Nazi War crimes- Statute of limitations

jonniebgood1

In recent days another of the wanted former Nazis died see link here and here

At this stage with the people in question being all elderly their pursuance can appear to be either unfair or unnessesary. I read previously that the German statute of limitations for war crimes was changed to allow these people to be sought and charged. It had been due to come into force in 1979 or 1980. What are peoples view on this- should there be a time limit that means after a certain period of time has passed peoples crimes are forgotten or at least written off as belonging to the past.

What are peoples views on these last potential war ciminals from WWII?

Al Capwned

Get them.
Try them.
Convict them.

And leave them to rot in prison until they die.

Manach

From I read on international law, there is not a limit on genocidal crimes. Hence technically, there is no legal barrier for someone to be taken from their retirement homes to be placed on trial. However there is the matter of procedural justice. In that beyond a certain point, human memory degrades, or documents are lost and thus the chance for a defence to be made by the accused (who themselves would be aged) would be significantly be diminished. This is common both in criminal law and to a lesser extend even in civil where there exists extended limitations.

Hence in practically, there are no more trials to be had. Courts such as the Hague, in spite of the flaws such as the over-procedulalites and the poor resources afford to the defence, will hopefully provide a sustainiable model for crimes form other eras.

jonniebgood1

Manach wrote: »

From I read on international law, there is not a limit on genocidal crimes. Hence technically, there is no legal barrier for someone to be taken from their retirement homes to be placed on trial. However there is the matter of procedural justice. In that beyond a certain point, human memory degrades, or documents are lost and thus the chance for a defence to be made by the accused (who themselves would be aged) would be significantly be diminished. This is common both in criminal law and to a lesser extend even in civil where there exists extended limitations.

Hence in practically, there are no more trials to be had. Courts such as the Hague, in spite of the flaws such as the over-procedulalites and the poor resources afford to the defence, will hopefully provide a sustainiable model for crimes form other eras.

It might be impractical Manach but these trials are still happening. For example a 93 year old is currently on trial in Germany. Source here:

Gröning is charged, specifically, with complicity in the murder of 300,000 souls, mainly Hungarian Jews, which took place in the concentration camp Auschwitz from 1942 to 1944. Altogether, 1.3 million died in the Auschwitz-Birkenau complex in Poland during the war.

Until recently, it seemed as if the last Nazis and collaborators involved with the Holocaust might well escape through loopholes in the law or into the oblivion of old age, decrepitude and dementia, if not death. Some countries, notably Austria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ukraine have consistently failed to hold any Holocaust perpetrators accountable. But, encouraged by the Nazi-hunting Simon Wiesenthal Center, German courts have changed their legal strategies in recent years, opening the way, as the center puts it, “for the conviction of practically any person who served either in a Nazi death camp or in the Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units)” that carried out the genocide. The German Central Office for the Clarification of Nazi Crimes has recommended that several dozen suspects from the Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek death camps be prosecuted.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/30/demented-dying-but-on-trial-the-last-nazis-reveal-their-true-evil.html

also reported by bbc here http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32719443

Young Blood

"We can't judge them by today's standards. It was a very different Era."

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

In recent days another of the wanted former Nazis died see link here and here

At this stage with the people in question being all elderly their pursuance can appear to be either unfair or unnessesary. I read previously that the German statute of limitations for war crimes was changed to allow these people to be sought and charged. It had been due to come into force in 1979 or 1980. What are peoples view on this- should there be a time limit that means after a certain period of time has passed peoples crimes are forgotten or at least written off as belonging to the past.

What are peoples views on these last potential war ciminals from WWII?

I don't think we're allowed talk about the Nazis on this site, quite right too.

Bans will get handed out if you talk about the Nazis as far as I know.

Neutronale

I think its quite right that we don't talk about Nazis because if we do people will get infected and before you know it the Nazis will be walking up and down the street again, gassing Jews and being generally nasty.

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

I don't think we're allowed talk about the Nazis on this site, quite right too.

Bans will get handed out if you talk about the Nazis as far as I know.

I see you had to post the same line of crap twice neutronale. A quote comes to mind: ‘Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error.’

— Marcus Tullius Cicero

Bans are for idiots in this case- not for their discussion.

Moderator.

lurker2000

I'm torn on this issue - on the one hand I think its important that a message be sent to the world that no matter how many decades it takes, a perpetrator should never be able to sleep peacefully without worrying about that knock on the door...

However, with regard to WW2 crimes, the people who committed atrocities and were never held accountable would all be in their 90's now and mostly small cogs in the system .... while its galling to think of someone getting off Scott free, IMO it can be counter-productive to put a small fish on trial ...

The only benefit in doing that would be to facilitate putting the overwhelming evidence in the public forum that the Holocaust or other war crimes did happen and with that in mind, it serves a real purpose.......nauseatingly we are still only a small distance (in life and on this forum) from those who still continue to deny that these things ever happened...

DarkyHughes

Manach wrote: »

From I read on international law, there is not a limit on genocidal crimes. Hence technically, there is no legal barrier for someone to be taken from their retirement homes to be placed on trial. However there is the matter of procedural justice. In that beyond a certain point, human memory degrades, or documents are lost and thus the chance for a defence to be made by the accused (who themselves would be aged) would be significantly be diminished. This is common both in criminal law and to a lesser extend even in civil where there exists extended limitations.

Hence in practically, there are no more trials to be had. Courts such as the Hague, in spite of the flaws such as the over-procedulalites and the poor resources afford to the defence, will hopefully provide a sustainiable model for crimes form other eras.

Like the mob bosses in Casino get off the hook cuz their all old.

DarkyHughes

Neutronale wrote: »

I think its quite right that we don't talk about Nazis because if we do people will get infected and before you know it the Nazis will be walking up and down the street again, gassing Jews and being generally nasty.

They don't have immortality they do die at some stage.

Neutronale

DarkyHughes wrote: »

They don't have immortality they do die at some stage.

Ideas have a certain lifespan as well, they don't die with their originators, that is what the Boards mods are afraid of, infection :eek:

Neutronale

lurker2000 wrote: »

I'm torn on this issue - on the one hand I think its important that a message be sent to the world that no matter how many decades it takes, a perpetrator should never be able to sleep peacefully without worrying about that knock on the door...

However, with regard to WW2 crimes, the people who committed atrocities and were never held accountable would all be in their 90's now and mostly small cogs in the system .... while its galling to think of someone getting off Scott free, IMO it can be counter-productive to put a small fish on trial ...

The only benefit in doing that would be to facilitate putting the overwhelming evidence in the public forum that the Holocaust or other war crimes did happen and with that in mind, it serves a real purpose.......nauseatingly we are still only a small distance (in life and on this forum) from those who still continue to deny that these things ever happened...

We should be able to talk about this and not end up in prison...

Since 2011
Stolz was released from Aichach Prison on 13 April 2011.

In 2012 she was invited by Ivo Sasek, the founder of the Anti-Zensur-Koalition (AZK) (Anti-Censorship Coalition), as a guest speaker at the AZK's 8th conference held at Chur, Graubünden, Switzerland, where she spoke on 24 November 2012. In January 2013, Daniel Kettiger, a Bernese lawyer, filed a criminal complaint to the Graubünden Prosecutor's Office against both Stolz and Sasek. He accuses Stolz of transgressing Swiss race law, Art. 261bis of the Swiss Criminal Code, in that she stated that the Holocaust has never been proved by a court of law, that findings on the location of the crime, method of assassination, number killed, time period of crime, perpetrators, bodies or evidence of murder are lacking as is finding as fact that there was Nazi intention to kill Jews. Sasek is accused of failing to act as a responsible moderator.[5][6]

On February 25, 2015 Stolz was imprisoned for 20 months by a court in Munich for a speech she delivered in 2012.

Al Capwned

Those that deny the holocaust ever occurred are as bad as the perpetrators.

Neutronale

Al Capwned wrote: »

Those that deny the holocaust ever occurred are as bad as the perpetrators.

That's ridiculous, how is someone who questions an aspect of history as bad as someone who mass murders millions of people?

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

That's ridiculous, how is someone who questions an aspect of history as bad as someone who mass murders millions of people?

You have posted 5 times on the thread and not addressed the op. This is trolling in anyone's mind.

You are clearly trying to earn a ban that you can then say is stopping you expressing your opinion. Last warning.

Moderator

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

You have posted 5 times on the thread and not addressed the op. This is trolling in anyone's mind.

You are clearly trying to earn a ban that you can then say is stopping you expressing your opinion. Last warning.

Moderator

The existence of a crime for which the person is accused of is a vital aspect of the issue.

Imo these people are accused of deeds for which none of them had any control.

The designers of the system are long gone.

I am not trolling, I am interested in the issue and I do not wish to be banned, you are the one who hands out bans for discussing the holocaust not me.

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

The existence of a crime for which the person is accused of is a vital aspect of the issue.

Imo these people are accused of deeds for which none of them had any control.

The designers of the system are long gone.

I am not trolling, I am interested in the issue and I do not wish to be banned, you are the one who hands out bans for discussing the holocaust not me.

The question in the OP was "should there be a time limit that means after a certain period of time has passed peoples crimes are forgotten or at least written off as belonging to the past"

???

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

The question in the OP was "should there be a time limit that means after a certain period of time has passed peoples crimes are forgotten or at least written off as belonging to the past"

???

The issue concerns "Nazi crimes", iow the holocaust. You can't divorce one from the other.

For some reason we are not allowed to have an open , censorship free discussion on this issue here on Boards.

Censoring the issue doesn't make it go away.

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

The issue concerns "Nazi crimes", iow the holocaust. You can't divorce one from the other.

For some reason we are not allowed to have an open , censorship free discussion on this issue here on Boards.

Censoring the issue doesn't make it go away.

More rubbish lad. The issue wont be censored but off topic rubbish about boards will be-theres no apologies for that.
Whether you are unable to discuss the thread subject or just trolling i am unsure. What i am sure of is that you are not posting anything to do with the subject of the thread. Your next off topic post will be a ban for that reason only.

newmug

I'm torn on the issue too.

But here's a bit of a mad idea. I know the Holocaust was he worst thing that ever happened in human history, but what about a bit of forgiveness? Isnt it all part of the healing process?

Manach

newmug wrote: »

I know the Holocaust was he worst thing that ever happened in human history

... not trying to be pedantic, but focusing soley on man-made disasters which effected civilian populations then it is arguably that as horrific as the Holocaust was other events such as various Chinese Civil wars, the causulties suffered during the invasion of the Soviet Union [source numerous WWII books], the Communist purges of the 30s[source Robert Service], the Armenian Genocide [offhand from Bernard Lewis], Casaer's Gallic invasion [estimates based on the impact] would also rank up there. Historians like Synder (Bloodlands) and the general works of Burleigh (Sacred Causes) put the European context of this.

The takeaway is to have an understanding of the conditions which lead to such events and learn the lessons.

Neutronale

newmug wrote: »

I'm torn on the issue too.

But here's a bit of a mad idea. I know the Holocaust was he worst thing that ever happened in human history, but what about a bit of forgiveness? Isnt it all part of the healing process?

Why are you torn on the issue?

Neutronale

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

More rubbish lad. The issue wont be censored but off topic rubbish about boards will be-theres no apologies for that.
Whether you are unable to discuss the thread subject or just trolling i am unsure. What i am sure of is that you are not posting anything to do with the subject of the thread. Your next off topic post will be a ban for that reason only.

Ok, so I am allowed to post on the nature of these crimes or whether I believe a crime was committed or not?

jonniebgood1

Neutronale wrote: »

Ok, so I am allowed to post on the nature of these crimes or whether I believe a crime was committed or not?

No more explaining to you. Ban for trolling and my apologies to other people on the thread for not making this call earlier (in my defence i thought Neutronale might have a point to make).

Moderator

jonniebgood1

See link detailing an ongoing trial http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/accountant-of-auschwitz-tells-trial-for-300000-counts-of-accessory-to-murder-of-indoctrinated-obedience

Is the trial legitimate or is this an attempt to separate from the past for the court? The German legal system changed in recent years to allow this type of trial for people as accessories to traditional war crimes.

Al Capwned

One of the witnesses in Groening's trial, a survivor of Auschwitz, and an amazing woman by the name of Eva Mozes Kor, posted the following last week.

I am very disappointed in the efforts of the prosecution to seek three-and-a-half years of jail time for Oskar Groening. I want to thank the German court for trying to do the right thing in listening to the testimony of the survivors and of Mr. Groening. Putting him in jail for three-and-a-half years makes absolutely no sense to me.
He admitted to his wrongdoing, he asked for forgiveness, and he bore witness to what happened. His value is not in sitting in jail at age 94. His value to society is in speaking to students in person or even via Skype about what happened. You can even give him three-and-a-half years, if he lives that long, to lecture as a community service. Now there is value. That is what the German court should think about – what would provide the greatest value to society?
Find him guilty. He said he is guilty. But the punishment I think is outrageous. Instead of putting him in jail, he can lecture two to four times per month to German students. Every time he lectures to a group of students, he will testify about it and will relive those experiences. I don’t think it is an easy thing for him to deal with. In jail he doesn’t have to talk about it – he can just rot away. But I am really interested in him telling young Germans, “It happened. I was there. There was nothing good about the Nazi regime. It brought tragedy to millions of innocent human beings, to the Germans, and even to the perpetrators.” That is the lesson – we have to prevent it from happening again. That would benefit Germany and the rest of the world.

I admire her for her beliefs in what Groening should have to do to serve his sentence, I'm not sure if I would be as forgiving.

Al Capwned

And she's just posted this just now....

I am disappointed in the German court’s decision this morning in sentencing Oskar Groening to jail. They found him guilty of being a small cog in a big machine that killed a lot of people, and I agree with that – he was guilty. He has accepted responsibility and admitted his guilt. They are trying to teach a lesson that if you commit such a crime, you will be punished. But I do not think the court has acted properly in sentencing him to four years in jail. It is too late for that kind of sentence. All it does is make the court feel good, like they have done something. His guilt does not decrease just because he is old, but why did they not do this 20 years ago?
My preference would have been to sentence him to community service by speaking out against neo-Nazis. I would like the court to prove to me, a survivor, how four years in jail will benefit anybody. Groening said in his statements that he was wrong, it never should have happened, and it should never happen again. That is exactly what I want him to tell the young people in Germany who want to bring back a Nazi regime. I told Oskar Groening that I have forgiven him, but that does not absolve nor condone what he has done.
Some people, including journalists, have questioned my right to testify in this trial because I have forgiven the Nazis. My forgiveness has nothing to do with the perpetrators. It is for my healing alone. The reason I am speaking out is because so many survivors are still suffering emotionally, 70 years later, and they do not understand they have the power and the right to forgive. The world is hurting so much, and I think it desperately needs something besides punishment.

Amazing woman.