I have mixed feelings about this. On hand she volunteered for the SS-Helferinnenkorps and if she’s actually guilty of what she’s accused of then yes she should be punished. On the other hand it’s been over 70 yrs. She’s only a few years older than my late grandmother, the same grandmother who lost all of her family who stayed in Germany. She’s a completely different person that she was then, and at best she was a petty auxiliary personnel (but still enabled others to commit genocide). She was also underage at the time (& probably brainwashed like a lot of German youths), but in Germany juvenile offenders are anyone up to age 21. Trying a nonagenarian in juvenile court just sounds ludicrous. The really dark thing is that if this was an alternate reality and I was instead reading an account of a young SS radio operator being lynched when the camps were liberated my reaction would’ve been much more straightforward; something along the lines of “served her right”. Any thoughts?
If she is convicted, what would her punishment be? (Is this one 91-year old person or several?)
In the United States, punishment for juvenile offenders typically entails being sent to a juvenile facility, usually until they are 21 (or 18? or whatever). If the offender is already over that age when convicted, what happens in the United States? What happens in Germany?
I don’t know about the U.S or Germany, but in many jurisdictions of an accused reaches the age of majority before proceedings are finished, the trial moves to an adult court. Often times the sanction the court can award is still limited.
Many prisons often segregate young adult offenders, e.g keeping 18-25 in a different ward.
Individual human beings are capable of doing the most disgusting things, and then rehabilitating themselves as if it had never happened.
But a stable society and its legal system must have rules that remain in force continuously.
There are still vocal neo-nazi groups in Germany and the world, who need to be shown, yet again, that their ideas will not be tolerated.
She deserves to be prosecuted.
This 91 year old grandma didn’t just assist the Nazis from a distance. She worked inside the camp at Auschwitz, and must have seen the atrocities up close: she smelled the burning bodies, saw the starvation and beatings.
If guilty, her punishment should not be jail time. It should be community service: going to schools and telling her stories out loud, till she and all her listeners either cry, or vomit.
And never forget.
The fact that she’s still alive demonstrates the Holocaust has not yet passed into history. Some of the criminals and some of the victims are still alive and both groups deserve justice.
^^ This.
I’d more concerned about the mechanics of the trial.
If guilty - she should be punished, but you have to wonder what sort of prosecution and what sort of defense could be mounted 70 years after the fact.
It’s necessarily going to be rather scarce on witnesses or any sort of possible exculpatory evidence.
Assuming she was under 21 at the time - coercion or diminished reponsibility has to be part of the issue, how is that going to be discussed after so long?
Wow, 70 years on. I think anyone who was involved in crimes against humanity that long ago must be decrepit, semi-sentient pensioners who, if we claim to judge their crimes from the perspective as a merciful society, should be allowed to live out their last few days peacefully. After which we feed their corpses to the dogs.
I’d love to sit in on that trial-any witnesses left are likeley hard of hearing and senile.
Prosecutor:
“madam: do you recall Sept. 12, 1944?”
Witness; “what?”
Prosecutor: “What happened on Sept. 12?”
Witness: “what?”
Carry on.
Here in the UK, they’ve just decided to have a “trial of facts” of allegations of child abuse many years ago that have surfaced against a former senior politician who now has Alzheimer’s and isn’t fit to stand a criminal trial leading to punishment - but they think those making the allegations are entitled to their day in court and examination of their evidence. Something similar might apply in cases of this kind, where the important thing is hardly likely to be punishment, but rather the identification of responsibility.
Not quite the same, given that Lord Janner was “fit” to sit in the House of Lords until he took a “leave of absence” a year ago when the investigation started. Looks like a case of Convenient Onset Alzheimers to me.
But I take your point - better to get the facts out for “truth and reconciliation” purposes than for strictly punitive reasons.
Who cares if she’s 91? She got to be 91 and a grandma. Countless others didn’t.
A damning comment, indeed.
Yes, ralph, because as we know for a fact, all elderly people past a certain age are senile. 
I’m for prosecuting all people involved in mass murder, no matter how long after the fact and whether or not they’ve “rehabilitated themselves”. If necessary, let them die in a prison hospital setting. You don’t get a pass because you got away with it for a long time.
It’s justice.
I’ll bet that any witnesses will be able to recall with perfect clarity the moment their family was murdered in front of them like it was yesterday.
In other news: Tennessee is going to try an 11 year old as an adult for shooting his little 8 year old neighbor.
Making children cry and vomit, now this is a punishment I can get behind.
Of what is she accused?
Your odds of getting Alzheimer’s are 50% if you live past 85.
From the article linked in the OP:
Cite please? because this sounds like be to me.