Nazi war suspect dies before trial, aged 89 - what's the point?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11808994

Samuel Kunz, "third on the Simon Wiesenthal Center's list of most wanted Nazi war crimes suspects" has died while facing trial, aged 89.

Given that Nazi German fell more than 65 years ago now, it is not possible for any remaining Nazi's to be realistically any younger than late 80's, early 90's, unless we start prosecuting people who were children then. I guess than Kunz must have been 24 in 1945, 18 in 1939 when the war started.

This may be unpopular with Loki and others, but surely now as we're about to enter 2011 isn't it about time to draw a line under the sand over the events that ended in 1945. Anyone who avoided imprisonment since then will be dead of natural causes soon enough. Justice has been served to as many as will likely ever face it. Is not prosecuting now the likes of Kunz, however heinous his crime was, a tad ridiculous?

I can see that logic, but I find the entire concept of a statute of limitations on any crime to be wrong. That being said, the return for catching one of these guys is pretty meaningless nowadays - even if some concept of 'justice' is served (and perhaps any surviving victims might have a sense of resolution), there's still little we can actually do to these guys. In that context, I think we shouldn't deploy extraordinary resources to catch and prosecute them (like the Wiesenthal guys do), but if one is found we shouldn't refrain from prosecuting them just because they're old and the crime was a long time ago.

I agree that I don't like the term "statute of limitations" and find its logic bizarre. I think that is a very American idea, as far as I know we have no equivalent here.

But being realistic, arresting people in their 90's for crimes committed in wartime in their teens is going a bit far. There are better things now to be doing.

Agreed in principle. My only problem is if a piece of evidence comes up (without an intensive search) clearly linking X individual to Y war crime. Why shouldn't we prosecute them?

Given the haphazard way de-Nazification and the associated trials were run in different parts of Europe, it doesn't seem a great injustice either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Agreed in principle. My only problem is if a piece of evidence comes up (without an intensive search) clearly linking X individual to Y war crime. Why shouldn't we prosecute them?

---

Because after 70 years said individual is about to die anyway, is likely by now a great-grandparent and a completely different person to the teenager that did that war crime 70 years ago.

So? By many standards, we're all different people than we were in the past; one year or 70 is just a matter of degree.

Remember, I'm not saying we should seek these out, but if a war criminal is dumped in our lap, shouldn't we do something about it?

#3 on a wanted list, something tells me that he was sought out.

I don't know, RandBlade - do you see punishment as the entire point of of the process of prosecution and trial? Or is their intrinsic merit in putting someone on trial in order to formally acknowledge and proclaim the existence of the crime, and the guilt of the person responsible, even if the punishment is more or less nominal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

#3 on a wanted list, something tells me that he was sought out.

---

There's a distinction between the country trying him and the organization looking for him. I don't think that we should spend out public dollars on trying to find these guys any more - and I also don't think we should contribute to Nazi-hunting organizations like the Simon Weisenthal center any more. But that doesn't mean that if they find someone we should ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I don't know, RandBlade - do you see punishment as the entire point of of the process of prosecution and trial? Or is their intrinsic merit in putting someone on trial in order to formally acknowledge and proclaim the existence of the crime, and the guilt of the person responsible, even if the punishment is more or less nominal?

---

I think we've already established the guilt of the Nazi's and the crime of the Holocaust.

No statute of limitations on murder. Actively seek them out? Probably shouldn't. But if caught, prosecute them.

If anyone deserves a good frying its a Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I agree that I don't like the term "statute of limitations" and find its logic bizarre. I think that is a very American idea, as far as I know we have no equivalent here.

---

It's a Common Law doctrine, Rand. You do have an equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

It's a Common Law doctrine, Rand. You do have an equivalent.

---

I would be very surprised if they hadn't. And if they hadn't then we'd still have article 6 of the ECHR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute...ational_crimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

I think we've already established the guilt of the Nazi's and the crime of the Holocaust.

---

Anyone know the name of the logical fallacy where you try and confuse the general with the specific?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Anyone know the name of the logical fallacy where you try and confuse the general with the specific?

---

Indeed, but who gains now from the specific prosecution of an 89 year old and dieing (well, now dead) Samuel Kunz? Realistically now its over.

What do we gain by letting him off the hook?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowheart

What do we gain by letting him off the hook?

---

Well, prosecuting corpses has traditionally been a papal privilege

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crowheart

What do we gain by letting him off the hook?

---

A sense of realism
Avoiding a ridiculous and pointless waste of money, police and judicial time
Allowing the justice system to concentrate on serious people that need taking off the street
Allowing the Police to concentrate on serious criminals that need taking off the street

For starters.

I see nothing wrong with ramming home the notion that some crimes are so heinous that no matter how close you are to death's doors you will face prosecution if caught. It also tells me that these people at no point during their miserable lives were entirely free of fear of being caught. A minimal retribution, but their victims deserve it.

Agree about the retribution aspect, but I don't think the deterrent argument works. A nominal end of life prison sentence is hardly going to be much deterrent for a budding young psychopath. It's basically just the principle, for me. We must make these people answer for their crimes, even if the actual punishment can only be minimal. To that extent, I agree with wiggin - we shouldn't put state resources towards this anymore, but if people want to go and find these people off their own backs then we should prosecute them. The cost of a trial is hardly significant in the grand scheme of things.

I more or less agree with that; it's not necessary to ferret them out whereever they are, but if they are found, then I see no reason to let them off the hook. As for third parties doing the hunting down of these people; doesn't that have the risk of vigilantism in it? Also don't really know about the deterrent part; but that's sort of inherent in the debate about punishment. We don't really know to which extent punishment deters, but if I am not mistaken the likelyhood of being captured does have an effect as a deterrent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Indeed, but who gains now from the specific prosecution of an 89 year old and dieing (well, now dead) Samuel Kunz? Realistically now its over.

---

If a previously little-known mastermind of the London July 7 bombings is found 60 years from now living comfortably in Pakistan (or in the Islamic Boro of Greater Manchester), would you not want him prosecuted?

Our government and society being willing to pursue something beyond the attention span of the general public is an important thing. And I think there is a certain value -- both for victims and victimizers -- to knowing that wrongdoers will be pursued forever for their serious crimes.

There is actually a well-made Israeli movie about this that's mostly in English that leans heavily on this issue. It's called Walk on Water and is about a macho Mossad agent who is assigned to befriend the gay and rebellious grandson and granddaughter of a fugitive Nazi war criminal in the hopes of tracking down their grandfather. It's sort of a funny and serious movie. Here's the somewhat crummy trailer:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4IoJSIF8tM

And a scene towards the end if you're up for total spoilers. But I highly recommend watching it and not ruining the ending. It was good and mainstream enough to be shown in US theaters even in our second-rate cities.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrI7brn5OM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Agree about the retribution aspect, but I don't think the deterrent argument works. A nominal end of life prison sentence is hardly going to be much deterrent for a budding young psychopath.

---

I think that's sort of one of the clinchers of the whole Holocaust -- many of the worst crimes weren't even done by people who were nominally psychopaths. They were turned into monsters, and then many faded back into society.

Quote:

---

So? By many standards, we're all different people than we were in the past; one year or 70 is just a matter of degree.

---

Most would not agree with this, but I really don't like to view the criminal system as one of punishment or of an eye for an eye but one as both a deterant but more important as a rehabilitation. Using reasoning and coaching to change a person, but if that is ineffective, then punishment itself, like you would when spanking a child. On the comment for years passing that would have a significant effect for me. I think ultimately in WWII we needed to punish the leadership more than the soldiers and guards at the camps. All humans perhaps would have done the same, but not everyone was going to be hitler, or not everyone was going to be as cruel as some of the guards were, beyond what they needed to be to fulfill their role. Those should be punished, even though I agree in some sense all should be punished. Secondly, redemption being a different nature of a person, meaning given the same circumstances you would not repeat the crime, as far as i'm concerned they shouldnt' be punished, or rehabilatated by the courts at that point. They've already repented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

If a previously little-known mastermind of the London July 7 bombings is found 60 years from now living comfortably in Pakistan (or in the Islamic Boro of Greater Manchester), would you not want him prosecuted?

---

Not really.

That's not exactly an answer I think most other people would accept. Why not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I more or less agree with that; it's not necessary to ferret them out whereever they are, but if they are found, then I see no reason to let them off the hook. As for third parties doing the hunting down of these people; doesn't that have the risk of vigilantism in it? Also don't really know about the deterrent part; but that's sort of inherent in the debate about punishment. We don't really know to which extent punishment deters, but if I am not mistaken the likelyhood of being captured does have an effect as a deterrent.

---

As long as they only track down and colelct evidence without breaking laws, and don't take the law in their own hands it's not really vigiliantism is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

As long as they only track down and colelct evidence without breaking laws, and don't take the law in their own hands it's not really vigiliantism is it?

---

As long as..

Well, this guy was put on a normal trial right? So it's not a vigilante thing in this case.

I didn't say that; my reservations pertained to Wiggin's idea of letting people other than the state look for these people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I didn't say that; my reservations pertained to Wiggin's idea of letting people other than the state look for these people.

---

Again, as no laws are broken.... It's a right, is it not?

Huh, here's an interesting question. We take for granted that due process restricts the state to legal actions. But what if civilians obtain information through illegal means? This must be known through private investigators, corporate investigators, etc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11837918

Am I missing something here? The guy wasn't extradited purely because he was a German citizen? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ']['ear

Again, as no laws are broken.... It's a right, is it not?

Huh, here's an interesting question. We take for granted that due process restricts the state to legal actions. But what if civilians obtain information through illegal means? This must be known through private investigators, corporate investigators, etc.

---

Generally speaking, as long as law-enforcement/state authorities were not involved in any way in gathering the illegally-obtained information, it can be presented without violating due process. But it really depends on how lenient the judge is, how good both sides' lawyers are, and how much money the defense spreads around gathering information itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Generally speaking, as long as law-enforcement/state authorities were not involved in any way in gathering the illegally-obtained information, it can be presented without violating due process. But it really depends on how lenient the judge is, how good both sides' lawyers are, and how much money the defense spreads around gathering information itself.

---

And, when it comes out that the information was obtained by illegal means, the obtainer of said information may also find himself in hot water.