Seems the "Captivity" sections goes into more depth about why she probably doesn't hold the record:

> For the first six months of her captivity, Kampusch was not allowed to leave the chamber at any time, [...] Afterward, she spent increasing amounts of time upstairs in the rest of the house,

> In later years, she was seen outside in the garden alone

Seems she wasn't underground for the entire duration.

Which record? It looks like she had contact and interaction with her captor every single day.

Considering the context, no.

I wish I had not clicked this link

The sibling comment, linking to the Fritzl case was even more horrifying, heart-breaking and depressing. I read one of the “See Also” links but I had to stop there. I don’t know how police, jurors, therapists, health care workers and anyone else who has to deal with these kinds of issues as part of their job deal with the vicarious trauma.

And yet, both you and I fell down the rabbit hole. This kind of material is both sickening and addictive.

Wouldn't Fritzl's victims beat that by like 20 years?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

Disturbingly, also Austrian...

> Fritzl, who received a life sentence, will be eligible for parole in 2023, having served the initial 15 years of his sentence

Even though I’m usually against moves towards longer sentences, reading this was actually quite disturbing.

"Eligible" doesn't mean he'll actually be paroled, presumably some committee will have to decide if he can be released. It seems like a fine policy to allow the potential for parole while still keeping some convicts in jail if necessary.

Keeping an 88-year-old violent criminal in jail could not be considered "necessary" by any definition other than a pure appeal to morality.

I don’t understand why. My great grandfather was still strong and breaking horses in his late 80s. I have no doubt that if he was so inclined he could have easily engaged in violent crimes at that age. He was well into his 100s and completely healthy until he suddenly just died without warning. Maybe this person in jail is similar.

Fred Beckey[1] was still climbing mountains, and still going to the extent of traveling to other countries to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's. Folk can surprise you, and the type of clemency suggested by the person you're responding to should, IMO, be entirely circumstantial rather than just limited to an age cutoff.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Beckey

Uhhh from what I saw in dirtbag, he was not doing FAs in his 80s and while he marginally top roped at least once in his 90s, he was definitely struggling and practically had to have the documentary makers carry him to the crag so he could do it

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not in a position to easily skip through the film on YouTube right now), but wasn't that the whole purpose of the international trip he made in Dirtbag? The peak had been summited before, but not via the route he intended to take.

I don't remember the film well enough to say whether he attempted a first ascent in his 80s (I don't think he did), but his last accomplished first ascent was Bomber Lake Arete in 1997 (at the still impressive age of 74). While a first ascent at any age is impressive, and in your 70s even moreso, it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.

>... it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.

Right, which is why I said, "to TRY to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's". I never said he succeeded, just that he was an older gentleman still putting forth as much as he could to accomplish a hefty goal, which happened to be a lot more than most at that age could do.

Edit: https://youtu.be/mc1sqxXSMZ4 at about 9 minutes 20 seconds in, they show him traveling to China at 83 to try to be the first to ascend Haizi Shan.

Interesting. From the video, it looks like he was coaxed into a FA expedition, and bailed somewhere around the base instead of doing any climbing.

Look, I realize he has a bit of a name brand that resulted in lots of people trying to do things with him in his old age that he really didn't have the ability to do at that point. It's also unclear if anyone ever tried to bring him on a FA after that expedition.

I realize that stoke for climbing never died for him, but the limitations of his body caught up with him, as they will with all of us. I don't think there were any serious FA attempts of his in his 80s, even if people liked to advertise an expedition with him as such.

Even getting to base camp of an alpine expedition is a remarkable accomplishment at his age.

This conversation feels like an "ackshually" that completely sidesteps the overall point I was making, but okay.

This comment feels like the same. I wholeheartedly agree with your original point about people of any age being capable of impressive physical feats, and have no interest in refuting it or "sidestepping it".

But since you brought up Fred Beckey, I thought it was worthwhile to correct an inaccuracy about him. People on this forum tend to value accuracy of claims after all, and the man has accomplished enough that we don't need to go making up additional things.

This thread could have ended 6 comments ago with "my bad, he was maybe attempting first ascents into his early 80s, though probably not seriously past his 70s. I remembered wrong". Claiming it's an "ackshually" about your original point just seems like a mischaracterization of the whole thread, and honestly, we should be OK just taking ownership of mistakes instead of getting defensive.

I'm wholly okay with owning mistakes and encourage comfortability with that among people around me every day, it's part of my job both professionally and as a parent.

I don't see what is inaccurate about what I said. Coaxed or not, he still got out there and tried for that first ascent, even getting to base at 83 which, to your point, "is a remarkable feat at almost any age". I never claimed anything inaccurate - he tried, and that's the truth.

But alright. I'll sit with this for a bit and maybe I'll end up understanding my inaccuracies.

Enjoy your weekend.

Thanks for being willing to reflect on that. The original claim I was responding to was that he was still traveling for FA attempts in his late 80s and 90s. I also recognize my initial understanding that he was no longer making FA attempts in his 80s at all was likely inaccurate.

You do the same

I don't know anything about this particular case, I'm just saying that "eligible" shouldn't be disturbing in any situation because it doesn't mean very much.

I hope you’re not really being as absolutist and handwavy of people’s concerns as you appear. There isn’t some age cut off (going up) where you are suddenly incapable of harming others. An 88 year old can commit all sorts of heinous acts.

What a strange series of words. You don't think an 88-year-old can rape kids?

The threat doesn't exist. In the general case, an 88-year-old does not have the necessary ability, desire, or access to children.

* * *

Morality or revenge?

I agree. I also feel the same way about putting 100 year old Nazis on trial. At this point, it's a total waste of resources that could be used much more productively.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58826189

It’s a statement about what happens when you commit crimes against humanity. Fuck around badly enough and you will eventually be caught and destroyed.

Keep the prosecutions coming. We should all cheer whenever some Nazi thug goes to jail and their family gets to deal with that terrible embarrassment.

It's not. We don't need to make that statement anymore; it's been made sufficiently. It's putting centenarians in custody for no actual gain to society, just to score political points, and it's disgusting. If it's a statement, it's a statement that "we're willing to waste time and public money to virtue signal, when the problem will take care of itself in a very short amount of time."

What we call justice has generally always involved a mix of deterrence, prevention and punishment for its own sake, ie to be seen as some sort of balancing of the wrong that’s been done. One might not like that idea but judges certainly think about all three aspects when sentencing.

I don't see "throwing 100 year old men who are not currently dangerous to anybody and going to die in a couple of years anyway" anywhere under the definition of "justice" in my dictionary. If anything, I'd expect to see a cross reference to "See: stupid wastes of time and money."

Had you been a victim of a concentration camp or served I the war you might feel differently. I think it’s a bit arrogant of us to decide a crime isn’t appropriate to punish when many of our parents weren’t even alive when the atrocities were committed.

I might. But, you know what? Most of those people are dead already, as are most of the potential witnesses in any such trial. Many of the surviving witnesses have dementia and are not credible witnesses. The Netflix documentary The Devil Next Door is a really good look into how difficult it is to conduct even one of these prosecutions, mostly for these reasons. And that trial took place 12 years ago. It would be exponentially harder today.

These trials are a fools errand anymore. The youngest any possible defendant could be is about 95, and the youngest any potential witness could be is probably somewhere in their mid 80s. It is literally not worth the time and effort anymore to put one of these show trials together -- and that's what they are, is show trials. The sentence a 95 year old man receives does not matter. It's not even a meaningful punishment, and he most likely will not serve a day of it. Meanwhile, we have real problems affecting people today, and the next generation, such as climate change, that are much more urgent.

You are not going to talk me out of this position, even using ad hominem like "arrogant."

I honestly did not mean it as an ad hominem, it was more of a statement about those of us with strong opinions about this - which I do have and they largely agree with yours - taking a step back and remembering 1) we aren’t a part of this process 2) many people involved are victims/were there and 3) we just have no reference for what happened in any real sense. It’s academic to us.

I, for one, would see it as a massive failure of our justice system if we had good evidence that an individual had committed heinous crimes, but then was still allowed to live out the remainder of his life in peace, freedom, and enjoying the company of his family etc. - something he had denied to so many others.

I, for one, would see it as a massive failure of government if the money necessary to put on one of these dog and pony shows was spent on prosecuting someone who's almost certain to die in the next 2 years, anyway, rather than real problems affecting people today and the next generation, such as climate change.

You will not talk me out of this.

> other than a pure appeal to morality.

There are several reasons to imprison criminals:

(1) To physically prevent them from harming the public again.

(2) To discourage them from committing crimes again in the future.

(3) To punish them because punishing criminals is morally just.

Reasons (1) and (2) are what you are thinking of when you say it’s useless to keep an 88-year-old in prison. (3) is your “appeal to morality”. However, there is also:

(4) To discourage others from committing similar crimes.

That last reason is just as important as the others, if not more so.

Yeah, even Charles Manson has been up for parole 12 times.

https://www.charlesmanson.com/related/parole-hearings/

He recently published a book saying he is innocent and a good family man.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-...

Based on the excerpts in the article it doesn't seem like he's denying much. Rather it seems more like he's trying to retroactively justify it/look for sympathy that I doubt he'll find.

> the imprisonment and degradation of his own daughter — is described thus: ‘At first it was just a mind game I played. But I got used to it. The idea, which had previously seemed so absurd, so monstrous to me, took shape.

> ‘One day I knew what I had to do. All that remained was to wait for the right opportunity. On that rainy Saturday morning the time had come. The thought had become action.’

> ‘It wasn’t easy, because the thoughts of what I had done were constantly circling within me,’ he says. ‘I was constantly energised. There was no one I could confide in. I had to look ahead and continue on the path I had chosen.’

> In 1967, Fritzl broke into the Linz home of a 24-year-old nurse while her husband was away and raped her while holding a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her if she screamed. According to an annual report for 1967 and a press release of the same year, he was also named as a suspect in a case of attempted rape of a 21-year-old woman, and was known for indecent exposure. Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. In accordance with Austrian law, his criminal record was expunged after 15 years. As a result, more than 25 years later, when he applied to adopt and/or foster Elisabeth's children, the local social service authorities did not discover his criminal history.

Similarly, I generally believe in giving people the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get on with their lives and don’t think that people should have to permanently live with the stigma of crimes they committed in the past. However, I don’t think that records of violent or similar criminal behaviour should be completely expunged; they should still be available in certain situations.

> Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence.

A single year for something like this just seems bizarre to me. No wonder the late 60s had so much violent crime..

> Evidence recovery was complicated, as Přiklopil's only computer was a 1980s Commodore 64, which is incompatible with modern-day data-recovery programs.[37]

In all seriousness, do you really want to go assigning world records like that to kidnapping victims?