Posted on Feb 2, 2015
0
0
0
Just say the following article http://www.newsnet5.com/news/national/man-93-to-face-300000-nazi-death-charges-in-german-court
Basically Germany is prosecuting a 93 year old in his role at Auschwitz. I do not condone what occurred at Auschwitz but from reading disposed of luggage of new arrived prisoners. Do you think spending money on a trial and possible incarceration a good thing?
Basically Germany is prosecuting a 93 year old in his role at Auschwitz. I do not condone what occurred at Auschwitz but from reading disposed of luggage of new arrived prisoners. Do you think spending money on a trial and possible incarceration a good thing?
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 1
Is spending money on a trial and incarceration for Nazi War Crimes a good thing? Some perspectives:
- Some crimes such as tax evasion, theft, rape, etc have a statute of limitations. The reason for this is that witnesses memories fade, evidence becomes lost, hard to prosecute, etc. Basically society has decided that these crimes are not serious enough and have these considerations that merit having a statute of limitations.
- Other crimes, however, such as murder do not have a statute of limitations. Society has decided that these crimes should be prosecuted regardless of the above considerations because of the seriousness of the crime. Having a statute of limitation would mean that murderers might never receive justice even if new technology such as DNA or fingerprints become available that were not there when the crime occurred.
- I would argue that war crimes falls into the latter category (no statute of limitations). If not, war criminals can and would merely hide out until they could no longer be prosecuted. In addition, bringing war crimes charges against a 93 year old helps to re educate and re inform a younger generation about half of whom have no clue what the Holocaust was. Failing to know about history dooms future generations to repeating history.
- Some crimes such as tax evasion, theft, rape, etc have a statute of limitations. The reason for this is that witnesses memories fade, evidence becomes lost, hard to prosecute, etc. Basically society has decided that these crimes are not serious enough and have these considerations that merit having a statute of limitations.
- Other crimes, however, such as murder do not have a statute of limitations. Society has decided that these crimes should be prosecuted regardless of the above considerations because of the seriousness of the crime. Having a statute of limitation would mean that murderers might never receive justice even if new technology such as DNA or fingerprints become available that were not there when the crime occurred.
- I would argue that war crimes falls into the latter category (no statute of limitations). If not, war criminals can and would merely hide out until they could no longer be prosecuted. In addition, bringing war crimes charges against a 93 year old helps to re educate and re inform a younger generation about half of whom have no clue what the Holocaust was. Failing to know about history dooms future generations to repeating history.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jim Z.
Like I said I do not condone but from the article this man was a volunteer who thought he was doing his civic duty at the time. I do agree that war criminals should not have a statute of limitation however, as the WWII population gets smaller evidence gets lost, memories fade. Yes these trials are good to remind people of history and hopefully it is not repeated though it has in other regions of the world in smaller scales.
(0)
(0)
COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM
The man's argument is that he was a volunteer and doing his civic duty. That is an argument for trial, determination of guilt/innocence, if guilty then extenuation and mitigation. It is not an argument for whether or not the man should be tried in the first place. That is a societal decision that has already been made. It is just being implemented in this case.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next