As much as I have empathy with the victims, is anything much going to be achieved now? If he is imprisoned for ten years it will be meaningless. Why is it pursued??
They’ve been going after him for years. Might as well finish the job.
Why do they sentence people to 100 years? When a serial killer or mass murderer is convicted of one crime that will keep him in jail for the rest of his life, why continue to prosecute him for others? I’m sure a lawyer Doper will come in with something more definitive, but to me it is a symbolic gesture for both society in general, to go down in history and for survivors and the family and friends of victims. However I’m not sure they are still seeking closure in this particular case.
His family has complained that Ukrainians are being persecuted for German crimes. Nice. My mother’s side of the family is from what is now Western Ukraine. Every single one of them who didn’t get to America before the Nazis came to power was murdered.
They probably never even saw a German. It was Ukrainians, their fellow villagers, who rounded them up, stole their possessions, plowed under the Jewish cemetery to make a potato field and turned the synagogue into a sausage factory.
That fucker deserved to be hounded for all of his life. He lied on his Immigration form and was not entitled to be a U.S. citizen or even to enter the U.S. in the first place. I’m glad that his family all knows what a monster he is.
Not to rain on your outrage parade, but he hasn’t actually been convicted yet.
There is no statute of limitations on murder. In one famous example, Byron De La Beckwith was finally convicted of the 1963 murder of civil rights leader Medgar Evars in 1994. It is hardly meaningless to let killers know that they can never be truly safe or think that they have gotten away with it. Being complicit in the deaths of 29,000 people doesn’t just go away because 60 years have passed. His victims deserve that he face justice, which means a trial and appropriate punishment if he is convicted.
Are the people in the concentration camps still dead?
Regards,
Shodan
Name one murder trial in human history where a conviction brought the victim back to life.
Indeed they are. The people responsible must be punished.
Why do you think it’s meaningless?
If he were to receive a sentence of 10 years for aiding in the murder of 29,000 people, that would be meaningless. But if he only spends two years in jail because he only lives that long after his sentencing, then I think it’s very meaningful. The crimes he’s accused of are so huge and vile that, if he’s found guilty, he should spend every last second of his life in prison. It’s only regrettable that he wasn’t put there years ago.
The reason I was saying it would be meaningless is because it is more than likely he would be dead before the sentence was completed.
Would such a sentence- or 100 years or whatever make him more remorseful?
Who cares about how remorseful he is? He is probably only remorseful that he got caught.
So let him die in prison. I have it on pretty solid authority that 88 year old Nazis can still be dangerous.
I am not concerned that they are still dangerous, I’m concerned about how many of Mrs. Plant’s relatives they put into gas chambers and ovens.
He might have been a guard at a camp 65 years ago. What crime is that?
Forcing Jews into gas chambers.
Hitler himself once said that nobody was ever punished for killing the Armenians. So maybe punishing the Nazis has prevented other genocides. At the very least it’s a possibility I’m willing to sacrifice a bunch of Nazis for.
^
Prevented other genocides? You clearly have been asleep for the last 64 years.
As for the OP, I think its a disgrace and this is what gives war crimes trials a bad name, he has already had one conviction quashed (by Israel). They really seem to have decided on guilt and are now looking for a charge that will stick.
In addition the “crimes” are alleged to have occured over 64 years ago, the length of time which has elapsed makes it highly unlikley that he can put forward a robust defence and far more likely that it will be highly prejudicial to the defendant.
I didn’t say it prevented all genocide. But it did stop Spain from killing all the Basques, the Czechs from killing all the Slovaks, the Soviet Union from killing all the Uzbeks, Canada from killing all the Quebecois, China from killing the Tibetans, and the United States from killing all the Californians. Or at least maybe it did - you really have no evidence about what crimes didn’t happen. But one of the basic pillars of our legal system is that the enforcement of laws prevents crimes. There’s no reason to political crimes are an exception to this.
That’s why it’s a bad idea to kill 29,000 people. If you get tried that many times you’re bound to lose some of your cases.
The Israeli Supreme Court case that overturned his conviction acknowledged that the evidence showed he was a guard at Sobibor. And the long time between the events and the charges don’t hurt his case, they hurt the state’s case.