If Hitler were found alive, 11 million victims would still be dead. The Mossad and the CIA would likely join up to take him to Israel. There he would be tried, and executed.
If a person is mentallly competent to stand trial, they should be tried and (if found guilty) sentenced and punished. Age is relevant only in that-for a senior a sentence of 10 years or more may amount to life in prison, and a senior may die of natural causes during the lengthy appeals process that follows a death penalty.
Pardoning a criminal due to old age is saying "Sure you're a killer, and you stopped your victims from ever growing any older. But, because you've managed to elude us so long and grown old yourself, we'll just pretend that your crimes never happened."
NOTE TO AL- I DEMAND AN EXPLANATION OF YOUR SCREEN NAME. ALZHEIMER'S IS NO LAUGHING MATTER. I WATCHED A GRANDMOTHER DIE WILL HER BRAIN DISINTEGRATED. AS MY FATHER ENTERS HIS 70'S, I AM TERRIFIED THAT I WILL WATCH THE SAME THING HAPPEN TO HIM. WOULD YOU FIND A SCREEN NAME OF "KAN SIR" OR "HOLLY COST" HUMORUOUS?
I apologise for not putting that all caps rant in a pit
thread. I was very angry and acted on impulse. I apologise to other posters and the mods for not putting (can that be right? or does that spelling refer only to golf?)a rant where it belongs. I stand behind the content of my rant, but I am sorry for the location.
Back to the OP-Ira Einhorn has been recently returned to Philadelphia to stand trial for a murder committed more than 20 years ago. The general concensus here is that while Ira is an egomaniacal ***hole, he is mentally competent to stand trial. If the murder had been 40, 50, or 60 years ago, that would remain the only legal issue. It is irrelevant if the accused is blind, toothless, or bed ridden. Are they mentally competent to stand trial? Age may enter into sentencing, but competence is the only factor in whether or not they stand trial.
The trial determines guilt. Even if a murderer dies of natural causes 10 minutes after the verdict, an important action has been taken. The court has said "This person is a criminal. This person killed another human being. We now know for certain who murdered you loved one. It was the defendant. We have caught them at last and brought them to justice." IMHO the word closure is overused, but I think it fits here.
No matter how much protection he may be given, if Hitler were found alive there is almost no chance of him living long enough to go to trial. There would be so many people trying to kill him that someone would find a way to get at him.
Well, I’m not up on all my “Great War Criminals of the 20th Century”, but what about people like Idi Amin and Slobodan Milosevic and “Papa Doc” Duvalier?
How about Joseph Stalin? Saddam Hussein? Did the Pol Pot regime have a leader? I don’t remember; all these genocidal maniacs tend to blur together after a while.
Anyway, I seem to have missed the part where there was a great public outcry to have these people dragged out and tried for “crimes against humanity” or something like that.
If the United Nations, or the International Court, or some other kind of Human Rights Commission did ever manage to agree that he ought to be tried–he would have lawyers. The lawyers would stall. Utimately nothing would be done.
Pol Pot led the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and was responsible for one of the very worst atrocities ever. I deal with lawyers in Cambodia, and everything takes forever to get done, because they lost so many of their intellegensia as a result of the extermination. There are simply not very many educated experienced people around. Pol Pot got off too lightly.
I started reading a history of the battle of Stalingrad last night. It has occurred to me this morning that Hitler was probably quite mad, but the time Berlin fell. There would be an issue that he might not be mentally fit to stand trial. Even if he had been captured in 1945, and tried, that argument might have prevailed. Public sentiment being what it was, though, I doubt it.