Alleged ex-Nazi is on trial being accused of war crimes that involved the torture and murder of Jews in the Sobibor death camp. The question is even if he did at one time fulfill the charges being brought against him, is there really any justice being served by imprisoning what little time the old fossil has left? Sixty-plus years without any appearance on the criminal radar in my eyes is enough to absolve the purported crime. He's obviously not a threat to society and imprisoning him would be a waste of tax dollars (tax euros?) seeing as they now would have to pay not only for his food, water, and shelter, but his extensive medical expenses as well. I mean I've never really come to a solid conclusion to the philosophical question of the thread title, so anyone want to chime in with their thoughts?
Alleged ex-Nazi is on trial being accused of war crimes that involved the torture and murder of Jews in the Sobibor death camp. The question is even if he did at one time fulfill the charges being brought against him, is there really any justice being served by imprisoning what little time the old fossil has left? Sixty-plus years without any appearance on the criminal radar in my eyes is enough to absolve the purported crime. He's obviously not a threat to society and imprisoning him would be a waste of tax dollars (tax euros?) seeing as they now would have to pay not only for his food, water, and shelter, but his extensive medical expenses as well. I mean I've never really come to a solid conclusion to the philosophical question of the thread title, so anyone want to chime in with their thoughts?
Its..difficult.
Of course he is not longer a danger to anyone but they feel they need a puntive measure to show the world these kinds of actions of unacceptable and should never be repeated.
I think from a practical standpoint it is pretty useless but they need to do this to at least show a war criminal coming to justice even in these modern times. Yes considering that your average WW2 Nazi is long dead it is kind of rubbing it in but we don't have enough people in this world being taken to court for these kinds of human rights violations and if it can serve as a deterrent to the next hitler then they might as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I am not posting in the custom card creation forum something has gone horribely wrong.
This really is a silly wast of money for everyone involved as it is almost more of vengeance rather than justice given his age and clean criminal record after the war.
Yes this is technically justice to the letter of the law and also is fully just morally given his crimes if one does not ever forgive certain offenses....but, you would need to really hear his whole story which is basically impossible...even immediately after the war hardly anyone involved in the concentration camp system wanted to talk about it or acknowledge their involvement in it to anyone, even relatives. Otherwise who is to say that he wasn't coerced/brainwashed.etc.?
Not to mention, I assume it would be costly to try a case with offenses that occurred this long ago in time. Unless the prosecution just counts on the "HE WAS AN EVIL NAZI!" sentiment to carry the day.
As someone who thinks of themselves as an amateur scholar of the Second World War and the Third Riech I do beleive that in general there is a separation of moral culpability from your average concentration camp guard and your average man on the front. For one thing, it isn't like guards couldn't apply for reassignment to a different post under typical conditions. Officers were assigned to their camps, and many of the grunts were as well, but not even everyone working in the extermination camp system was a brutal monster. Many simply did their jobs in an "ordinary" manner, and hence were not hunted down by the allies or driven into hiding after the fall of Germany. Many of them served their time for what they had done as was deemed appropriate by military courts of the time.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
This whole thing seems pointless. The tax dollars involved in trying, convicting, and imprisoning this guy(not to mention the cost of his medical expenses while in prison) are simply not worth it when you consider that he is 60 years old, and the crimes he is being ACCUSED of(it's not even a guaranteed verdict) were a ridiculous amount of time ago.
If he is guilty, then either A)he has lived with the guilt and remorse of these actions for his entire life, which is plenty of punishment or B)he doesn't feel guilt over it in the first place, in which case imprisoning a 60-some year old man is not worth the cost.
Justice delayed does not equal justice served; and I'm not saying this because I believe the offender shouldn't be punished. The offender should be punished more harshly because he has evaded justice for so many years. Why should one felon who turned himself in serve his life sentence of 50 years while the other runaway who is caught late in his life serves his life sentence of 5? The runaway must be more severely punished to reflect society's intolerance of injustice.
Arguing that there is no point in confining an old man to a prison cell is illogical on the grounds that there are many old men in prison already. Would you be asserting that no one over the age of 80 should go to prison? What about those who turned 80 in their jail cells? Should they be set free as well? Simply because they're unlikely to cause further harm to society. I thought their were laws against age discrimination.
Not acting on senior felons would be awarding the person for evading justice. As a society, this should not be accepted. This would be a blatant offense to the moral code and it would encourage others to run away from the law as well.
I don't really see your argument. People around that age get special treatment in absolutely every regard, based purely on the fact that..they are old. Why should this be any different? Putting him in prison would be nothing more than an absolute burden on society. He is not going to learn anything from it. 99.9999%(hyperbole, but whatever) of the people that were affected by this are dead now. There is no closure for them to seek.
So what is the point? A message to the world that, if they participate in a holocaust, they'll end up in jail? Everyone already either A)realizes this or B)doesn't care.
This is just a useless gesture for no purpose other than publicity.
Well I think everything is circumstantial. If this guy was still making efforts to torture people or committing some other crime, I would say imprisonment would be just. But the evidence for his moral allegiance is so shaky and unsubstantiated (at least that's what the article seems to infer), that I think it's unfair to charge him based off of that. However, even if he was proven to be a death camp guard, it's not like one could just tell Hitler no and move on to a new position. Maybe that's an uneducated assumption, but from my knowledge of WWII history, the Nazi regime's ruthlessness wasn't limited to the Jews.
The question is even if he did at one time fulfill the charges being brought against him, is there really any justice being served by imprisoning what little time the old fossil has left?
I would consider it a matter of principle. Letting him go would be sending a message that you can commit war crimes and genocide and if you evade justice until you are old and grey, you will evade justice *entirely*. I'd say he's lucky not to be executed like so many Nazis were at Nuremberg.
However, even if he was proven to be a death camp guard, it's not like one could just tell Hitler no and move on to a new position. Maybe that's an uneducated assumption, but from my knowledge of WWII history, the Nazi regime's ruthlessness wasn't limited to the Jews.
Of course you can. You can always say "no", and accept the consequences of being a moral person in an immoral society. No one bears the responsibility for one person's actions except that person. The Geneva Convention made it quite clear that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. When your orders are instructing you to carry out a war crime or a crime against humanity, you must refuse to obey such orders or you WILL be guilty of a war crime and CAN be charged, tried, and convicted of one. Being intimidated by your superiors is no excuse.
Now, realistically, a lot of people don't have the moral courage to resist going along with the flow in a situation like that. I would imagine that a lot of the "Nazis" were as scared of their leader as they were of their "enemies", and were just trying to get along and keep their heads down. But that is precisely the kind of moral laxity that allows atrocities to happen.
My point is, there were more than enough people of good conscience that, if they had had the will and the unity of purpose, they could have all refused to do Hitler's bidding and this wouldn't have happened. If none of the camp inmates had been willing to become trusties and informers, think of the extra manpower the Nazis would have had to spend staffing and administering the places - that many fewer men to fight on the battlefields. Every act of collusion with evil simply helps it survive longer. The only right thing to do is say "no" right at the start, and keep saying "no".
I know it's easy to say. I don't know how well I would do if I were tested in this way. I like to think I would have the courage to say no. I pray I never find out.
Now, realistically, a lot of people don't have the moral courage to resist going along with the flow in a situation like that. I would imagine that a lot of the "Nazis" were as scared of their leader as they were of their "enemies", and were just trying to get along and keep their heads down. But that is precisely the kind of moral laxity that allows atrocities to happen.
My point is, there were more than enough people of good conscience that, if they had had the will and the unity of purpose, they could have all refused to do Hitler's bidding and this wouldn't have happened. If none of the camp inmates had been willing to become trusties and informers, think of the extra manpower the Nazis would have had to spend staffing and administering the places - that many fewer men to fight on the battlefields. Every act of collusion with evil simply helps it survive longer. The only right thing to do is say "no" right at the start, and keep saying "no".
well, it might not be that simple. the milgram expiriment called up this very question. this, might also be worth a read.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My at-a-glance 'isms': (in no particular order)
1. Secular Humanism
2. Secular Millenarianism
a. Singularitarianism
b.Transhumanism
c. secular altruism
Of course you can. You can always say "no", and accept the consequences of being a moral person in an immoral society. No one bears the responsibility for one person's actions except that person. The Geneva Convention made it quite clear that "I was just following orders" is no excuse.
Ah yes. a classic scene of any movie is always the heroic lead who stands up for his beliefs and is ready to suffer the consequences. Very inspiring
Unfortunately the reality is that very likely many of those Nazi solders may have had families of their own who depended on them for survival. A heroic stand may have branded him a traitor and earned him an execution, leaving his family with no income.
Also as aspirnietzche said, disobeying orders isn't as easy as it sounds. Moreso when said soldiers have been trained to obey orders instantly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is always easy to be tolerant and understanding...Until someone presents an opinion completely opposite to your own.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The passage of time does not make an evil deed less evil; it only makes it more remote in our collective memory.
Whatever Mr. Demjanjuk did obviously did not register as particularly noteworthy in the context of a thoroughly evil regime -- indeed he may have been "just following orders." If so, it is to be noted that some Nazis in his position, at the series of war crimes trials following WWII, were sentenced to moderate prison terms of only a few years. Rather than face justice, Mr. Demjanjuk decided to hide from his past.
Now, yes, he is old and frail. But the fiscal cost of humanely imprisoning an old man is not easily weighed against the moral cost of turning a blind eye to evil, simply because it happened a long time ago. A more prominent case for Americans would be that of Roman Polanski. You shouldn't get off the hook for raping a 13 year-old girl just because you did it thirty years ago.
As to the role of mercy: mercy is for those who seek it, which requires an admission of wrongdoing in the first place. Mr. Demjanjuk still insists that he is innocent, despite a very compelling body of evidence against him.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
While this may not be true in all countries, as far as I know, there is no statute of limitations on murder in Canada or the US. So, speaking as a North American, if he did indeed commit murder (directly or indirectly) then yes, I do believe he should be punished, even after all this time.
The fact that he apparently committed war crimes just adds to that burden, and 60 years doesn't diminish it.
However, in this case, the time frame in which justice could have been served in an appropriate or effective manner has passed; so, live and let die I guess...
People who are fleeing from justice should spend every waking moment afraid that they are going to get caught. They should get nervous every time a cop car slows down near them or when someone looks at them and then starts dialing their cell phone.
That said, is being a prison guard for a death camp any worse than fighting on the front lines?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
That said, is being a prison guard for a death camp any worse than fighting on the front lines?
Of course. If you are "fighting on the front lines" you are engaging in actual warfare between two military forces. In general, if the so-called "rules of war" are being followed, civilians should not be present for this. (Yes, I know the "rules" are honored more in the breach...) Whereas by being a death camp guard, you are not involved in the war effort itself, but in an act of ethnic cleansing / genocide, which is clearly criminal.
American Soldiers have committed atrocities on Korean and Vietnamese civilians before. At some point, you can't convict every single person. You have to merely go after the ones in charge. The ones who let it happen.
Of course. If you are "fighting on the front lines" you are engaging in actual warfare between two military forces. In general, if the so-called "rules of war" are being followed, civilians should not be present for this. (Yes, I know the "rules" are honored more in the breach...) Whereas by being a death camp guard, you are not involved in the war effort itself, but in an act of ethnic cleansing / genocide, which is clearly criminal.
Three flaws here. 1) As pointed out earlier, a soldier does not get to choose where he is stationed and the Nazi regime had no problems using force to keep people in line.
Then, there is 2) the Nazi propaganda was very well done. Many of the people who knew about the Holocaust geniuinely believed that they were defending their nation from a threat. Keep in mind that there were many people throughout the world, including the US (Henry Ford for example) that saw Jews as a threat to humanity.
The third point is more controversial, but applicable here. The idea of Crimes against Humanity was not around until after WWII. The people were tried and hanged for actions that were literally declared to be crimes retroactively.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people. Guns just make them move really, really fast.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Alleged ex-Nazi is on trial being accused of war crimes that involved the torture and murder of Jews in the Sobibor death camp. The question is even if he did at one time fulfill the charges being brought against him, is there really any justice being served by imprisoning what little time the old fossil has left? Sixty-plus years without any appearance on the criminal radar in my eyes is enough to absolve the purported crime. He's obviously not a threat to society and imprisoning him would be a waste of tax dollars (tax euros?) seeing as they now would have to pay not only for his food, water, and shelter, but his extensive medical expenses as well. I mean I've never really come to a solid conclusion to the philosophical question of the thread title, so anyone want to chime in with their thoughts?
Its..difficult.
Of course he is not longer a danger to anyone but they feel they need a puntive measure to show the world these kinds of actions of unacceptable and should never be repeated.
I think from a practical standpoint it is pretty useless but they need to do this to at least show a war criminal coming to justice even in these modern times. Yes considering that your average WW2 Nazi is long dead it is kind of rubbing it in but we don't have enough people in this world being taken to court for these kinds of human rights violations and if it can serve as a deterrent to the next hitler then they might as well.
Yes this is technically justice to the letter of the law and also is fully just morally given his crimes if one does not ever forgive certain offenses....but, you would need to really hear his whole story which is basically impossible...even immediately after the war hardly anyone involved in the concentration camp system wanted to talk about it or acknowledge their involvement in it to anyone, even relatives. Otherwise who is to say that he wasn't coerced/brainwashed.etc.?
Not to mention, I assume it would be costly to try a case with offenses that occurred this long ago in time. Unless the prosecution just counts on the "HE WAS AN EVIL NAZI!" sentiment to carry the day.
As someone who thinks of themselves as an amateur scholar of the Second World War and the Third Riech I do beleive that in general there is a separation of moral culpability from your average concentration camp guard and your average man on the front. For one thing, it isn't like guards couldn't apply for reassignment to a different post under typical conditions. Officers were assigned to their camps, and many of the grunts were as well, but not even everyone working in the extermination camp system was a brutal monster. Many simply did their jobs in an "ordinary" manner, and hence were not hunted down by the allies or driven into hiding after the fall of Germany. Many of them served their time for what they had done as was deemed appropriate by military courts of the time.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
If he is guilty, then either A)he has lived with the guilt and remorse of these actions for his entire life, which is plenty of punishment or B)he doesn't feel guilt over it in the first place, in which case imprisoning a 60-some year old man is not worth the cost.
This will accomplish nothing worthwhile.
Arguing that there is no point in confining an old man to a prison cell is illogical on the grounds that there are many old men in prison already. Would you be asserting that no one over the age of 80 should go to prison? What about those who turned 80 in their jail cells? Should they be set free as well? Simply because they're unlikely to cause further harm to society. I thought their were laws against age discrimination.
Not acting on senior felons would be awarding the person for evading justice. As a society, this should not be accepted. This would be a blatant offense to the moral code and it would encourage others to run away from the law as well.
So what is the point? A message to the world that, if they participate in a holocaust, they'll end up in jail? Everyone already either A)realizes this or B)doesn't care.
This is just a useless gesture for no purpose other than publicity.
I would consider it a matter of principle. Letting him go would be sending a message that you can commit war crimes and genocide and if you evade justice until you are old and grey, you will evade justice *entirely*. I'd say he's lucky not to be executed like so many Nazis were at Nuremberg.
Of course you can. You can always say "no", and accept the consequences of being a moral person in an immoral society. No one bears the responsibility for one person's actions except that person. The Geneva Convention made it quite clear that "I was just following orders" is no excuse. When your orders are instructing you to carry out a war crime or a crime against humanity, you must refuse to obey such orders or you WILL be guilty of a war crime and CAN be charged, tried, and convicted of one. Being intimidated by your superiors is no excuse.
Now, realistically, a lot of people don't have the moral courage to resist going along with the flow in a situation like that. I would imagine that a lot of the "Nazis" were as scared of their leader as they were of their "enemies", and were just trying to get along and keep their heads down. But that is precisely the kind of moral laxity that allows atrocities to happen.
My point is, there were more than enough people of good conscience that, if they had had the will and the unity of purpose, they could have all refused to do Hitler's bidding and this wouldn't have happened. If none of the camp inmates had been willing to become trusties and informers, think of the extra manpower the Nazis would have had to spend staffing and administering the places - that many fewer men to fight on the battlefields. Every act of collusion with evil simply helps it survive longer. The only right thing to do is say "no" right at the start, and keep saying "no".
I know it's easy to say. I don't know how well I would do if I were tested in this way. I like to think I would have the courage to say no. I pray I never find out.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
1. Secular Humanism
2. Secular Millenarianism
b.Transhumanism
c. secular altruism
4. Existentialism
5. Intellectualism
6. Atheism
7. Realism
b. philosophic
c. contructive
9. Egalitarianism
b. feminism
11. Liberal conservatism
12. Anti-consumerism
13. Reductionism
Ah yes. a classic scene of any movie is always the heroic lead who stands up for his beliefs and is ready to suffer the consequences. Very inspiring
Unfortunately the reality is that very likely many of those Nazi solders may have had families of their own who depended on them for survival. A heroic stand may have branded him a traitor and earned him an execution, leaving his family with no income.
Also as aspirnietzche said, disobeying orders isn't as easy as it sounds. Moreso when said soldiers have been trained to obey orders instantly.
Whatever Mr. Demjanjuk did obviously did not register as particularly noteworthy in the context of a thoroughly evil regime -- indeed he may have been "just following orders." If so, it is to be noted that some Nazis in his position, at the series of war crimes trials following WWII, were sentenced to moderate prison terms of only a few years. Rather than face justice, Mr. Demjanjuk decided to hide from his past.
Now, yes, he is old and frail. But the fiscal cost of humanely imprisoning an old man is not easily weighed against the moral cost of turning a blind eye to evil, simply because it happened a long time ago. A more prominent case for Americans would be that of Roman Polanski. You shouldn't get off the hook for raping a 13 year-old girl just because you did it thirty years ago.
As to the role of mercy: mercy is for those who seek it, which requires an admission of wrongdoing in the first place. Mr. Demjanjuk still insists that he is innocent, despite a very compelling body of evidence against him.
The fact that he apparently committed war crimes just adds to that burden, and 60 years doesn't diminish it.
WCommander EeshaBDrana, Kalastria BloodchiefBGGlissa, the TraitorBWVish Kal, Blood ArbiterRUNin, the Pain Artist
UGEdric, Spymaster of TrestWRBasandra, Battle SeraphBGWDoran, the Siege TowerBGWGhave, Guru of Spores
RGWUril, the MiststalkerGUBThe MimeoplasmUWGRafiq of the ManyWUBRGSliver Overlord
However, in this case, the time frame in which justice could have been served in an appropriate or effective manner has passed; so, live and let die I guess...
That said, is being a prison guard for a death camp any worse than fighting on the front lines?
Of course. If you are "fighting on the front lines" you are engaging in actual warfare between two military forces. In general, if the so-called "rules of war" are being followed, civilians should not be present for this. (Yes, I know the "rules" are honored more in the breach...) Whereas by being a death camp guard, you are not involved in the war effort itself, but in an act of ethnic cleansing / genocide, which is clearly criminal.
--Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., who is up in Heaven now. EDH WUBRG Child of Alara WUBRG BGW Karador, Ghost Chieftain BGW RGW Mayael the Anima RGW WUB Sharuum the Hegemon WUB RWU Zedruu the Greathearted RWU
WB Ghost Council of Orzhova WB RG Ulasht, the Hate Seed RG B Korlash, Heir to Blackblade B G Molimo, Maro-Sorcerer G *click the general's name to see my list!*
Three flaws here. 1) As pointed out earlier, a soldier does not get to choose where he is stationed and the Nazi regime had no problems using force to keep people in line.
Then, there is 2) the Nazi propaganda was very well done. Many of the people who knew about the Holocaust geniuinely believed that they were defending their nation from a threat. Keep in mind that there were many people throughout the world, including the US (Henry Ford for example) that saw Jews as a threat to humanity.
The third point is more controversial, but applicable here. The idea of Crimes against Humanity was not around until after WWII. The people were tried and hanged for actions that were literally declared to be crimes retroactively.