Police Battalion 101, “These men would not seem to have been a very promising group from which to recruit mass murderers on behalf of the Nazi vision of a racial utopia free of Jews.” However, these normal men did become mass murderers. But I believe that their actions are not entirely their fault - often people want to fit in or do what everyone else is doing rather than standing up for what they believe in or what they know is right. Also, I think that the human psyche is tuned to listen to authority figures no matter what.
For that reason I think that experiments such as those conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo mitigate responsibility for actions because they prove that although people have morals and values, those can become insignificant in the face of authority. For example, in the Milgram experiment, many “teachers” did not want to electrocute their “student” for giving the incorrect answer, but when told to continue, they did. This proves that people have a tendency to follow authority no matter what, which makes it seem like those who carry out orders shouldn’t be held accountable so much as the authority figures, like those in the Stanford Prison Experiment. When students were given the opportunity to become prison guards, they completely abused their positions and the fourteen-day experiment had to be halted after six days. There was no one telling these students to mistreat the “prisoners,” yet they did anyways. They had the option to treat the prisoners well, but they chose to abuse their authority which is why I think that those who give orders should be more responsible.
In the words of one man in the Reserve Police Battalion 101, “Man, such jobs don’t suit me… But orders are orders.”
In situations such as the holocaust, genocides, and mass murders it is far easier to put the blame on certain individuals than it is to determine how they should be punished for their actions. The question becomes how they should be punished and to what degree. I believe that individuals are accountable for their actions since each person has a clear understanding of right and wrong, but certain factors need to be taken into account. For example, in Ordinary Men the policemen had to deal with pressures to conform. Since the battalion moved as one unit, stepping out from the group to excuse yourself from the mission seemed like a betrayal. Pressure from their superiors, who thought that their men represented a reflection of their own leadership, pressured the policemen from going against what they knew to be morally right. For example, Steinmetz was infuriated when one of his men was the first to step forward and except Trapp's offer. I think that the men who were forced to execute orders should be held accountable, but not to the same degree. They have already been punished since they have to live life knowing what they did was wrong. In Ordinary Men, most of the men who agreed to comment on the Jozefow Massacre said that they regretted performing the task. I think psychologically that is the worst way a person can be punished. As for the people who gave the orders, I think they need to be punished. The generals and high military officers need to pay the consequences. In most cases, they were excused from performing the killings and don't have to worry so much about the mental effect that it has on a person. They also didn't have to worry about pressures from a higher power since they were at the top. The individuals should be held accountable since they knew more than most what was right and wrong. I think officers who got out of the war and such acts should be punished as well but to the same degree as the lower power military personnel.
As for Milgram and Zimbardo, they should have stopped their research when things started to turn bad. They continued their research in vain and at the expense of human life and sanity. Zimbardo should be charged in court due to the effects that occurred as a result of his experiment. He must have had some idea of what was going to happen and yet he knowingly continued on with his experiment. I think that everyone who participates in such acts as mass murder should be punished. While the degree of punishment should vary based on the role the person played, no one should get away with anything and should be punished whether it be with prison time or the psychological effects.
How to deal with people who have participated in genocide, such as in the Holocaust, is a very difficult task. Although their actions are blatantly wrong and horrific it is hard to decide the proper punishment. In the case of the Holocaust the men knew what they were doing was immoral which is why they would have never completed such actions in a normal situation but their situation was not normal. They were in the middle of a world war and had their superiors telling them that the Jews were the enemy. Because of this I feel that the higher commanders and people giving orders should receive more severe punishments than those who are told to follow. Thos who give orders have a higher stance and power to change the course of action while the followers do not. This is shown by Major Trapp who, when giving the orders, allows anyone to step out they wants to. By changing the orders, Trapp allowed for the followers to change their actions which is demonstrated by those who chose to step out. But this example also shows why regular people would commit such atrocities. Due to the desire to fit in and follow the crowd the majority of Trapp’s men decided to go along with the mission even though they knew it was going to be a terrible job. When people are part of a group they are most likely to follow each other in order to belong. None of the men wanted to be seen as cowards or outsiders which is why they went against their morals. Also when given orders by superiors they felt they should follow.
This reasoning is demonstrated by the experiments of Milgram and Zimbardo. In Milgram’s experiment people were told to shock their “student” every time they got a question wrong. Although most of the people quickly became uncomfortable with their task they continued because authority told them to do so. I think that most people are quit to doubt themselves instead of others so when told to do something we will assume that the orders are okay. Zimbardo’s experiment with the Stanford prison and students as the guards and prisoners shows the influence of power and situation. The students that were given the role of guards quickly abused their powers and became cruel even when they knew it was just an experiment. Also the prisoners, even though they were treated cruely, never quit the experiment. I believe that the stress of the situation takes over so that you completely lose yourself. This principle can be applied to the men of Police Battalion 101 who, when placed in such an extreme situation forgot where they had come from and who they were and became lost in their atrocities. This leaves them with a life of guilt and remorse which is the worst punishment of all.
Those who have participated in genocide or mass murder should be put to death. Murderers and serial killers are condemned to death, and so should these people who kill thousands and millions of people. This is hard sometimes though because often the person/ people who are committing mass murder are rulers of a country or involved with the government, so no one can really rebel against them without being punished or killed.
The people who give the orders for the killings are just as accountable or responsible as those who carry out the killings. It is bad to go through with the killings like these men did, but it is just as bad that these men refused to kill the Jews, but just sat back and did nothing about the mass murders. It was very confusing to me that these men were given the option to not kill at all (and there would be no consequences if they decided not to), but still, most of them turned into killers. "Why did most men in the Reserve Police Battalion 101 become killers, while only a minority of perhaps 10 percent- and certainly no more than 20 percent- did not" (Browning 159). Browning goes on to say that racism, war, and the rules of combat made these men into killers. He also says that "Many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust were so-called desk murders whose role in the mass extermination was greatly facilitated by the bureaucratic nature of their participation" (Browing 162). A lot of the blame can be put on the Nazi leaders such as Hitler and Himmler because initially they were the ones who thought up the idea of mass murder, but the men who actually carried out these murders should have the same amount of blame. These men had many opportunities to get out of the killings and be transfered elsewhere, but chose not to. "But only a few went beyond complaining to extricate themselves from such a possibility" (Browning 76).
The experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo proved that in certain situations, it is human nature to act a certain way. However, I do not believe that these experiments mitigate responsibility because, like the men of the police battalion 101, the students in these experiments could have controlled themselves to not act like nasty, cruel people. The experimenter did not have to shock the person for every wrong answer they got (as in Milgram's experiment at Yale), but "65 percent" of people did induce shock on the other person. Even though the person did not actually get shocked (because they were actors pretending to get shocked), the fact that more than half of the experimenters induced shock was astonishing.
In conclusion, people should take responsibility for their actions. Many of those involved in Nazi Germany simply said they were ordered to kill all these Jews, but in reality, they had full control over their actions because they could have opted out of it. The "ordinary men" would not have been punished if they didn't kill the Jews, but still, most of them still became killers, for various reasons.
Regarding the punishment of those who participated in the mass murder or genocide of Jews, it is easy to quickly and harshly condemn all those who participated in these killings. It is simple for us to see their actions as inhumane and as a consequence condemn them all. Though I believe they should take responsibility for these disturbing actions I believe that some should be punished more that others. Ultimately the officers that gave the orders to these “ordinary men” should have been punished more severely. “They sincerely thought that they had had no choice when faced with orders to kill. Undoubtedly in many units zealous officers bullied their men with ominous threats…” (170). This obviously shows why some of the higher ranked officers deserved greater punishment than the ones who were told to carry out these actions. Some of these officers actually wanted those innocent Jews dead while most of these ordinary men did not. They simple felt pressured by their authority and conformed to the rest of the group.
These pressures were also tested by Milgram and Zimbardo. In Milgram’s experiment he, “…tested the individual’s ability to resist authority that was not backed by any external coercive threat” (172). In this experiment people were told to shock their students if had an answer that was incorrect. Though they were uncomfortable with shocking an innocent stranger the authoritative figure in this experiment altered one’s morals and they ended up shocking the students when told. This is similar to the Police Battalion commanders who would give orders to conduct an inhumane task that were obeyed probably for this same reason. In Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment he gave some students jobs as guards of a prison. As the experiment carried out it was seen that these guards began to abuse their power and he had to stop the experiment. This shows again why I believe that the people who made the orders should be punished more than the ones who had to carry them out. These students did not have to abuse their power and neither did the officers, but hey did and they should have to accept the consequences of their wicked actions.
When first examining the mass murders of incidents such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, ect., it seems obvious that those responsible for the killings should be severely dealt with. However, when we dive deeper into these situations, it becomes harder to assess. There will always be those who plead and say, "But I was just following orders!", or those who claim that they were overpowered by the situation, and should therefore not be held responsible. Should these statements be taken seriously?
In my opinion, these individuals should still be held responsible for the horrendous deeds that they committed. However, I do firmly believe that the power of situations can manipulate the human mind and therefore influence them to act in certain ways. I do not believe that this is an excuse, but is certainly an interesting factor to examine.
For example, Browning discusses how being a soldier affected the actions of the men in Police Battalion 101. He explains how even though Trapp offered the men a way out of the killings, only a few stepped forward because of a sense of "oneness" with the other soldiers. When made into a soldier, you are mentally grouped with other men just like you. You become one group of people instead of a collection of individuals. This situation related to Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment in which he stripped ordinary men of their usual identities and formed them into different people. We saw from his experiment that the men on both sides of the situation-guards and prisons, started to act differently in order to fit into their parts and the situation. In Zimbardo's own words, "There are no bad apples, only bad barrels", meaning that there are no bad people, just people made bad by the situations they are put in. Therefore, Zibardo's research in addition to Browning's own conclusion suggests that responsibility should be perhaps be put onto the situation, not the people in them.
In addition, it is important to examine the power of peer pressure in situations such as the Holocaust. Peer pressure played a significant role in "Ordinary Men" as well as Milgram's experiment. In both situations, it is clear that because of pressure from those superior to themselves, individuals were manipulated into acting in ways unusual to their normal behavior. For example, when Steinmetz discovered Trapp had offered his men the choice of shirking their duties, he was infuriated. Milgram blatantly shows us the power of peer pressure in his own experiment. Even though the test subject knew the person in the next room was in terrible "pain", they continued to shock them when the experimenter simply said, "You must continue".
Therefore, from these two situations we can see that the situation holds a great deal of influence over the people in them. This is not to say that this mitigates their responsibility, but it is important to understand why people act certain ways, and what can turn an ordinary men into a killer.
Those who have participated in genocide or mass murder are usually treated differently than the average citizen. While it is difficult to decipher exactly what should be done, in the broad scheme of things, I agree that they should not be supported by society due to their actions which stole the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. While some say they completed these tasks in order to support their country, there were definitely less gruesome solutions available. As a result, I believe they should be looked down upon and forced to complete acts of good will. Nonetheless, I don’t feel they should be severely punished because without the order of their leaders, they never would have completed such tasks. Still, no one individual can be held accountable; rather the blame is on the group as a whole. Those who give the orders are to blame for the majority because without them, these actions would never have occurred. Still, those who carry the orders out were given the option to refuse an order. However, in Ordinary Men, Browning showed his readers that there were only a few men who backed away while many readily volunteered, regardless of the presence of their commanding officers.
Furthermore, recent studies have shown that leaders directly affect their followers. As the video in class portrayed, individuals work hardest when leaders are stern and give serious orders. Also, they tend to conform and blend in with the group because they feel uncomfortable as an outcast. Therefore, when their surrounding troop’s fire at anything that moves, they feel obligated to do the same. In recent years, studies have been conducted by individuals such as Milgram and Zimbardo in which they proved that morals are put aside when authority comes into play. In other words, when a dominant leader takes control, people feel compelled to do whatever is asked of them. I believe these experiments mitigate responsibility because they showed society how an average citizen can be coerced into doing something out of the ordinary such as injure or even kill innocent people. “Concerning their attitude to the killing itself, he stated that ‘the men did not carry out the Jewish actions with enthusiasm…The men were all very depressed’” (Browning 214). As the readers of Ordinary Men can infer, the killings were not something most of the men did out of spite; rather they felt like they didn’t have a choice. In a sense, the mass murders are conducted through a chain of events. First, an order is given. Secondly, a brave individual makes the first move and does what he’s told. Eventually, the majority of the men follow suit and disaster erupts. If it weren’t for the authority’s initiation, the secondary steps would not fall into sequence. As a result, it is clear that those men who give the orders are the primary reason mass murders are performed. However, they are only successful when the orders are completed. Due to this ideology, I do not believe any one individual should be blamed when it is clearly a group effort and decision.
The atrocities committed by soldiers during World War II were unprecedented in terms of maliciousness and scale. As such, the world was unprepared in dealing with the type of mass murder seen during the war. The world also lacked a complete understanding of human sociology when it came to obeying orders regardless of immorality. As shown in the experiments of Milgram and Zombardo who had ordinary citizens take a role that required inflicting pain towards others at the command of false authority figures, the soldiers participating in mass murder were not inhuman. Experiments like Milgram’s and Zombardo’s show how easily people can be swayed if they believe themselves to be in the presence of authority. The participants in the experiments willingly “electrocuted” people and acted as cruel prison guards. These were ordinary people whose compliance with horrible orders illustrated just how the issue of murderers acting under orders is not clear-cut.
The obvious options are a combination of punishment or acquittal to the soldiers and superiors. However, making blanket statements does not entirely solve the issue. For example, if one were to say that the superiors of the soldiers should be penalized but not the soldiers the verdict would be allowing murderers to walk free. In Ordinary Men the soldiers are even given the option to opt out of the murder by Trapp. These men, while pressured by their environment and peers, acted on free will.
I believe that the best way to deal with these situations is to institute a set of rules to govern these situations. A massive body of international government like the UN should determine the punishment of participants in situations of mass murder. I personally would favor harsh penalties for the soldiers as precedent and much harsher punishments for the superiors of the soldiers who gave the orders. The people giving the orders should be treated as war criminals and at the very least, be put in jail for the rest of their lives. I would not favor such strong penalties for the individual soldiers, although something along the lines of extended jail time seems fair.
If a harsh precedent was set it may deter future war crimes and educate potential participants that involvement in such acts will not be tolerated by international governing bodies.
Certainly the question on how to deal with those involved in genocide is not a simple one. It is my belief that not all of those involved in genocide should be punished for their actions. While these may appear on the surface to be extremely passive, I believe many of those who participated in genocide to be themselves victim of the very nature of what it takes to carry out genocide or mass murder. Many of these men who killed did so under great threat, psychological manipulation, and myriad of other factors beyond their control. At multiple points in Ordinary Men the hesitancy to kill is described. " They took advantage of Trapp's policy within the battalion of exempting form shooting those "who did not feel up to it" ( Browning 215) . Others who did chose to kill, though morally opposed or not, agreed on the assertion that " orders are orders" . This leads me to the basis of the argument, that the authority figures at the head of such genocide such be the ones to suffer punishment at to answer to society for what they have done. It is simply not fair, nor practical to hold accountable those who were under great pressure and strong orders to execute certain operations.
Furthermore I am inclined to agree with the notion that morals and values can be seemingly irrelevant in the face of great authority or command. Experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo project this notion very accurately. Though opposed to actually shocking students, many teachers did so anyways under the authority rule. Should they be held accountable for their actions? No. Simple reason being they are not responsible for their actions. Should they have chosen not to comply, they themselves would have suffered. It is not a crime, merely a hard decision, to protect oneself against others at the expense of another.
In conclusion, these readings have posed a great question on the topic of responsibility. What constitutes personal responsibility? And to what degree can we hold individuals accountable for actions, given certain defining factors that had great influence on said actions? Ultimately, the answer to this question is purely subjective and dependent upon one's idea of personal responsibility.
How should those who have participated in genocide or mass murder, such as rampant as the Holocaust, be dealt with by the society? This a difficult question to answer. There isn’t a single answer that is sufficient for this question. This is a complex issue that not one knows how to deal with. For those who have participated in mass murder, they should definitely be punished. However, the severity of the punishment varies from person to person.
In his book, Browning described the different types of men who made up Reserve Police Battalion 101. Each of the policemen had a different story to tell. Each of them had come from different family backgrounds. There were men who were fathers, men who were business owners, men who wanted a career in the police department, men who truly believed in the Nazis doctrines, and men who were forced into joining the police because of their sense of honor and patriotism. Most of these men were middle-aged. How could these ordinary German citizens become the cold-blooded murders of tens of thousands of Jews?
When the first mission was given, only a few number of the policemen refused to take the order. These men were excused by their superiors. Most of these men were older men, who had families. After the first series of shootings of the Jews, another group of the policemen had approached their superiors, asking to be relieved from their posts. The majority of these men were fathers, who could not endure the task of killing children. The other part of this group was made up of men who felt that what they were doing was absolutely immoral; they were disgusted by the brutality of the mission. For those men who had refused to participate in more killing actions, they should be exempted from severe punishment. These men should be recognized for their sense of righteousness. Although their refusal may be seen by their colleagues as an act of cowardice, they were far from being cowards. These men refused to conform (subordinate) to the norms and the authority, since they had realized that they were obligated to following their morality.
These men constituted less than ten percent of the entire battalion, so what about the majority of the policemen? How should they be viewed by the society? To what extent, were they responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Jews? It is hard to determine how these men could carry out such a terrible order? What turned them into cold-blooded murders? Was it wartime brutalization? Was it anti-Semitism? Was it the “segmentation and routinization of the task, careerism, ideological indoctrination, or conformity” (Browning 159). Without knowing the psychological effects on each individual, it is hard to say to what degree that each individual should be held accountable.
Citing Stanley Milgram’s experiment, “ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane” (“The Man Who Shocked the World”). Milgram’s experiment truly shocked the world. Many refused to believe that even ordinary people were capable of carrying out cruel tasks. Men refused to believe that evil could triumph over humanity. Decades later, Philip Zimbardo reaffirmed the validity of Milgram’s experiment. In his famous Stanford Prison Experiment, Zimbardo concluded given the circumstances, “good” men could become barbaric all the same. Even though these “good” and perfectly “normal” college students knew what they were going through, they were either turned into cold guards or passive prisoners. Zimbardo’s experiment showed “an uncanny resemblance to the groupings that emerged within Reserve Police Battalion 101” (Browning 168).
Do Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments mitigate the responsibility of these policemen who had carried out the orders? Yes, to an extent, Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments do. The experiments demonstrated that these policemen were not truly evil; they became murders because that they were subjected to conformity, obedience, authority, and peer pressure. Like the guards of the Stanford Prison, these men were hardened by the “depersonalization of the killing process” (Browning 85). These men continued to carry out the orders because they had become used to the killing process. In one aspect, the responsibility of these policemen was mitigated, but how could we be certain that this applies to every single one of them? How could we be sure that none of them actually become sadists? How could we be sure that none of them had other motivations such as careerism or racism?
Their superiors should not be viewed differently. Officers such as Major Trapp should be punished, but only to an extent. It was clear to all his men that he did not enjoy carrying out his orders. Trapp had questioned the nature of his job. However, there were those officers who carried the mission because of their personal ambitions and sadistic nature. One policeman admitted that one of his superiors clearly took “great pleasure” in the shootings, and that some “zealous officers bullied their men with ominous threats” (Browning 170). This type of men certainly had more responsibility than others.
When dealing with the question of “how should those who have participated in genocide or mass murder, such as the Holocaust, be dealt with by the society,” one must take look at what had caused each of these individuals to become a cold-blooded murder. These men must receive punishment, which can be determined by the International Court of Justice. After all, I do not have enough knowledge of the situation to say how he should be dealt with.
Many atrocious acts such as genocide have occurred in history. Examples of genocide or mass murder have taken place in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. However, the Holocaust or the mass murder against the Jewish population of Europe will be the focus of this discussion.
Ample questions have arisen concerning the people that committed the horrendous acts of the Holocaust. How they should be dealt by society is quite a complex question. Their actions during this time period were unjust and downright wrong. The blame should be put on them to a certain degree because it is not completely their fault Many did not want to take part in the atrocious acts they committed in fact in many cases they were forced by higher authority. This leads to the main source of them being forced to commit these unjust acts, their commanders. They are the ones who forced these innocent men to commit these acts. Therefore, even if one man was more responsible then the other when it comes down to the mass murder of the Jews another opinion arises. This opinion is that no matter what rank or position the man was in as long as he killed a Jew or anyone as a matter of fact he was a murderer no matter what the situation was. I agree with both of these viewpoints because it is rather complicated to choose one or the other, well that is for me.
In addition, the experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo mitigate responsibility of the German policemen to an extent. These particular experiments showed that these men were not necessarily immoral and wanted to kill innocent Jewish people. In fact, they became systematic killers due to the situation they were put in. They were subjected to authority, conformity, and peer pressure. They became accustomed to the “depersonalization of the killing process” (page 85). This does not pertain to everyone because some did enjoy sadist behavior and the mass murder of innocent Jews. For others that did not want to participate in the “Jew Hunts” participate in the firing squads they, “made no secret of their antipathy to the killing, they never volunteered, and they kept their distance from the officers and NCOs when the “Jew hunt” patrols and firing squads were being formed” (page 129). Thus, to an extent the experiments carried out by these officers mitigated the responsibility of the German police.
It is my belief that the instigators of genocide are usually the ones responsible for the mass murdering. More often than not, the individuals who actually physically participate in the killings are “brainwashed” into doing things they may ordinarily not have even thought to do. Though I don’t believe that the participants are without blame, I think that individuals or groups, like Hitler, hold most of the responsibility for the actions they encouraged.
The experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo (and others) reflect my belief that the people who carry out orders were essentially brainwashed into doing what they were told. Though not stripped of their identity or control over their own lives, the individuals in these experiments were put in either a position of power or a subservient state. More often than not the roles these people take on become their new identity and how they conduct themselves reflects this identity. As a result, they become numb to the world so long as their roles are fulfilled, not matter how extreme they take the experiment. For example, in Milgram’s experiment the “teacher” continues to follow a simple order that he is given, deliver an increasing voltage of electricity for each incorrect answer. Just because the teacher is doing what he was told does it mean he is to blame? No, because essentially all he was doing was carrying out orders, though the extreme of this experiment occurs when the teacher administers fatal doses of electricity that have the potential to kill. Thus, experiments such as this one do not mitigate responsibility of individuals from events such as the Holocaust because they only prove that the brain-washing effect that occurred was because of creating situations in which orders must be followed.
This same concept of brainwashing applies to the men in Ordinary Men. Many of these individuals did things that they could never have fathomed of doing. They were normal men put is strange situations. Many of them went into the killings with an impersonal manner, which is important for killing, seeing that when you get to know someone you are hesitant to kill them. For example, Georg Kageler initially killed blindly (meaning he didn’t know who he killed and essentially didn’t care) but when he took to his second round of killings he struck up a conversation with his victims, a mother and her child and discovered that he could not kill any longer having created a bond with his victims. So saying, these ordinary men were only carrying out the hideous orders of others, and the people who created the idea of killing along with the methods are the ones who deserve responsibility of the genocide.
Deciding how to punish those who participate in mass murder and genocide is a truly a hard decision to make. One must first look at the leaders of those who carried out the killings, because in most cases its there psychopathic ways that lead to these killings, such as Hitler. These are the people whom I believe should be held most responsible. Their tactics and training, which most often include brainwashing as seen in Nazi Germany, and the use of drugs shown in many of the African genocide, are often the leading factors behind the use of such force. But what about those men who lead the platoons and firing squads who actually carry out the killings? Among these leaders are the ones who I find to be most accountable. It was usually through their orders and commands that many men, even those against the murderous jobs they were given, were forced to proceed with the mechanized killings of the innocent. This is seen in Ordinary Men many times by the senior SS officers. The actual soldiers who in many cases were forces to commit these acts should be held least accountable for what they did. Though these men were the trigger pullers, they were without a doubt heavily persuaded by propaganda, such as when Trapp tells his men of the German civilians killed by Allied bombings, and the frequent presence of alcohol.
Even though this is my basic point of view of who should be held most responsible for the mass murders in Europe and Africa, I do understand that in many cases soldiers went on power trips and actually took joy in there actions. This I believe can be seen in the Zimbardo experiment. The video we watched in class showed students put in charge of their peers and given a superior role quickly turned into sadistic tyrants. This was the case for soldiers in Ordinary Men, after periods of time of being put in control of the life or death of Jews many starting showing a completely different attitude towards their work. This can be seen in the dialogue where one officer replies to a question by saying, “I have yet to kill a Jew this morning.” In many cases are the findings of Milgrams experiment also shown? Though subjects knew that they were hurting the other person using the electric shock device, many continued, believing to actually be helping those on the other end. This can be seen in the book, especially in the story of the soldier who only killed babies and children. He believed that by murdering these young kids that he was in the long run helping them by saving them from further pain. These cases may convince some people that these ordinary soldiers should be held responsible and thusly punished harshly for their actions. However, without the stress and peer pressure applied to them by there superior officers many would never be put in the position to under go such mental transformations.
Throughout history, there have been countless examples of humans inflicting the worst types of torture and genocide on each other, due to a few differences either in religion, race, genetic makeup, etc. Ordinary Men is a book that discusses one of many units of a military hierarchy taking orders from the high command, in this case, the order being the execution of the Final Solution, or extermination of the Jewish populace. It is, however, not so simple as to label one the victim and the other the perpetrator of a crime. This would cause all the different types of people in the situation to be classified under one of two umbrellas. As Primo Levi argues, "It is naive, absurd, and historically false to believe that an infernal system such as National Socialism sanctifies its victims; on the contrary, it degrades them, it makes them resemble itself." I believe that those people who are at the top of the imaginary hierarchy that humans delude themselves with believing has an authority should primarily be punished, as their actions and dictations are the reason why many acted they way they did in cases such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, the list goes on. Browning also discusses how the presence of an authority figure that preaches that an action must be undertaken puts pressure on the individual to perform said action, and therefore alleviates the blame in the mind of the perpetrator, such as the Policeman in this book, but the authority is not always responsible for the vigor with with the action(s) are carried out. For example, the men who volunteered to kill Jews should be punished more severely than those who simply acted because they were told to do so. Milgram's and Zimbardo's experiments prove to us that it is not solely the Germans who can be persuaded by an authority figure(s) into undertaking horrific actions, but that it is ordinary people that can perform the most disgusting and savage acts of violence on each other. Violence is not some abstract force that a predestined specific group of people access, but it is rather a sleeping agent within us that takes very little to activate. Therefore, we cannot punish and demonize the Germans so readily for their actions in World War II when we [Americans] probably would have acted in a similar fashion if we were in their situation.
People who participated in mass murder or genocide and how they should be punished is a very difficult question to answer. it is difficult to answer because they're are several factors to take into account. most people would think oh what they did was wrong so lets punish them to the extreme but at the same time if you think for a minute, you have to remeber and pretend you were in their shoes. It is not only the person who committed the action and the crime that should be put at fault but the ones who order those to carry out the actions need to be put at fault also. when given an order that you know you must obey, it is not easy for one to stand against it which is why those who give the orders knowing that the intentions are wrong should be punished more severe than others. an example in ordinary men was when in the first chapter the commander ordered the troops their next mission and even though he knew it was wrong he knew it also had to be done. although he had no say in what he could do, he honorably let the other troops make the decision they felt comfortable with.
zimbardo and milgram hold some responsibility also because that was pretty much narrowing down genocided and murder and all the horrible things talked about into a game show where people from the audience were ordered to shock a person to almost death.
Browning, Milgram and Zimbardo have shown that ordinary people can be manipulated to think and act in ways which would normally be considered wrong by society. In the Stanford Prison experiment, “normal” students became horrendous bullies when put into positions of power. Was this their fault? Not really. They were essentially forced into a position of power, and the majority of the so-called prison guards abused that power. Shakespeare wrote “some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.” It seems as though this may be true of evilness as well, unfortunately. So, ordinary people can essentially be forced to commit deeds they normally would have the morality not to.
Does that mean they should be punished for them? This is a harder question. There does need to be some degree of responsibility. “Someone else told me to” cannot always be an adequate excuse. In “Ordinary Men” it was shown that the men did have changes to step out, and that some were able to while others for many reasons, were not. The degree of manipulation must always be taken into account.
The issue of punishing those who took part in any genocide or mass killings is not one to be taken lightly or without careful consideration. The basic argument for those accused, both in reserve batallion 101 and at the Nuremburg trials was "I was following my orders." To most people this doesnt really seem like a strong argument, but it is much stronger then what they think. When a person with authority gives you an order to do something in the military, reserve or not, they are trained to follow it. This concept is proven in Milgram's experiment, where the "teacher" would elerocute the "student" for a wrong answer. While after a certain point the teacher did protest to shocking the "student," the test conductor, the authority figure, told them to do so and they did. When given orders by an authority figure, even the most ordinary of men can be capable of the most trecherous acts that man is capable of.
The question posed is an extremely hard one to answer. Personally, I feel like participation in genocide is a an unforgivable crime, but the blame is not spread equally, and the amount of blame is hard to decide, so that it is basically an impossible task to apply blame and punishment to the people who participated. There are some people who should be punished with life time imprisonment. One example would be the people that, through repeated testimony, are shown to enjoy following orders and committing heinous acts. In Ordinary Men, one low ranking soldier (the name escapes me), gained fame for acts of extreme cruelty against Jews. The people like this are the people who, even without the presence of officers telling them what to do, would probably be committing horrific crimes at home. These sociopaths are responsible for their actions, and their being put away permanently is partially just for the safety of society. The other group of people who should be imprisoned are the people who were in command of more than 20 people who handed down orders without offering other options. The control that these people had over the rest was made evident in the Milgram experiment. I this experiment the people being tested were told to ask a person connected to electric wires questions. If the person answered incorrectly they were supposed to shock them in increasing amounts, though the shock was fake. People still shocked the victims all the way up to potentially deadly amounts, even though they didn’t know the shock was fake. This shows that people, when told to do things that are inhumane, will do them just because they are told to. People that are commanding hold huge amounts of power over people, and should be held accountable for that.
Participants in mass murder and genocide must be dealt with carefully, and delicately. Wrongdoers must be punished for their actions, however while there is no excuse for what they have done there are mitigating circumstances that must be taken into account to dictate the proper punishment. The individuals who give the orders for these heinous actions to take place are equally if not more responsible for the crimes than those committing them. In today’s legal system, conspiracy to commit murder is just as serious as the act of committing it. The men who sent the orders in the final solution must be held accountable for the lives that were lost as if they physically committed them. Even though they are detached from the act, they are just as guilty. In the psychological experiments conducted Milgram and Zimbardo they found that the simple implementation of situations and conditions that supposedly removed blame or fault allowed people to act as more harshly or severely than they normally would. If one is being ordered to do something they believe that it isn’t their fault. The psychological tests found this, and it was seen in the men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101.
The major factor that I believe should be taken into consideration is whether or not those actually committing the crime are under duress or faced only with death in the instance of noncompliance. Personally, I think that it is wrong to completely condemn someone that when faced with “it was me or them” chose the latter. Self defense is something that while it may not completely excuse one from a crime it must separate a premeditated murderer from a person under extreme duress. When one’s life hangs in the balance there are few things that a person may do or try to avoid losing their life. However, in the instance of the soldiers of the Reserve Police Battalion 101, the men were given the order to commit mass murder and yet they were given the opportunity to turn in their arms and be reassigned to a different task. The individuals who didn’t choose to remove themselves from the firing squad made the decision to go on and murder unarmed Jews. These men must be punished for their crimes as criminals who chose to commit then when they didn’t have to and weren’t being forced to. Although, many of the men of the Reserve 101 and Browning believe that the men who didn’t chose to refuse their orders didn’t fully grasp the nature of their assignment at the time and that they felt as though the possibility of losing respect from their peers as well as a loss in possible of military advancement was worse than committing murder. I don’t fully understand the extent of this psychological inability that they felt, but I do know that peer pressure and the need to fit in can cause a person to do things that they honestly don’t believe that they should be doing. The psychological pressure these men felt changed the way they thought and in turn acted, therefore, it should be considered when punishments are being doled out.
In my opinion, any individual that participates in genocide should have to face major consequences for their actions, regardless of the circumstances currently at hand. While in the process of reading Ordinary Men, I did find myself pitying some of the guards from time to time, especially when they discussed the many horrors they were forced to witness. However, those who chose to carry out the executions without facing any consequence, I have absolutely no respect for and believe should be punished. During our class discussion many of my classmates believed that one cannot possibly comment on the situation unless they were present during the holocaust as a participant or witness. Although I can see where they are coming from, and believe there is some truth to this statement as well, I also strongly feel that murder is murder, despite the pressures that were put upon the men in the reserve police. The fact that they had a choice to refuse their orders and avoid murdering innocent people and still chose to carry out their orders I find to be extremely disturbing. The few men that chose not to follow their orders had no consequence other than the little ridicule coming from some of their fellow guards. For this very reason, I feel that all reserve policemen who took part in the murder of any innocent civilian during the holocaust, should be held accountable for these crimes at the same degree.
I found that the descriptions of the shootings in the novel were also quite disturbing such as the chapter discussing the Second Company at Lomazy. “Having killed once already, the men did not experience such a traumatic shock the second time. Like much else, killing was something one could get used to” (Browning, 85). In my opinion, such senseless acts such as these shootings should not go unpunished.
Regarding the experiments conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo, I believe that they do not mitigate responsibility, but they show how far people will go to conform to a group in fear of being labeled an outcast, even when there is no real consequence for refusing to follow certain orders. I believe although there is a psychological theory behind this, people still have the choice to do what they believe is ethical, and if they are willing to harm others in order to conform to society, they should be considered a danger to society themselves.
I feel that those who participated in genocides should not be punished but should be studied and observed in order to learn about the effects of "mob mentality" and other psychological occurrences. After reading "Ordinary Men" Browning made it clear that many of the murderers were initially ordinary working class men who did not harbor hatred for the minority groups. The initial lives and personalities of the men did not drive them to participate in the mass murders, instead, the roles of figure heads, positions of authorities, and the mass movement during the time made them transform into what some call "monsters". Browning's story shows readers that the terrifying incident can occur anywhere and at any time by showing how ordinary men became murderers due to the social and economic issues during the time. One scene in particular that catches my attention in Browning's "Ordinary Men" is the first time the men were ordered to kill. The men were given the option to follow through with the orders or refuse to follow through. If they decided on refusing the order they would not face punishments. It came as a shock to me to find that only several men stepped aside while the others continued on with the order. As the story progressed the men that opposed the orders gave in due mainly to peer pressure rather than fear of being punished. This willingness to follow others despite the morality of the request causes many concerns still found today. I feel these men should not be blamed but should be noted. Browning makes it clear that ordinary men can drop their values to follow a mass movement despite their beliefs (even though they are not threatened). This power in authorities and mom mentality was also demonstrated in later issues and studies.
We watched several videos in class that demonstrated a study to show the effect of authorities over "inferiors". In one study, a man was told to ask another man (who was in another room) several questions. When a question was answered incorrectly, the first man was ordered to give a controlled shock to the responder. The man was not threatened, yet complied and never said no. This example was also shown in a modern day game show. Contestants would have to ask another person a question, if the question was answered incorrectly the responder would be shocked. Now, in this game show the respondent was an actor who was actually not given a shock, but this information was unknown to the contestant. The contestant was not given any incentive, yet many continued on despite the respondent's pain. Several contestants stated this was not right, but continued with the game after hesitation. In both cases the "contestant" was not given an incentive or punishment, yet followed through on the inhumane order despite their beliefs.
Two other incidents showed the willingness to drop their morals and follow authorities. In one studied college students were put into a prison, the students were divided into two groups. One group became the wardens while the others became the prisoners. Once given the power of warden many ordinary students lost their morals and began to treat the innocent "prisoners" as men who actually committed crimes. The prisoners allowed the other students to take the power and played the role as someone who was actually meant to be punished. Neither group asked to stop the experiment and continued on without retaliation. A similar incident occurred recently with American soldiers and prisoners of war. The soldiers lost their morals and became the guards but lost their sense of humanity and became cruel and inhumane. It was clear that ordinary men, students, and soldiers easily became something they were not and followed higher powers despite morals and values.
Based on these experiments and incidents I feel that the men who gave in to peer pressure should not be blamed, but must be used as a way to learn how humans function and react to issues. Many parallels can be found throughout history meaning this is a reoccurring issue that has proven true through out events. They should not be accountable because it can be seen that it is a common issue that is tied to human psychology.
(Original was too long so I had to break it up)
AnnMarie Augusto
Mr. Kirby
AP European History
31 May 2010
It is hard to wholly say how those who have participated in genocide or mass murder should be dealt with by society. The men in the battalion were pressured and forced to abide by their commander’s orders, but nonetheless, they did make the choice to follow through with it. It is very difficult to decipher the appropriate punishment because we see it as inhumane but are the men really to blame for it? Authority figureheads pressure the men and give them orders that must be carried out, and the men mercilessly abide by their given tasks. I believe that the individuals who carry out the atrocities should be punished to some degree, but the individuals who give the orders are more responsible for the happenings. Browning states that “this assignment was not to his liking, indeed it was highly regrettable, but the orders came from the highest authorities…” This shows the persuasion the authorities had over these ‘ordinary’ men who were forced to go through with these orders. It also exemplifies why the men in charge of everything are more to blame for and are more accountable for the horrific results of the Holocaust and many other massacres and atrocities. Pressure and brainwashing from authorities drove some of these men to complete acceptance of what they told them to do no matter what. Many of the higher officers actually wanted to see the Jews brutally murdered, while most of the ordinary men loathed it. In Milgram’s experiment the individual’s ability to defy authority was tested. In this experiment, teachers were told to shock their students if they gave an answer that was incorrect. He found that “a majority of the subjects continued to obey to the end- believing they were delivering 450 volt shocks- simply because the experimenter commanded them to.” This shows how persuading authorities can be and how much ordinary people try to resist higher officials but ultimately fail to defy them. Similarly, Zimbardo gave some students jobs as guards at the Stanford Prison and observed that the new guards abused their power and had to stop the experiment because it was going too far. The people began to act differently in order to fit into their jobs and their parts in their environments. Zimbardo exclaimed that “There are no bad apples, only bad barrels,” which readily connects to this experiment he conducted. These students are the prison, and the officers did not need to abuse their power and relay horrific tasks to the ordinary people who must carry them out.
The question of how those who participated in genocide or mass murder should be handle in society is a difficult question to answer. I feel those who carried out the orders should not be punished as harshly as those who gave the orders to do so. Though it is tricky to judge to take Ordinary Men as an example, some participants in the killings took almost joy in the killings (Lt. Gnade) while other tired to avoid it all together. The men who were told to carry out the orders were only following orders. Even though its easy to rationalize right now and say you wouldn’t kill some one, put in the situation those men were it becomes a whole different story.
If you take Milgram’s experiment in which the subject was shocked at will of a person only obey orders you can see that rational people can become irrational. The majority of the people continued this experiment, which shows that if given orders many people doubt themselves and easily give in if some one of apparent authority is telling us to do so. If we look at Zimbardo’s experiment with the students as prisoners and guards it is easy to see how overwhelming a situation can get. The students who were assigned to be guards became cruel and the prisoners, miserable and treated poorly never asked to be released from the experiment.
Those who have participated in genocide or mass murder should be dealt with accordingly. At the same time, some are more accountable for these horrific actions than others. For example, Hitler would be more responsible for the holocaust than the lone soldier who was “following orders”. But even then it is a very difficult question to answer as to who should get more blame. Should the person who gave the orders, or the person who actually carried out the orders, be blamed for the murder? Browning, Milgram and Zimbardo have shown that ordinary people can be manipulated to think and act in ways which would normally be considered wrong by society. So clearly it is the people who are giving the orders that are manipulating, and pressuring those underneath them to carry out their bidding. In the Stanford Prison experiment, “normal” students became horrendous bullies when put into positions of power. During the times of WWII, the soldiers might have been pressured into doing the bidding of their commanders and generals. The soldiers might have been scared that if they didn’t follow through, they might be killed. But as seen in “ordinary men”, people who didn’t follow the orders weren’t always killed. So there was still an aspect of free will in these choices to kill many innocent people. At the end of the day I think it is still up to the individual to make the decision. The environment and the different circumstances around the individual might have an impact on him/her, but it will still be his/her decision in the end no matter what, and he/she should have to live with the consequences.
Those who participated in genocide should be challenged for their actions; however, the extent to which they are responsible for the results of their actions is also difficult to judge. As studied by Zimbardo, Milgram, and numerous others and as discussed in Ordinary Men, the power of authority and groupthink on an individual's actions challenge the assumption that every person is wholly responsible for every action they make. For instance, in Ordinary Men, the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 began as ordinary civilians drafted into the service, no more sadistic than the average man. By the end of the war, they were responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. What changed?
Pressure from authority and situational pressures - as Milgram and Zimbardo noted, respectively, placing an individual under duress can change their decision making more than ever they dreamed before. For example, in the Jozefow Massacre, many members of the RPB 101 admitted later than their actions had been wrong, that they knew it was against their moral code, yet they proceeded anyway. Was this purely a reflection on their detached sadism, or were they traumatized by the experience, driven to nausea, to withdrawal, to physical responses to stress?
Surely, the authorities who order the attacks are here the true villains; in ordering the massacre of innocent lives, they are responsible for both the casualties of the physical victims and the mental anguish and wounds of those who would be directly responsible for the massacre, ordinary men like RPB 101. These authorities are those who should be held accountable, these authorities who make decisions behind the anonymity of the distance of miles, far from the real suffering of those who would die.
Those who were directly responsible, such as those within RPB 101 who merely carried out orders, are certainly not blameless, as they were given a choice whether to participate in the massacres or not. Those who were given a choice and chose to follow through anyway should surely be held accountable for their actions in some way or form, because Milgram and Zimbardo certainly don't mitigate all responsibility from their shoulders - there were still several men in the RPB who refused to massacre innocents and suffered no consequences within their service, and many others who did not refuse.
Having said this, every man involved must be held accountable for his actions, even under duress, because no matter the situation, one always has a choice to kill or be killed, with the latter perhaps a stronger reflection on the integrity of one's moral codes; however, one must keep in mind the psychological lessons learned from the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments when dealing with the guilt of those involved and remember that not all choices are so easy to make in a battle situation rather than from an armchair.
Those who commit atrocities such as the Holocaust or in Rwanda should be dealt with by society very harshly. There is not excuse for committing such acts of hatred and violence. In these situations it is not just one killing but tens or hundreds of killings in the most cruel and brutal fashion as well. Levi’s idea of the “Gray Zone” is one that is very interesting. He acknowledges that while those at the head of the Nazi regime who had the complete freedom to kill at their own personal will and pleasure are more responsible than those men who were forced into their terrible tasks by superiors and those with much greater power. Were these men then also victims, victims of the terrible situation they had unfortunately put in?
This idea does hold somewhat true in Ordinary Men. It can be seen that those who made the orders those who orchestrated the mass murders are obviously more responsible as though they may not have pulled the trigger it is the fault of these men that thousands died. But then one comes to the question of people such as Trapp, who didn’t want to kill any Jews, but was forced to by his superiors. He was still an authority figure and did give the orders to his men. Is he a victim as well? Thus it does come down to the idea that “Human responsibility is ultimately an individual matter.” (Browning 188) The fact that some of the men in police battalion 101 became horrendous murders can not be chalked up to the fact that it what anyone would have done when placed in that situation because many men did not. Some men didn’t kill. When Trapp gave them the choice in the first massacre in Jozefow only a few men originally made the choice not to kill though more stopped throughout the day. This shows the power of personal choice versus peer pressure. No one wants to be the one person to stray from the group and go against authority, but in the end these people made the correct choice, as they were able to make that choice. No one was forcing them to kill as no evidence shows that one would be killed themselves for going against orders to shoot a person.
This is similar to Milgram’s experiment regarding the shocks. When alone a person was more likely to shock there victim very lightly, but when working with another was more likely to shock the victim greater. Thus people are very swayed by others. Goldhagen, who wrote a criticism of Browning’s Ordinary Men further explains Browning’s ideas about conformity fueling the decision to kill by the men in the battalion. That desire to be alike and fear of others scorn kept the men in line is what is says is Browning’s theory for the how the men committed these atrocities. But this is no excuse peer pressure or the fear of criticism does not forgive one for taking the life of another another. The men in battalion 101 while at first may have been coerced into killing, but in the end many volunteered for killings such as one “Jew Hunts”. Thus these people are even more accountable. They were volunteered murdered and should be held responsible no matter how long ago it was and whether they killed one person or one hundred or whether they were the head of the operation or a lowly soldier. Anyone who willingly takes the life of another has made a choice on there own, they have made a choice with permanent consequences of the most dire nature and should be punished as to serve justice for the innocent victim.
If a group of people were to be asked, “How should those who have participated in genocide or mass murder be dealt with in society?”, most would probably respond without thinking that they should be punished to extremes. However, the question is a very tough one to answer since there are many factors to take into account. Although their actions are and were extremely wrong and awful, we should put us in their shoes and challenge ourselves to think to what degree a single person, he or she, should be punished. In my opinion, we also need to think about the person on the opposite side of the person participating in the events of genocide or mass murder and committing the crime. The ones who are giving out the order and commands; they too should be at fault. But when given an order, one knows he or she must obey and it isn’t an easy to stand against, which is why those who are giving the commands, who know that the intentions are wrong, should be punished more severely than others.
Experiments such as those conducted by Milgram, Zimbardo, and others do not ease responsibility. In Milgram’s experiment, people the “teacher” were told to electrocute their “student” every time they got a question incorrect. On the other hand, in Zimbardo’s experiment, the students who were either the guards or prisoners at the Standford prison show the influence of power and situation. The students and people in the experiments could have controlled themselves to not act like cruel and mean people. But instead, the students with the role of guards abused their powers and quickly became nasty even when they knew it was just an experiment and could have stopped. I also find it weird that the students who were prisoners did not quit the experiment. The two experiments as a result prove the whether or not authoritative figures have morals or not, and/or are altered in their morals. The whole situation is similar to how the men of Police Battalion 101 who when placed in terrible circumstances forgot about their identities and became lost in their violence. Or when the commander knew the order he had to give the men was wrong and let them make the decision whether to listen or not.
Genocide is unfortunately a cyclical event in human history. One race attempting to eliminate another is just all to common in history, from the Holocaust of the 1930s and 1940’s to the modern day genocide occurring today in Darfur, Sudan. It is difficult to reason with those who killed so many. "Why did most men in the Reserve Police Battalion 101 become killers, while only a minority of perhaps 10 percent- and certainly no more than 20 percent- did not" (Browning 159). It is easy to sit here in hindsight and say that the Holocaust was a bad thing, however it is much more difficult to combat such a large and rising force when you feel alone. This mass peer pressure is ultimately why less than 20 percent of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 did not contribute to the killing of innocent Jews. In Milgram’s Experiment at Yale University (1965), nearly 65 percent of all participants willingly contributed to the experiment, despite the fact that they knew what they were doing was inhumane and morally wrong. Despite the psychological reasoning (or lack there of) with the men of Battalion 101, they should still have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, many of whom should be executed. It would be difficult to decipher who should be prosecuted to each extent, but I feel that those who committed such atrocities as to kill innocent men, woman, and children in the streets should be held more responsible than those who ordered them to do so. They were offered the chance to leave the battalion, those “who did not feel up to it” (Browning 215), and refuse to contribute to the genocide with little to no repercussion, and yet they willingly contributed to the Holocaust. Despite the multiple experiments dealing with this, it still does not deter or remove any of the responsibility of the men who killed thousands of Jews simply because they were told to do so.
Salman Rahman
All those who have participated in genocide or mass murder such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, etc should be punished. However, determining the degree to which each individual would be held accountable is an extremely difficult task. I personally think those who carry orders should also be punished but to a lesser extent than those who gave them the orders. If someone had no other choice but to conform than the case stands different. In that case the individuals who had no choice, but to follow the orders given to them should not be punished at all. However, they must do something to justify their choice and must do perform a task later in order to redeem themselves of the guilt and the horrible task they have performed.
The experiments such as those conducted by Milgram, Zimbardo and others do not mitigate responsibility. They only further prove that majority of human being conform to authority and follow orders. However, that does not mean that the individuals upon whom the experiment is performed does not know the difference between right and wrong. The individuals were old enough to differentiate between right and wrong and thus should be held accountable for their action. Similarly, even though Steinmetz got raged when one of the individual stepped down from the authority and accepted Trapp’s offer, it shows that they did have the option. This is the only thing that matters because they were not held to gunpoint to conform, they did have the option to conform to or not to the authority. Even though not following authority would have been challenging but that does not allow individuals to let go free after becoming mass murderers. Browning also says at one point that each human should be held accountable for their action. I also believe that everyone should be held accountable for their actions; mistakes can be made once but not over and over again.
It all depends on the circumstance, how those who have committed wartime atrocities or aided in genocide are dealt with by society. The individuals in the police battalion in Ordinary Men were ultimately given a choice on how to conduct themselves, where there would be no repercussions if they faltered at killing others, other than badgering or being ostracized by their peers who had not.
A compulsory enrollment is another factor that plays into how these men should be treated. If they were unwillingly drafted into the army, then they had no choice other than to do what they were ordered, otherwise they would face repercussion and chastisement for insubordination and likewise crimes.
These individuals should not be held responsible at all, for they are merely obeying subordinate orders. Milgram and Zimbardo's experiments really play no role at all in how these individuals should be treated, for they were under entirely different circumstances. The individuals who killed were doing so for pay, to potentially support a family, and always under the order of a higher up who wanted to see his subordinates doing their jobs.
The men in Ordinary Men who did not fire guns or commit any acts of violence were met with naught more than heckling. This is how men who were forced into committing atrocities or aiding in genocides or mass murders should be treated. There should be no litigation stating that they are criminals for doing as they were told to do.
I am very conflicted as to how those who have participated in unforgivable events such as the Holocaust under orders from superiors should be "dealt with." On the one hand, I cannot condone the actions that these men took part in during the Holocaust, I can also not dismiss Browning's argument that men tend to act out of character under order from superiors. Browning's argument is not baseless in the least bit; it is backed up by historical evidence and scientific study, perhaps most prominently the Zimbardo and Milgrim experiments at Yale. The question becomes: should these men be held accountable for their actions? This is indeed a difficult question to answer. Ultimately, I believe that the evidence shown in Browning's book and in the Zimbardo and Milgrim experiments does mitigate responsibility to some degree. Men under the orders of officers during the Holocaust were put under a great deal of pressure to conform. Although they were given the choice not to participate in the brutal acts, those who would choose not to would seem like betrayers, and would be ridiculed and mistrusted by their peers. I cannot fully accept the idea that these men are entirely responsible for their actions with this evidence so clearly documented and supported.
Genocide and mass murder are an unfortunate part of history. However, it is well known to have taken place in the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda and many other societies. The ultimate question would be how to deal with those who were involved in such wrongful acts of murder. Should they take full responsibility and be deemed as criminal, or would anybody in their situation have done the same thing. I believe the situation depends on many factors. Some people by nature would have completely gone with the leaders and had no problem killing innocent people daily. And these people are those who should be held accountable. They are those who would have wanted to kill without anybody giving them the order too. And with this, the appropriate consequence should be given. Usually this description includes those who gave the order to kill, and not those who were given the order to kill. The majority of them are by nature, good and if placed in a warm and non-hostile environment would have prospered with good morals and deeds. It becomes difficult when we put these types of people in harsh situations. They, like anybody else, might feel compelled to follow orders out of fear. The best people could even potentially become serious killers in the environments that these camps held. As Browning states, “In Second Platoon of Third Company, Lieutenant Hoppner become one of the most zealous practitioners of the “Jew hunt” and eventually tried to impose the policy that everyone had to shoot. Some men who had never shot before then killed their first Jew.” So therefore experiment such as those conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo definitely do mitigate responsibility. These experiments showed that even the best people can commit acts that they would have never imagined they’d do. The conclusion that holds true would have to be that it is in human nature to follow along with the norm if danger holds true for those who are deviations.
Everyone who has participated in Genocide or mass murder should be considered at fault. However, some people are more at fault than others. The experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo show that people can be brainwashed into doing almost anything. “They (the German people) were to be not just efficient soldiers and policemen but ideologically driven warriors, crusaders against the political and racial enemies of the Third Reich.” The “Ordinary Men” had their beliefs replaced with beliefs that were shared by the Third Reich. This shows that most of these people aren’t quite as evil as they seem. In most cases these people wouldn’t have acted the way they did if they weren’t in the situation they were put in. For this reason it is difficult to determine a punishment for those who carried out orders during genocide or mass murder. Some of these people needed more persuasion than others to follow orders. One thing is certain, however, those who gave the orders during mass murder should be blamed more than the people who were just following orders. They did what they did not because they were pressured or forced to, but because they truly wanted to. These people who gave the orders should be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. This is because they are truly evil and should not be allowed to be in the presence of normal citizens in society.
When people are put in a situation as difficult as the Holoaust, asking to kill innocent people for what seems like no reason just because they are told to do so, it is difficult to say how they should be "punished" or viewed at by society. I'm sure most people would say they would never have done that but once in the situation, im sure most people would think and act differently.
Even with this said, there is still the case of the men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 who were told by Trapp "if any of the older men among them did not feel up to the task that lay before him, he ould step out". Many people may put all the blame on the men and say they should pay the price because they had a choice in what to do, but once again, being in that situation..you never know what you truley would do.
As seen also in the Stanley Milgrum Experiment, just having a athority figure telling you it is okay and to continue what you are doing can be powerful enough to continue, even if from hine sight it is clearly morally wrong.
People who have participated in genocide or mass murder clearley have done something wrong, but Yes, they did something wrong, but put in the situation when thousands are doing the same thing, im my opinion they had no choice.
Those who have participated in genocide or mass murder, such as the Holocaust, Cambodia, Rwanda, Srebrenica, etc., should be treated by society based on the deeds they had performed. Individuals who were subject to carry out orders should not be punished as much as the enforcers. Often times during the war the policy was to kill or be killed. During the Jozefow Massacre, one witness testified that “’Major Trap ran around excitedly and then suddenly stopped dead in front of me, stared, and asked I f I agreed with this. I look him straight in the eye and said, ‘No, Herr Major!’ He then began to run around again and wept like a child” (Browning 58). Trapp was told to enforce this massacre with no expense. If he had not done so, his punishment would have been death. Buchmann was another enforcer who refused to participate in the killings. However, they are still responsible for the deaths during the massacre. They gave the orders to the soldiers and they had to obligate them. I believe that enforcers of such mass murders, such as Trapp and Buchmann who showed no interest in the events should be sentenced to at least 20 years in prison. On the other hand, officers such as Wohlauf and Gnade (brought his bride on expeditions (Browning 92)) who showed interest in such events should be given the death penalty.
However, the performers of such tasks should hold greater responsibility for these killings. Before such massacres, many soldiers were given a chance to back out of a given task. Many times, officers such as Trapp would ask his company if anyone felt uncomfortable performing on the firing squad. Those who spoke up and had not performed in such duties should not hold the same punishment as the performers. Sometimes, soldiers could not be excused from such duties and were forced to participate in other massacres. In these cases some men shot sporadically to avoid murdering. The treatment of the people being massacred must also be taken into account in order to decide on a proper punishment for the participants. Sometimes, soldiers forced their subjects to dig the holes in which they would die in or to perform other inhumane actions. These enforcers should receive the death penalty.
Experiments such as those conducted by Milgram and Zimbardo absolutely mitigate responsibility. First of all, the participants in these actions were volunteers. The enforcers knew what they were getting into before they agreed to the experiment and had the opportunity to opt out. Therefore, there is no excuse for their brutality and horrible treatment of the prisoners. Some of these actions included whipping the prisoners, bullying them, etc. In some cases, the harsh treatment the prisoners experienced resulted in them dying or being extremely weakened. The guards were not given orders to perform such tasks and had done so by their own nature. Therefore, the brutal guards should be sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Many things in this world are reversible, but murder is not one of them. Nearly every society in the world penalizes those who commit murder to whatever extent is applicable for the given situation. On the spectrum of punishment, the least harsh reply to murder that a judicial system often takes is given for the variety that is performed in self defense or by accident. The harshest reply, often life imprisonment or a death sentence, is awarded to the variety of murder that is premeditated, brutal, and remorseless. This expected response to murder should by no means be suspended during times of war, especially when it involves armed military personnel systematically murdering thousands of unarmed men, women, and children. The guise of war is no excuse for committing crimes against fellow humans. The acceptance of the necessity killing in the name of your country on the battlefield does not extend to the extermination of a race of people.
Individuals in the position of the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 should be held accountable for their actions, especially when they have no incentive for doing or punishment for not doing the deed that was assigned to them. Society should treat these individuals in the same way that they would treat a serial killer, for the acts performed by the men in this situation are comparable to an individual who selects a certain type of person to kill. Society should alienate and punish these individuals.
One story that I feel justifies this position in Ordinary Men was when Sergeant Wohlauf declared that the Jews of Serokomla were to be shot in retribution of the death of Sergeant Jobst. I found this to be sickening, in that a quota was assigned for individuals of an ‘inferior’ race to be killed in retaliation against the death of one German officer. The men ended up exceeding their quota, and simply killed the Jews in the town because they were able to, with no visible restraint. The excuse of an authority figure giving orders is not a viable reason to participate in genocide, especially when there is no punishment besides ridiculing. Murder for no purpose under the guise of war is the worst kind, and is never justified. Society should never tolerate it.
Not all of the people who have participated in mass genocide are culpable in their actions because they were either forced physically or brianwashed into committing these horrendous actions. Some people however need far less coersion to commit these acts and in fact take joy in their actions. These are the people that should be rooted out and punished because they were more waiting for an oppurtunity to kill large numbers of people instead of being compelled to do this. Milgram and Zimbardo have both shown that if a person who is viewed as an authority figure gives an order to somebody that person is willing to follow it and if that is that figure is the leader of your nation of course the men in Ordinary Men will follow that order. They can't be wholly blamed for their actions because after all it is a war and they are soldiers. Instead the people who gave them the orders the senior officers and officials should be punished to the extreme because those people knew that they had complete control over those under them and they used that control in horrible ways that turn the stomach and cost the lives of millions.
In the case of a simple murder, the course of action is always very clear. The person responsible for the killings is captured, and upon being found guilty is either incarcerated or killed. Genocide is not so easy a crime to sentence, due to the fact that it is impossible for one person to carry it out. Genocide requires an army of willing participants in order to be rendered effective. It is always assumed that those who participate in genocide are by nature evil, although it is clear from such accounts as Ordinary Men that genocidal leaders need not reach down into the pits of hell to gather their army. The average person, under the right pressures, is perfectly willing to participate in genocide.
This raises the question of the guilt of those who participate in, but do not control genocidal actions. Can we really condemn such people if the average civilian would be just as likely to do the same? I would say yes.
The claim that “I was just following orders,” can be a legitimate reason for participating in these acts if, and only if, the participant himself would be killed for refusing to kill. Otherwise the claim is just an excuse. The average person does not decide for him/herself what is right or wrong; rather, they allow those of higher station than themselves to dictate morality to them. As a result, it is tremendously easy for average people to commit atrocities that are condoned by a present authority figure. This is supported by both real-world genocidal events, as well as Milgram’s experiment with electric shocks. What is most disturbing is the fact that the authority figure in question need not hold any real power over the person performing the act, as demonstrated by the experiment involving a fake French game show.
The other driving force behind the human willingness to commit atrocities lies in the drive to conform. German soldiers/police involved in the Holocaust, as well as American soldiers who took part in the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, often cited a fear of being looked down upon by their comrades. This is not a legitimate reason for participating in genocidal activity. As strong as it is, the conformist instinct in the human mind can be conquered, or at least, can be made less important than moral drives. This may not be fair to soldiers, seeing as how the pressure to conform is very strong in the military, and it generally takes great intelligence and sense of self to resist the conformity impulse. Very few people like this tend to join the military, as the military is based on uniformity and the destruction of free will of those involved.
Yes, those who involve themselves in genocidal activities should be punished. However, this does not solve the problem. From an early age people must be taught to judge morality for themselves, and not let themselves be dominated by authority figures. They must be taught to resist conformity, even in trivial things. When the average human learns to become its own entity, and not an extension of a collective, then there may be some progress.
There is controversy over the degree to which those who have participated in mass murder or genocide should be held accountable. Some believe that experiments such as the Milgram experiment, where the subject thought they were shocking the “student” every time they answered a question incorrectly, should mitigate responsibility in cases of people “just following orders”. During this experiment, even people who objected to shocking the “student” continued to send even potentially lethal shocks when they were told they had to. Some have said that this experiment indicates that following the orders of an authority figure, no matter how much one personally disagrees with the orders, is part of human nature, and therefore people should not be held as responsible for their actions in situations where they were following someone else’s orders. I find this to be a terrible argument. If it is human nature, and supposedly anyone would do it, these people should have no special treatment. If they are guilty, whether they were ordered to do it or not, they should be punished for their actions.
To focus for a moment on Ordinary Men, it is obvious that when the Reserve Police Battalion 101 was formed, that no one would describe those men as murderers. That is, however, exactly what they became, just because someone ordered them to. It wasn’t even that they had no choice in the matter. In the very first chapter of the book we are told that they were given the option not to participate, but very few of the men actually took that option. They did not refuse the offer for fear of retribution, there would be no consequences, but because it was in their nature to follow orders, as Milgram’s experiment suggests that it is in everyone’s nature. So there were no extenuating circumstances in this case and these men, and any others who participate in mass murder or genocide, deserve to be punished.
Now the only question is, to what degree should these people be punished? Those who are simply carrying out orders, while they deserve to be punished, should not receive the same punishment as those who gave the orders. The higher up a person is in the command chain, the more responsible they are for the crimes they and their subordinates commit. So as you go higher in the ranks, the punishment should increase proportionately.
Individuals that participate in mass murder must be held accountable, just as individuals that participate in any murder should. While admittedly, the rules of engagement are different in war, nothing should call for the mass murder of innocent civilians, especially when said murders are coldly thought out and premeditated. It is this aspect of the murders that, for me, is the hardest to simply be talked away by saying “Well, it was during a war.”
I feel that all responsible for the murders should be held accountable, perhaps with a structured punishment system to punish those who were just following orders the least, while punishing those that actually gave the orders to kill the most. It is interesting to note, and indeed must be noted in any proper study of why ordinary men became killers, that according to Browning, no one was harshly punished for refusing to participate in the actions. Some were looked down upon by their peers, but even those examples were rare, and soldiers who refused to partake in the killings usually received a mixed reaction (like the clearly notable case of Lieutenant Buchmann).
Lastly, I feel that the experiments of Milgrim and Zimbardo 1. Were creepy, 2. Should have been stopped much sooner than they were, and 3. Are difficult to talk about without going through the experience myself. Both were done to show the reactions of normal people to authority figures, in terms of administering an electric shock or running a mock prison. Obviously, I cannot adequately talk about the experiments of Milgrim or Zimbardo, but from an outsider standpoint I can say that not only do I disagree with the purpose, I disagree with their results. I feel that all it would take would be one person to stand up and realize that the experiments were pure lunacy, and that there are limits to the extent of authority. Experiments such as those in no way absolve the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 (or any others) of the charges they should face.
(note: second post with more)
How does one deal with perpetrators of war criminals? Furthermore, how does one treat the individual soldiers that carried out that acts as opposed to the people who concocted them? This question is one that has been asked for decades, and no one has come up with an acceptable answer. It is my belief that both those who committed the murders and those who gave the orders are accountable to a certain extent. However, those who give the orders should be held to a much higher standard than those who committed the murders, as Zimbardo and Milgrim’s experiments showed that both legitimate authority (such as government) and environment (such as World War II Germany) can influence people’s actions. Therefore, the shooters are less responsible, although not entirely excused, for their actions.
In most cases, I believe the soldiers/policemen who actually hunted and shot the civilian Jewish population should be held accountable and persecuted accordingly, but with a lesser punishment. However, I believe the Reserve Police Battalion 101 and any other battalion that was offered the same choice as the 101 was should be shown no mercy; they are exceptions to the rule, as they were clearly offered the choice of not murdering innocent civilians with no repercussions and declined. Soldiers and policemen in other battalions, however, did not know what repercussions they would face if they declined to participate in the killings. I take issue with Browning’s idea that putative duress is a weak argument because there was no evidence that suggested that refusing to participate in the murders would result in punishment. Does Browning expect every soldier to have access to Germany’s military records during the war, much less have the time to look through every case and see whether anyone was punished for refusing to kill? In such a hostile, intense environment, would Browning expect the soldiers to even process the information in such a rational manner and react accordingly? To me, it makes sense that a soldier considering disobeying orders or deserting would consider what happens to most soldiers who disobey orders or desert – they are punished, including the possibility of execution. It is not reasonable of Browning to assume that all soldiers would be considering the consequences of the specific action of not killing- to me, it seems much more reasonable for the soldiers to consider the more general crime of not following orders, which an everyday soldier would probably have more familiarity with. In contrast, those who were giving the orders knew what they were doing and were, in a way, pressuring their soldiers to follow their orders by merely giving them. I am sure that most, if not all, of the officers, were aware that they were in a position of authority and thus influence over their troops. Even when in this position, they continued to give their orders of death- and for this, I have no sympathy.
(part 2)
Zimbardo’s and Milgrim’s experiments also reveal another important dimension that one must consider when evaluating the actions of Reserve Police Battalion 101 and other similar groups. Both of them showed that the environment that an action takes place in greatly affects the person who is doing the action. Milgrim’s experiments, with scientists instructing people to shock patients when they answer questions incorrectly, particularly showed that authority figures can induce people to act in certain ways. Even when the voltage administered could have been fatal, the patients generally listened to the authority figure (in this case, a scientist) and shocked their “victims”. A disturbing parallel can be made between this experiment and the actions of Police Battalion 101: in the face of an authority figure (their officers, and arguably the Nazi party and Hitler as a whole), the middle aged men of the battalion killed or indirectly caused the death of thousands of Jews. This, in a sick way, is to be expected, considering Milgrim’s results: it is human nature to listen to authority figures. Thus, the shooters of Reserve Police Battalion 101 should be at least partially pardoned for their crimes.
Zimbardo’s experiments provide a similar context, but in one important way differ from Milgrim’s experiments: they placed the subjects with a hostile, “real” environment. One could criticize Milgrim’s works by noting that the subjects were warned beforehand that the shocks they were administering would not kill the subject, and were told their duties by a scientist in a lab coat. Zimbardo’s experiments, however, placed the subjects in a prison: both the guards and the prisoners were subject to a much less inviting and secure environment. In this environment, the guards exhibited for the most part aggressive, hostile, or at least compliant behavior. This supports the actions of the Reserve Battalion 101, as they too were in a hostile, insecure environment but proceeded to kill thousands during the “harvest festival” and other times. One interesting point about the Zimbardo experiment that I would like to see expanded to Holocaust studies- I distinctly remember one Zimbardo subject noting to another after the experiment, “You become a monster…” and noting his changes in behavior during the experiment. Were the soldiers also aware of their change in behavior? If so, what exactly does this indicate about their condition? It is something I would like to see explored.
How these men should be dealt with is a very difficult question to answer. Their actions were wrong of course but to what degree should they be punished? Soldiers should be held accountable for orders given to them by authority figures. Killing a solider in war can not be held against you, but a defenseless women or even child that is a completely different story. I believe that most of the blame lies on the shoulders of the "desk-murders". "Many of the perpetrators of the Holocaust were so-called desk murders whose role in the mass extermination was greatly facilitated by the bureaucratic nature of their participation" an example of these men is Hitler himself. He fully knew what he was doing and that while he wasn't going to force the soldiers to kill, there was only and illusion of choice. I believe the leaders should be given the death penalty or life in prison. While the soldiers should be given only prisons sentences and intense community service. I believe that the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments do mitigate responsibility for the subjects actions. This is because the subjects had their morals and values, they can be overcome by a authority figure. For example in the experiment at Yale subjects were told to shock their students if they answered a question incorrect. Although the subjects were hesitant with shocking the strangers the authoritative figure in this experiment was able to overpower them by just being there. This change the subjects behavior to be more willing for fear of defying that figure. the subjects would shock the students when told. “…orders are orders.”
The dilemma of placing the blame on who should be held responsible for the holocaust is a very tough one. It is obvious that the men who carried out the orders were wrong in that they in a sense “caved” into peer pressure and committed horrible acts that they themselves should have known were wrong. However, it has to be considered that most of these men thought that what they were doing was right, and believed that following their order was something they should always do. So this poses another question, does intention somehow legitimize actions? In my opinion, it does to a certain degree. But I personally believe that the one who should suffer the most are the ones who gave the orders. These people were aware of their power and knew that the men they ordered would almost certainly carry out their orders. It while reading this book and observing experiments carried out by Milgram and Zimbardo where it becomes painfully obvious just in fact how peer pressure has such great effect on human beings, more that we would like to admit. It is disturbingly fascinating how “ordinary men” can be pushed to do horrific things in the right situations. These situations, the combination of pressure, and threat by a authoritative figure can push men to do anything. As Browning states, “They sincerely thought that they had had no choice when faced with orders to kill. Undoubtedly in many units zealous officers bullied their men with ominous threats…” This conveys how most men who carried out the orders were clearly pressured by their authority and felt as if they had no other option. This coercion by the men who gave these orders makes it more apparent to me that they should definitely be held more responsible. There are also those who were in a way brainwashed by the ideals of the Nazis, and thus were convinced that these orders that were being commanded to carry out were truly beneficial to their country. This also is more than likely a result of authoritative figures manipulating national pride so that the men would not question these evident crimes. Such men might be this man in the Reserve Police Battalion 101, “Man, such jobs don’t suit me… But orders are orders.”
Thus, I truly believe that most of the blame should be placed on those who carried out the orders. The experiments conducted by Zimbardo I believe prove that the human mind, as I said under the right conditions, is very easy to influence and can make seemingly normal men to do horrible things. Therefore, these scientific findings would agree with the fact that those who give orders have great power to convince these men to do anything. Ultimately, I obviously Hitler should be blamed for every single atrocious death that occurred during the Holocaust, as it were his insane ideas that served as the catalyst to the repulsive killings of the Holocaust.
There is no easy way to deal with those who participated in the genocides such as the Holocaust or the killings in Rwanda. However, these cases ought not to be lumped together, as they are very unique to their own situation. Also, there ought not to be a specific rule (flexibility must be exercised). That said, as a rule people should be several punished for their crimes during the Holocaust.
The Stanford Prison experiment found that typical students can become vindictive and dangerous over a matter of a few hours if put in positions of power. The Milgram experiment showed that people do not mind inflicting pain on others if there is even slight pressure to do so. However, in both those cases, as far as is known, there was never anyone saying 'You do not have to do this if you don't want to'. The punishment for not complying was often ambiguous, so in many brains, it would be worse than it would have been in actuality. During the Holocaust, soldiers were indeed given orders, however, they were also given permission not to follow them. They had no true punishment for not complying with these orders (which was not the case in nearly all other genocides where people were in 'kill or be killed' situations). And there has never been another point in history where murder was industrialized. For all these reasons, those who participated in the Holocaust ought to be severally punished with life in prison (if they participated sparingly or for short periods of time) or the death penalty. The reason for this harsh punishment is that, as shown in Ordinary Men, no one was forced to do anything. They all had the clear option to not follow orders, yet follow orders they did. There is no sympathy for these men.
When individuals in our society have participated in acts of violence and start to get involved with genocide, many people wonder how they should be portrayed or dealt with. In my opinion I beleive that the participants that were asked or better yet forced to commit these acts should not be punished to the extreme like the actual leaders who give out the orders. This goes back to "Ordinary Men" where men of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were just regular guys put into a position they did not know how to cope with. Many of them simply followed orders that were given because if they didn't they could end up in worse positions like on the front line.
Authority in today's society is supposed to be where you can rely and feel save on a certain figure. In Milgram's experiment, teachers had to electrocute their students if an incorrect answer was given. Many teachers felt bad about the position they were put in. The Stanford Prison experiment was different where students had the opportunity to be prison guards and basically abused their privileges to their own classmates.
I guess many people will do the orders they are given by authority even if they know its wrong just because it was direct orders given to someone who is "higher" above you.
Post a Comment