The news report below details a 91 year old individual who has been convicted of war crimes. He has been sentenced to 5 years in prison. Given that 60 years have passed, do you think it is ethical and appropriate to imprison this individual? Should his age be taken into consideration? Is the length of the sentence appropriate? Should the passage of time affect the decision for retribution?
John Demjanjuk convicted over Nazi camp deaths at trial in Germany
John Demjanjuk. Accused Nazi criminal John Demjanjuk (C) arrives for his trial at a court room prior to the assumed verdict on May 12, 2011 in Munich, Germany. Demjanjuk, 91, had been extradited to Germany after living for years in the U.S. to face trial on accusations that he was a guard at the notorious death camp of Sobibor in Poland where up to 250,000 Jews died during World War II.Johannes Simon/Getty Images Source: Getty Images
May 12, 2011
MUNICH Retired Ohio autoworker John Demjanjuk has been convicted of thousands of counts of acting as an accessory to murder at a Nazi death camp and sentenced on Thursday to five years in prison — closing one chapter in a decades-long legal battle.
It was not immediately how much credit the 91-year-old native of Ukraine he would get for time served.
Demjanjuk was charged with 28,060 counts of being an accessory to murder, one for each person who died during the time he was accused of being a guard at the Sobibor camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. There was no evidence he committed a specific crime. The prosecution was based on the theory that if Demjanjuk was at the camp, he was a participant in the killing — the first time such a legal argument has been made in German courts.
Demjanjuk sat in a wheelchair in front of the judges as they announced their verdict, but showed no reaction. Earlier Thursday, he had declined the opportunity to make a final statement to the court.
“The court is convinced that the defendant ... served as a guard at Sobibor from 27 March 1943 to mid September 1943,” presiding Judge Ralph Alt said as he announced the verdict.
The verdict will not entirely end more than 30 years of legal wrangling. The defence has pledged to appeal any German conviction, and legal proceedings continue in the United States.
I think it is ethical to imprison Nazi war criminals but I do not really feel like this person should be prisoned but instead given a different punishment because of the time that has passed ill health and age of individual. I do not believe the punishment of prison is appropriate because isn't the purpose of prison to rehabilitate and to protect the safety of other citizens. I feel like if this individual was to be rehabilitated over time he would already have done so and that he is no threat to any other citizens. He instead should be given a punishment where he could somehow help holocaust survivors whether through a money fine, publicly apologizing and/or also volunteering his time to help organizations that help holocaust survivors. Or another form of punishment more suitable for this case with considerations of the time passed and his old age.
ReplyDeleteAlso I am suggesting a lighter sentence for Demjanjuk because I feel that him showing no reaction to his verdict shows that he is taking responsibility for his actions which leads to me thinking that he has changed over the sixty years. Also, Demjanjuk gave a brief public verbal statement, telling TV reporters, "I'm not Hitler." Which I feel reminds that he was just an ordinary order following soldier that grew up in an anti-Semitism environment at the time.
source about his verbal statement:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Nazi+death+guard+Demjanjuk+gets+years+sentence+waived/4770187/story.html
Agreed with Caleb. Him going into prison at his age would be plain stupid. He wouldn't survive a week. I mean sure, it was 60 years ago - but the crime should not go unpunished. House arrest for the 5 years would be sufficient enough.
ReplyDelete"There was no evidence he committed a specific crime. The prosecution was based on the theory that if Demjanjuk was at the camp, he was a participant in the killing — the first time such a legal argument has been made in German courts."
ReplyDeletethat's a theory... there isn't any evidence as it says there.
what he did was wrong, yes. but if he was a guard then he had no direct effect. it's also possible that he didn't even know the killings were going on (highly, highly doubtful however some guards did not know that the camps were extermination camps, but interment ones). also, if you arrest one guard, you must arrest and sentence ALL guards.
personally and morally I believe this man deserved a sentence, perhaps not five years.
ethically however, I am entirely unsure.
Also agreed with Emilija.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it was not his choice to be a guard? Back then freedom was scarce. There is no evidence - so how do you have the right to prosecute someone for something he may have not even done?
emilija all the way.
ReplyDeletethe news report said it for me. "No evidence he committed any specific crime".
Let me rephrase the situation. If Hitler had a bodyguard, would the guard be just as guilty for hitler's crime? same situation. this guy was just a protector of someone else. considerably less guilty.
and ethics in this case are entirely irrelevant- the dude's gonna DIE in a matter of years-if not less. I say that if he was to be charged it should have happened a long time ago.
@ caleb- they should take his money.
if the justice system wants to punish this guy so badly punish his living relatives. they would be just as guilty for not telling authorities that the old guy had committed his various crimes, and this punishment would actually get something done by comparison.
In the most basic sense, to answer the question, no time does not erase the crime, but stir some rationality into punishment.
another thing, this entire case is but a farce. For the murder of 28000 or whateveritwas people he should get capital punishment-life in prison. The whole 5 years thing is stupid, and not really a punishment at all. the government is trying to make a point, and this old guy is the sacrificial pawn of their game.
Yes, i think his age should be taken into consideration. Because if it is i would say he should not be sent to jail. He could be given restrications on what he could do like the germans were given but he is so old he would just die there, and whats the point of that, its just like putting him on death row.
ReplyDeleteI think that if circumstances were different like if they had actual proof that he had commited the murders rather than just being a guard them by all means he can go to jail. But there is no hard proof! We are just grabbing at straws to try and put the past behind us, even if it might not be unfair.
He is old, and he is no where close to "a hitler" and doesnt cause any serious threat to anyone. He could have just been a guard to survive since the economy was in pieces; how is that a crime?
^this.
ReplyDeletealso, what happened to the other comments? :(
WWWWHHHHAAAAATTTTT!
ReplyDelete?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
ReplyDelete>_<
Cain - do you actually have a comment? or just a plethora of exclamation marks?????!!!!!*****^^^^&&&&$$$$#
ReplyDelete