Suprise! Former Auschwitz Guard Dies a Week Before the Trial - Polidicks

[quote]A 93-year-old former guard at Auschwitz has died a week before he was due to stand trial in Germany. Ernst Tremmel was accused of 1,075 counts of accessory to murder for his time working at the death camp in German-occupied Poland. Tremmel worked at the camp from November 1942 to June 1943. The trial was to have started on Wednesday in the western city of Hanau, where Auschwitz survivors were expected to give testimony.[/quote] [quote]Tremmel served with an SS Totenkopf unit processing the arrival of prisoners at the camp and was allegedly directly involved in three transports, from Berlin, the French city of Drancy, and Westerbork in the Netherlands.[/quote] [quote]Because Tremmel was aged 19 or 20 at the time of his alleged crimes, he was to have been tried under juvenile criminal law despite his advanced age. Because of his frail health, the court had ordered hearings to be limited to four hours per day.[/quote] [quote]The legal foundation for prosecuting ex-Nazis changed in 2011 when German authorities convicted former death camp guard John Demjanjuk solely on the basis of his having worked at the Sobibor camp in occupied Poland.[/quote] [url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35987351]**NEWS**[/url] What a fucking massive waste of money.

The stress from this whole thing probably was one of the factors for his death. Well fucking done, guys. Couldn't even let an old man live out last years of his life in peace.

Nonsense! Just spruce him up a bit and it can be the pope formosus trial all over again.

I've got a question. Your innocent until proven guilty, right? Would that mean they've killed an innocent.

I'm not sure what they stood to gain by putting a 93 year old man on trial. I can see why it would be necessary for someone young enough that a jail sentence would actually make sense. But this man was practically on his way out already. If he hadn't died before he trial, he would have died in prison.

[QUOTE=Passing;50088105]I've got a question. Your innocent until proven guilty, right? Would that mean they've killed an innocent.[/QUOTE] The problem is he just worked there. Those camps were not independent criminal organizations, they were organized by the state. I assume he was a government employee and was under orders and he followed their laws. Unless he did something on his own outside the orders, he should not be held guilty, in my opinion only the ones giving out orders should have been prosecuted.

[QUOTE=Pascall;50088109]I'm not sure what they stood to gain by putting a 93 year old man on trial. I can see why it would be necessary for someone young enough that a jail sentence would actually make sense. But this man was practically on his way out already. If he hadn't died before he trial, he would have died in prison.[/QUOTE] Witchhunt? That's the only way to describe it. You happen to deliver milk during the second world war in Germany. [B]Why didn't you stop Hitler and the Holocaust?![/B] [QUOTE=AntonioR;50088128]The problem is he just worked there. Those camps were not independent criminal organizations, they were organized by the state. I assume he was a government employee and was under orders and he followed their laws. Unless he did something on his own outside the orders, he should not be held guilty, in my opinion only the ones giving out orders should have been prosecuted.[/QUOTE] Yeah, But that just leads to the argument of "just following orders" and then it just cycles back on itself. Still. I totally agree only the person whom is in charge can be held accountable because they are after all the one giving the orders however in Nazi Germany during the early years two people had absolute power until the brown jackets were removed leaving only Hitler.

Prosecuting people who worked there now is bullshit.

I really don't know how to feel about these sorts of trials. On one hand, I don't think being old excuses anyone from crimes they may or may not have committed but on the other hand, it's a waste of time and it accomplishes nothing. Seems as though they're better off chiseling "nazi scum" on their gravestone or have their crimes immortalized somewhere for all eternity if found guilty beyond a reasoable doubt

[QUOTE=FpShepard;50088060]The stress from this whole thing probably was one of the factors for his death. Well fucking done, guys. Couldn't even let an old man live out last years of his life in peace.[/QUOTE] Don't worry he had 60 full years between his crimes and this. [QUOTE=Passing;50088105]I've got a question. Your innocent until proven guilty, right? Would that mean they've killed an innocent.[/QUOTE] Uh no, they didn't kill him.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50088161]Uh no, they didn't kill him.[/QUOTE] Are you sure about that? Stress.

Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?

[QUOTE=Passing;50088179]Are you sure about that? Stress.[/QUOTE] How do you know it was stress from the trial? the guy was 93. He's been at the age where he's been on the way out for over 20 years and he was in frail health meaning he already had his feet in the grave

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] It's more or less about the amount of time that has passed and unclear facts about what someone actually did 70+ years ago. Like I understand you need to be prosecuted for the crime but something that happened 70+ years ago? Eh, just seems like there are much bigger issues we could be addressing right now. I don't think anyone is saying "old people shouldn't get punished for crimes"

I really don't understand wasting this much money on someone who is almost 100.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] I don't think old age is a good reason but when you combine it with the fact that the crimes were committed over 70 years ago, it seems like a waste of time.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] Punishing enlisted members of an armed force that had to follow the orders of corrupt and evil superiors many years ago or be subjected to punishment (up to death) for disobeying said orders, have done nothing wrong. And waiting for "Nazi-hunters" to grab up old documents to punish men that have lived out their full lives well after the fact to get some final chance at revenge is pathetic and a waste of time and resources. How about instead of worrying about then, we worry about the now and deal with the Panama Leaks and countries illegally invading their neighbors while the UN, EU, and NATO sit the fuck back like it's no big deal.

Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)

[QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;50088226]I really don't understand wasting this much money on someone who is almost 100.[/QUOTE] You should not be exempt from trial over being a part of [I]genocide[/I] due to your age. It's a trial, due process of law. Be glad someone like Mossad just didn't cap him and call it a day.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] If he was to refuse his job in 1942 his life would have been a lot shorter probably

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] Guilty of what, though? He was a guard. He had no choice in the matter. As awful as the implications of "just following orders" can be, thats exactly what he was doing. Its not like he was in charge of pumping in Zyklon-B. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;50088300]You should not be exempt from trial over being a part of [I]genocide[/I] due to your age. It's a trial, due process of law. Be glad someone like Mossad just didn't cap him and call it a day.[/QUOTE] But all of the people responsible for the genocide are[i] fucking dead.[/i] This is just a witch hunt for anyone even remotely connected to germany at the time.

It amazes me how easily people look past the fact that if you refuse an order in the military there's this little thing called [i]treason[/i]. If you were ordered to carry a truck of Jews to some place you have no idea what they're doing with them, or be shot with the rest of the traitors, do you honestly think at 19 or 20-something you'd throw your life away in the midst of war, in a country far away from home? Think with your heads people. This is not a difficult concept. There's a reason officers are convicted for crimes that enlisted men follow through with; they are [i]following orders because they have to[/i].

I think living 70 or so years with the guilt of what he contributed to is more than enough punishment.

Nazi Germany had conscription. If you did not follow what your Nazi leaders ordered you to do, you would be charged with malfeasance and be declared an enemy of the state. These people would be sent to concentration camps. While I support the trial of members who voluntarily joined criminal organizations, I condemn the act of trying those who were coerced under the penalty of death.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088203]Do you guys actually believe people should be exempt for standing trial because of their old age?[/QUOTE] Not necessarily, but it's wholly unnecessary to give them any sort of 'punishment' if they're no threat to the public anymore. It's like sentencing a coma patient to life in prison. The argument then becomes, is the trial even necessary and I think that's a real argument. As for this particular case, he was following government orders, I don't see why he should even be tried, regardless of his old age. There have been a lot of psychological studies of obedience already, there shouldn't be the question of 'why didn't he disobey them if it was so horrible??'

I'd say since there's evidence that he was involved, he should stand trial. Now if he hadn't died, it could have been clarified whether he was a volunteer or forced to do it.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50088368]Nazi Germany had conscription. If you did not follow what your Nazi leaders ordered you to do, you would be charged with malfeasance and be declared an enemy of the state. These people would be sent to concentration camps. While I support the trial of members who voluntarily joined criminal organizations, I condemn the act of trying those who were coerced under the penalty of death.[/QUOTE] There's also this. I don't know much about German society during WW2, but if this is the case then these trials are a fucking joke. [editline]7th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088402]I'd say since there's evidence that he was involved, he should stand trial. Now if he hadn't died, he could have been clarified whether he was a volunteer or forced to do it.[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure he can stand anymore; he's dead.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;50088405]I'm not so sure he can stand anymore; he's dead.[/QUOTE] Yes, I am aware, certainly that first part in the second sentence establishes that.

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;50088283]Regardless how you put it, it's still allowing people to get away with it(if they're guilty ofc)[/QUOTE] That doesn't really matter, though. He was hardly a threat to society. The only reason to prosecute him would be out of some people's revenge fantasy.

[QUOTE=Dr. Ocsid;50088430]That doesn't really matter, though. He was hardly a threat to society. The only reason to prosecute him would be out of some people's revenge fantasy.[/QUOTE] Alright, I can compromise to that but does this idea apply to just in a war scenario or, for example, serial killers as well? Because I'm not sure how anyone could be fine with allowing a person that spent his/hers youth going around murdering innocent people and nothing happening to him despite the evidence because he hasn't done anything bad in 50 years and is an elder now.