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

I'm seriously amazed at how many people seem to think that if you evade punishment for long enough, then it's pointless to trial them. Tell that to all the survivors of the holocaust and their families. This guard can rest in hell for all I care.

[QUOTE=Araknid;50097669]I'm seriously amazed at how many people seem to think that if you evade punishment for long enough, then it's pointless to trial them. Tell that to all the survivors of the holocaust and their families. This guard can rest in hell for all I care.[/QUOTE] There ain't much satisfaction left to give in trying him, because of how clear-cut it is that he got away with his actions. Besides, the law doesn't operate on vengeance.

Just because he's old doesnt mean he gets a pass. Justice has no time limit.

Hey, we finally found the killer of your mum after 70 years, but Facepunch says because he got away with it for 70 years, and is now 90, unlike your mum, were not going to prosecute them.

Is this thread going to be a circle jerk of strawmen? Argue or don't but passive aggressive snark doesn't prove you right

[QUOTE=DogGunn;50098023]Hey, we finally found the killer of your mum after 70 years, but Facepunch says because he got away with it for 70 years, and is now 90, unlike your mum, were not going to prosecute them.[/QUOTE] What are you going to do, string him up and glue his rotten ass to the chair so you can try a corpse ? [QUOTE=Harley!;50097838]Just because he's old doesnt mean he gets a pass. Justice has no time limit.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. Sure ideally every case ever should remain a cold case until solved but the harsh reality of things is that the legal system can't keep up with every crime ever committed. The legal system is built to deal with recent hot cases that are still treatable easily and at a relatively minimal cost, because people commit crimes all the time. Moreover, it's not so much a matter of just raw time passed but more a matter of how old the person got. If someone's fifteen years old and kills a dude then gets arrested fifty years down the line when he's 65 then the cold case has reason to be reopened and a trial can be held because the criminal can realistically actually be held accountable [I]and be punished[/I] for the crime. When the guy is over 90 years old and on the brink of death then chasing after them in their lifetime becomes ridiculous because you're trying to punish someone who's well past the point of actually being punishable, and as demonstrated by this case, you're basically just wasting a shitton of resources and money on trying a walking corpse.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50098065]Is this thread going to be a circle jerk of strawmen? Argue or don't but passive aggressive snark doesn't prove you right[/QUOTE] That's exactly why he was being prosecuted. It's as much a legal issue as it is an emotional issue. What do you think the families of the victims (or the victims themselves) of his work would say? I doubt the majority would either forgive him or suggest not to seek prosecution.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;50098379]That's exactly why he was being prosecuted. It's as much a legal issue as it is an emotional issue. What do you think the families of the victims (or the victims themselves) of his work would say? I doubt the majority would either forgive him or suggest not to seek prosecution.[/QUOTE] Unless they were [I]really[/I] desperate on getting revenge (which is not and should not be allowed in court) I doubt they would feel much satisfaction no matter what. Even if this man lived through the trial and went to jail and died there, that still wouldn't undo the fact that he escaped prosecution to live a full life, and that isn't something so easy for a victim to not think about.

Holy shit this is not about putting old men in jail this is about deciding who's been an accessory to genocide. You can't do it without trial if the person is alive.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;50098379]That's exactly why he was being prosecuted. It's as much a legal issue as it is an emotional issue. What do you think the families of the victims (or the victims themselves) of his work would say? I doubt the majority would either forgive him or suggest not to seek prosecution.[/QUOTE] I have asked this question of everyone but no ones really answered What justice is being served by a jail term that is really just a term in a medical facility until he dies of old age. A trial is one thing a sentence at this point carries with it no visible justice in my eyes, and it's not like I'm being an apologist I just can't see your point of view. The court isn't supposed to be emotional. I can't argue that strongly enough. Yes it's horrible. Yes it's deserving of punishment but you're really not achieving anything. What relief is gained by knowing a man who spent his life free dies in a cell after a very short stay because the stress would likely kill them? I think a trial to find him guilty is fine, again, but you're better off giving community service at this point. 20 years ago, 10 even, maybe a jail cell would make sense but there is a point where human frailty and age makes justice hard, if not impossible to convey how emotionally, and physically wounded people would like it to be.

Court itself isn't an emotional issue, but choosing to prosecute may be. The court is simply a legal issue, and if it could have been proven to the courts satisfaction that he was a part of the genocide, then it should have been done. But as for jail, I wouldn't support it personally. But putting him through the court system was necessary in my opinion. And the court made concessions for him due to his age. Even while he was sickly, I still think it was prudent to continue.

[QUOTE=FreyasFighter;50094975]Fuck me, this was over 70 years ago. Why wouldn't they just let it all go in the first place? I'm sure that he as well as many others felt guilty as fuck after the war.[/QUOTE] Imagine if I was the man who killed your father. 70 years later, I'm found out. But nobody gives a fuck because "it was 70 years ago maaan," is that the kind of society you feel comfortable with? [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;50095002]Nah mate we gotta nail him up as an example for all of those other 85+ year old genocidal maniacs[/QUOTE] An exmaple for anybody who thinks they can commit murder and hide for a certain amount of time and get away scott free???? [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50096797]No maybe read my statements in context rather than trying to create strawmen out of them[/QUOTE] Even with the context, it's what youre saying. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Blazedol;50097681]There ain't much satisfaction left to give in trying him, because of how clear-cut it is that he got away with his actions. Besides, the law doesn't operate on vengeance.[/QUOTE] Justice != satisfaction.

Apparently "just following orders" is an actual usable excuse now. Tell me facepunch, what do you think of the My Lai massacre? Do you think that those involved in blowing up children and beating cripples to death should be absolved of all blame because it happened ~40 years ago? What if you were alive back when it happened? I'll bet you'd be baying for blood, or at least a life sentence in prison. Just because it wasn't plastered over CNN yesterday doesn't mean those involved should be able to walk away from what they did. And before you pull the BUT THEY COULDNT STOP IT CUZ THEY WOULD GET SHOT FOR TREASON card, there was a helicopter crew that saved some people at My Lai by landing in front of some of the killers and holding them at gunpoint, they weren't executed for that.

[QUOTE=ColdAsRice;50100863]Apparently "just following orders" is an actual usable excuse now. Tell me facepunch, what do you think of the My Lai massacre? Do you think that those involved in blowing up children and beating cripples to death should be absolved of all blame because it happened ~40 years ago? What if you were alive back when it happened? I'll bet you'd be baying for blood, or at least a life sentence in prison. Just because it wasn't plastered over CNN yesterday doesn't mean those involved should be able to walk away from what they did. And before you pull the BUT THEY COULDNT STOP IT CUZ THEY WOULD GET SHOT FOR TREASON card, there was a helicopter crew that saved some people at My Lai by landing in front of some of the killers and holding them at gunpoint, they weren't executed for that.[/QUOTE] If the people are in age of being convicted they have to be convicted. If the people are so old that they're basically going to die before you have a chance at concluding a trial, it's not worth it.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50100743]Imagine if I was the man who killed your father. 70 years later, I'm found out. But nobody gives a fuck because "it was 70 years ago maaan," is that the kind of society you feel comfortable with? [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] An exmaple for anybody who thinks they can commit murder and hide for a certain amount of time and get away scott free???? [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] Even with the context, it's what youre saying. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] Justice != satisfaction.[/QUOTE] So you won't even try and recognize the context because your moral high ground doesn't allow it? Like how many fucking qualifiers do I need to make for you people to be happy? Nothing's going to undo the carnage or unlive the free years he had. Yeah, try him. But what's the justice being served? Still no answers and just more and more condescending bullshit

[QUOTE=Harley!;50097838]Just because he's old doesnt mean he gets a pass. Justice has no time limit.[/QUOTE] The problem with this kind of stuff isn't that the ''criminals'' are too old to be judged, or that the crimes happened a long time ago. The problem is that you can't differentiate the genuine murderers that killed in cold blood from the people that simply had to work there, or be killed themselves. The same way that there were guards and maybe even executioners that hated the entire genocide idea they were forced to do, you'll find guards and executioners that enjoyed torturing and destroying people. Hard to find justice in something that's this gray, given that pretty much everyone responsible for the catastrophies of WW 2 got executed or imprisoned for life, leaving only people indirectly involved in the grand scheme of things.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50100743]Justice != satisfaction.[/QUOTE] and justice has failed. But, as Sil has pointed out, this trial isn't about either. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceDiggle;50101078]The problem with this kind of stuff isn't that the ''criminals'' are too old to be judged, or that the crimes happened a long time ago. The problem is that you can't differentiate the genuine murderers that killed in cold blood from the people that simply had to work there, or be killed themselves. The same way that there were guards and maybe even executioners that hated the entire genocide idea they were forced to do, you'll find guards and executioners that enjoyed torturing and destroying people. Hard to find justice in something that's this gray, given that pretty much everyone responsible for the catastrophies of WW 2 got executed or imprisoned for life, leaving only people indirectly involved in the grand scheme of things.[/QUOTE] This man was a volunteer for deaths head, he could have left his guarding duty at any time.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50100892]If the people are in age of being convicted they have to be convicted. If the people are so old that they're basically going to die before you have a chance at concluding a trial, it's not worth it.[/QUOTE] You have no clue when someone is going to die. Stop pretending that you knew this guy was going to die before the trial. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50101077]So you won't even try and recognize the context because your moral high ground doesn't allow it? Like how many fucking qualifiers do I need to make for you people to be happy? Nothing's going to undo the carnage or unlive the free years he had. Yeah, try him. But what's the justice being served? Still no answers and just more and more condescending bullshit[/QUOTE] The fact that he has commited abomitable crimes is the only reason you need.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50101126]You have no clue when someone is going to die. Stop pretending that you knew this guy was going to die before the trial. [editline]9th April 2016[/editline] The fact that he has commited abomitable crimes is the only reason you need.[/QUOTE] it's so hard to just get you people to answer an important question, I don't think you even have the answer at this point you're just committed emotionally.

If you just see this stuff as an old man getting pointlessly charged (because he'd be dead long before the charge would be up) I get why you'd think this is a waste of resources. But the fact remains that law is based majorly on precedent, and not charging the old nazis (especially the ones that were literally volunteers) sets a de-facto statute of limitations on committing genocide. I don't think there should be a statute of limitations on genocide :v:.

So I've got an unironic question, and this might be stupid, but why exactly is this kind of thing considered a crime? Is there international law that Nazi Germany was violating at the time, or was the Nazi regime considered illegitimate and a 'criminal organization', or did we just all decide that even though everyone was operating within the legal bounds of the current government possibly under strict orders that they're all criminals anyway because fuck the Nazis? Did we make a new law and then apply it to the past even though that kind of makes no sense? [editline]e[/editline] I assume this has something to do with the nuremberg trials but my WWII era history is super rough, that entire period of school was just like a blur of sleeplessness and stress

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;50101536]So I've got an unironic question, and this might be stupid, but why exactly is this kind of thing considered a crime? Is there international law that Nazi Germany was violating at the time, or was the Nazi regime considered illegitimate and a 'criminal organization', or did we just all decide that even though everyone was operating within the legal bounds of the current government possibly under strict orders that they're all criminals anyway because fuck the Nazis? Did we make a new law and then apply it to the past even though that kind of makes no sense? [editline]e[/editline] I assume this has something to do with the nuremberg trials but my WWII era history is super rough, that entire period of school was just like a blur of sleeplessness and stress[/QUOTE] er -- why is voluntarily aiding the commission of genocide a crime? Am I reading this correctly? Yes, it was super against international law.

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;50101621]er -- why is voluntarily aiding the commission of genocide a crime? Am I reading this correctly? Yes, it was super against international law.[/QUOTE] I can understand why genocide is a crime and why the top tier guys involved were prosecuted, but what I'm wondering is whether working for them actually violated current laws at the time even if they were the legal government and you were acting on orders (in general), and what it is that determines that. I want to know where the actual law that deems these guys [I]all[/I] criminals is from. What body, was it written post war or pre-war, so on.

In general anything to do with the camps is considered criminal, but typically draftees and those whose families etc. were being held against them if they didn't cooperate are given a pardon - this individual evidently was entirely a volunteer. However just being a soldier, just being SS, just being a government official, just being a member of the NSDAP, et cetera are not and were not considered crimes. I'm not sure what specific laws the decisions were made on in the period, but I think current cases use precedents set at Nuremberg.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;50101126]You have no clue when someone is going to die. Stop pretending that you knew this guy was going to die before the trial.[/QUOTE] It's pretty obvious that if you put a 90+ years old dude under stress he's more likely to die than a 60 or a 30 or a 20 years old dude. Even if he survived the trial or went to jail he wouldn't have stayed there for very long. If you have to appeal to emotion every two seconds to defend a case and can't respond to practicality with more practicality, then you're not making a very good point.

I don't get why would you bring a guy who's fucking years if not months from his death, just let him be. Was it moral that he was a "volunteer"? Fuck no, but so wasn't Operation Paperclip.