13 Jul 09
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8147437.stm
Mr Demjanjuk's family have said he is too frail to stand trial because he suffers from kidney disease, cancer and arthritis. In May, he was admitted to hospital for three days after developing gout.
Efraim Zuroff, the top Nazi-hunter at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which considers Mr Demjanjuk the world's most-wanted suspected Nazi war criminal, welcomed the move by German prosecutors.
"This is obviously an important step forward," he told the Associated Press. "We hope that the trial itself will be expedited so that justice will be achieved and he can be given the appropriate punishment."
"The effort to bring Demjanjuk to justice sends a very powerful message that the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the perpetrator."
Do you think he should be spared of the trial because of his old age?
Personally, I think Zuroff is right when saying that the trial must go on so a message is sent to the world in the sense that time cannot wash away the blood stains.
13 Jul 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedInteresting.
1. I don't think so. What for? If he's guilty then he'll die knowing he's a nazi bastard. If he's innocent, then he'll die kind of pissed off but with a clean conscience.
2. Well, if the trial continues no matter what and a veredict is reached, then justice is made to those who died during the holocaust. Even more important than hanging the guy (in case he's found guilty) stands the need to (a) maintain the Holocaust present in everybody's mind so it won't repeat, and (b) find out, through a legally sound process, if he was guilty or not.
13 Jul 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't imagine that his testimony is necessary now to establish what he did and didn't do. I'd be uncomfortable if it is pivotal.
I mean that if he dies before a verdict is reached and he's guilty, then the victims of his alleged crimes didn't receive Justice.
I feel it's a bit late for justice now. He's lived 64 years. His case is now a loose end. One cannot just forget about it if there's a case to be made against him. But I don't think there's much residual sweetness in the justice that might be felt by the relatives of his victims.
Getting to say "gotcha!" before he passes away? It's a meagre kind of justice. If he's guilty, then - tragically - he's already got away with it for all intents and purposes. If he's innocent, he should have come forward long ago to establish it.
I think vindication for his accusers is more concrete than justice. Vindication can be established without the accuser being alive.
13 Jul 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think Justice being seen to be done is a thoroughly dodgy and obfuscating aim. The West allowed heaps of Nazis to get on with it in the West German woodwork in the decades after the Holocaust. East Germany hunted them down far more systematically. The mouthpieces of the various efforts to keep The Holocaust alive in our consciences were generally reticent about pointing out that discrepency between the two Germanys. One wonders why. What about Justice being done, let alone Justice being seen to be done?
13 Jul 09
The post that was quoted here has been removedDefinitely. The results of a punitive mechanism must be seen in order to set an example for everybody else.
Moreover, transparency both of the system and of the process goes through the records being available for all interested parties to check.
In this case, also, the thing fulfills a cultural need of maintaining the memory alive in order to avoid repetition.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by SeitseI have no sympathy for Nazis. For all I know, this guy might have slammed the gas chamber door on my great grandparents or uncles and aunts or cousins.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8147437.stm
[i]Mr Demjanjuk's family have said he is too frail to stand trial because he suffers from kidney disease, cancer and arthritis. In May, he was admitted to hospital for three days after developing gout.
Efraim Zuroff, the top Nazi-hunter at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which considers Mr Demjanjuk the world' ...[text shortened]... a message is sent to the world in the sense that time cannot wash away the blood stains.
Still, he was already put on trial and (eventually) acquitted in Israel. It would bother me a little if he were convicted of those same charges in a different forum. I understand that under US law, double jeopardy doesn't apply to trials by separate sovereigns. But there is something fundamentally unfair about trying the same person for the same crimes over and over again.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by SeitseOf course the trial should go on! When the story first hit the news, I was annoyed that anyone should think one's medical condition should be allowed to interfere with justice! So the trial might be too stressful for him? We're not talking about a pickpocket, here. We're talking about a murderer. I'm thinking having someone murder you when you answer your door might be a bit stressful, too! Because of the nature of his crimes, whether he survives the trial or not is irrelevant. He needs to stand trial and be confronted with his deeds by a court of law and answer for them. I don't really understand the family. If it were my father who did those things, I'd drive him to the courthouse myself!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8147437.stm
[i]Mr Demjanjuk's family have said he is too frail to stand trial because he suffers from kidney disease, cancer and arthritis. In May, he was admitted to hospital for three days after developing gout.
Efraim Zuroff, the top Nazi-hunter at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which considers Mr Demjanjuk the world' ...[text shortened]... a message is sent to the world in the sense that time cannot wash away the blood stains.
13 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Seitse[/i]There have been enough trials.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8147437.stm
[i]Mr Demjanjuk's family have said he is too frail to stand trial because he suffers from kidney disease, cancer and arthritis. In May, he was admitted to hospital for three days after developing gout.
Efraim Zuroff, the top Nazi-hunter at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, which considers Mr Demjanjuk the world' a message is sent to the world in the sense that time cannot wash away the blood stains.
To be exact, the whole Nurenberg trial was based upon a select few carrying the blame for the whole situation.
Now, I can see picking up the bastards for a good 20 years afterwards... voila. Hell, I'd gladly donate to pick up a few Israeli, Ruwandan or Kroatian bastards today...
But to waste tax payers money after 60 odd years... no.
The point should have been made 40 years ago, but considering the way of the world, it wasn't.
This man's trial isn't going to add anything to it.
Edit: Edited to remove the italics.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirWhile we're at it, let's impose a statute of limitations for murder. So, I killed someone in 1982!? It's ancient history. Wasting taxpayer dollars to try me? Bad idea. It's not going to bring that person back to life.
[/i]There have been enough trials.
To be exact, the whole Nurenberg trial was based upon a select few carrying the blame for the whole situation.
Now, I can see picking up the bastards for a good 20 years afterwards... voila. Hell, I'd gladly donate to pick up a few Israeli, Ruwandan or Kroatian bastards today...
But to waste tax payers money after ...[text shortened]...
This man's trial isn't going to add anything to it.
Edit: Edited to remove the italics.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Good point.
While we're at it, let's impose a statute of limitations for murder. So, I killed someone in 1982!? It's ancient history. Wasting taxpayer dollars to try me? Bad idea. It's not going to bring that person back to life.
However, killing a person 30 ago as an individual is a lot different to being part of a system which killed people 65 years ago.
13 Jul 09
Originally posted by shavixmirI guess that's what the trial is for: to determine what degree of participation he had (if any) and, according to that, issue a decision.
Good point.
However, killing a person 30 ago as an individual is a lot different to being part of a system which killed people 65 years ago.