That people were murdered isn’t even going to be an issue, I expect. The issue will be the nature and details of her role. I suspect that will come mostly from documentary evidence, the 3rd Reich being such meticulous record keepers as they were.
Is there any evidence that she actually killed or directly assisted in killing oeoppe or made policies that did?
This is why I’m against mandatory minimum sentences. It seems pretty clear that she’s guilty, but her being in late adolescence at the time and the life that she has lived since then seem to be pretty big extenuating circumstances (Of course, if this was the US, her sentence might be reduced to time served in the interest of saving money.)
Sorry for the tangent (and my ignorance), but …oeoppe?
I think it’s “people” via smartphone.
It’s actually higher than 50% “The greatest known risk factor for Alzheimer’s is advancing age. For example, while one of nine people age 65 or older has Alzheimer’s, nearly one of three people age 85 or older has the disease. One of the greatest mysteries of Alzheimer’s disease is why risk rises so dramatically as we grow older.” What Causes Alzheimer's Disease? | Alzheimer's Association
So, she is okay because she was ‘just following orders’?
‘One of three’ is about 33%, which is less than 50%. Or is there something I’m missing?
No… other than the alcohol I have consumed tonight.
Carry on.
Several sites state the fifty percent figure (in pretty much the same words) but none of them say what research led to this comclusion. A bunch of people saying something does not make it so. I would love to know what this is based on (besides someone’s opinion). I am particularly suspicious of the statement when it is made by people with a vested interest in fostering the belief that the disease is widespread or rampant.
Apparently that doesn’t matter. A few years ago there was a decision by the German Supreme Court that said, essentially, that anybody that was present at the camps in an official capacity, no matter in what role, was guilty of all the murders that occurred while that person was there. The reasoning was that the the camps could not have operated without the cooperation of everyone working together, therefore everyone was guilty.
This is one of the main reasons there have been a lot of cases against very old people in recent years, whereas for long stretches in the 50s, 60s, and 70s hardly anybody was ever brought to trial.
What was the case that the German Supreme Court decided ? My understanding was that the only case based purely on serving in a camp was that of John Demjanjuk, but that was decided by a fairly junior court, and he died before even the first level of appeal. (And because of his death, his conviction was overturned, he’s legally innocent).
I recall reading an article a while ago suggesting strongly that these trials (largely inspired by the Demjanjuk conviction) based purely on serving in a camp, without specific proof of criminal acts, are a waste of time, because the German appellate courts will almost certainly overturn any convictions.
That irrelevant. Did she actually directly kill people? What specific acts can be attributed to her? Did she make and execute policy?
If the answer to any of the above is yes, then by all means let her rot. Otherwise it’s just a way to get cheap popularity.
So you want her punishment to be deliberately inflicting harm on not only herself but many other people? You want to punish one group of people by hurting another group. You can’t come up with any reason why she personally needs to be punished, so you appeal to the stability of society–something that applies equally to good laws and bad laws.
The vast majority of people who worked for the Nazis did not have anything happen to them. There really wasn’t much they could do to stop anything. It’s even Jewish law that your life is more important than following any commandment.
If I can “smell the bodies,” I’m sure as hell not going to think I have a choice. Because I could be one of those bodies pretty easily. I might secretly try to help the other side, but there’s not much more I can do.
The whole thing is a witch hunt, a desire for revenge. No conviction for anything other than actually killing them herself is going to stick.
And if you want to tell neo-Nazis that their stuff won’t be tolerated, prosecute them when they actually do the things that law and society don’t tolerate. It is morally wrong to punish one person with the goal of punishing someone else.
Except murder or incest (rape).
Please re-read the last three words of my post:
“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.”
I think you’re being asked to justify why her listeners should have to cry or vomit.
For a very simple reason:
Any normal person who learns the facts about the holocaust will want to cry.
And any normal person who sees the graphics–actual footage filmed in the camps- will want to vomit.
And any normal country whose entire population willingly and proudly served their Furher and committed the atrocities, will want to make sure that their children NEVER FORGET.
I think history proves you wrong there. If she really worked in the camps, throw her in prison for the rest of her life (not that it’ll likely be that much longer), or hang or shoot her (not that that’s really an option in present day Germany).
If convicted, how different would her punishment likely be from ordinary juvenile sentences? For example, would she be sent to a juvenile facility, required to attend high school classes, or be subject to the dreaded note sent home to her parents (which presumably would never actually get delivered)?
Incest is not the same thing as rape.