Text 19983, 171 rader
Skriven 2011-06-18 09:57:40 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
  Kommentar till text 19977 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Statue of limitation
============================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Friday June 17 2011 at 11:46:

RB>> And nowadays, in Germany, they're convicting ex-Nazis on the basis of
RB>> heresay witness statements ("My grandmother told me that...") 60-70
RB>> years in the past.

MV> Which I find disturbing. And if you are referr into Demjanjuk, I think
MV> that trial was a joke. The evidence against him was infinitisimal.

I wasn't specifically, but that was an example. The problem about prosecuting
war crimes in Germany was that not only a tiny fraction of the population was
involved, but quite a large proportion, in all walks of life. There was never
really any serious prosecution of Nazi lawyers or judges, for example. And
practically every family had at least one member in the military, SA or SS -
people don't like to think about what grandfather did when he was a young man.
My own wife's father was in one of the more harmless organizations -
Organisation Todt - building bridges and roads (and I think fortifications) in
France, but her grandfather was quite a Nazi enthusiast. I didn't hear much
about him.

Ypu may be aware that a large proportion of the German population rejected the
findings of the Nuremberg tribuneral as "victor justice", and that the German
government later commuted or anulled the sentences of those convicted (except
for those executed and "high value" people such as Speer). No wonder: plenty of
people could imagine themselves in exactly the same position.

The time for justice to be done was immediately after the war, but that was
neglected and so most of the war criminals are meanwhile dead. Even in the
1960s and 1970s, there were only a few trials as a "band-aid" for the victims,
but even then most of the accused were acquitted, often under "suspicious"
circumstances.

The main difficulty, as mentioned above, was simply that such a large
proportion of the population had been involved, one way or another, that
"minor" crimes had to be ignored to keep the country running after the war. And
even major criminals were ignored if they were in key positions after the war.

I suppose you've heard that the widow of Roland Freisler, the infamous lead
judge of the "Volksgerichtshof" (political show trials) drew a government
pension after the war for the "services" of her husband until her death? That's
the kind of reason why Germany even now has such problems coming to grips with
its Nazi past.

MV> I am not saying he was not a war criminal, just that after all these
MV> years, the evidence has evaporated.

Some would say "luckily". I thought the trial was a joke too, particularly
since the guy had already been tried by the Israelis and acquitted because his
identity couldn't be established. A show trial, a band-aid for the progeny of
the victims and an opportunity for the Germans to clap themselves on the back
for being such noble people that they pursue even such old cases.

"Never forget!" they say here - how the hell could you, when there's some
report or documentary on the Nazis practically every day on TV, and certainly
every week? You see more swastikas and films of Hitler on German TV than
anywhere else - and at the same time, swastikas on coins of the era must be
rendered invisible with a white label in coin shows, and every stand with such
coins or German medals from the era has a sign that the objects are sold as
historical momentos "for educational purposes". Like hell, but that satisfies
the law.

MV>>> But now that there has been a huge boost in forensic technology, it
MV>>> is different. With new technology forensic evidence can emerge in
MV>>> cold cases.

RB>> And although forensic technology has advanced remarkably over the
RB>> past 10-15 years, the advances have been fairly recent - genetic
RB>> analyses were, to my knowledge, unknown even up to the 1990s.

MV> Yep. And that is one of the reasons why The Netherlands waited till
MV> 2006 to lift the limitation.

Still seems very strange to me.

MV>>> It is that simple. The murder took place in 1946. It expired 18
MV>>> years later. Period.

RB>> Nice for the murderers, not so nice for the relatives and friends of
RB>> their victims. And I still think the situation wasn't as simple as
RB>> all that

MV> Bob, why do you argue facts that can esealy be checked. It IS that
MV> simple. The 18 year statue of limitation applies. End of story.

I don't mean simple in a legal sense, Michiel. I mean simple as in "cut and
dry", i.e. here's a body and someone is standing over it with a gun or a knife.

RB>> - 18 years for murder would be much too short, even if you assume
RB>> everyone connected with _every_ case was elderly and would die a few
RB>> years after it occurred,

MV> Too short according to what or whom?

Too short to solve a really tough case. Even in the days before genetic
testing, it often happened that key pieces of evidence only surfaced or became
apparent many years after the fact, often after a case had been closed as
unsolved and frequently even by mere chance.

MV> You are only looking at it from the victim's angle. For the victim -
MV> or the relatives - it would never be enough. They are not unbiased,
MV> and driven by feelings of revenge.

I think you see that a little too simply. There are a lot of people around who
can't stand the idea of someone who murdered a friend or relative running
around free as a bird - and who also think about the _other_ potential victims
of such a person. You forget serial murders, which incidentally aren't
necessary committed mere weeks or even only a few years apart.

MV> But there is more than that to consider. I already mentioned the
MV> difficulty of collecting reliable evidence after all that time.

Difficult but not impossible, as convictions even before genetic testing became
widely available show.

MV> There is also the consideration of what could it would do after all
MV> that time. The process of a trial could be too disruptive for society
MV> to offset the gain. I think the Demjanjuk case is a good example. It
MV> created a lot of publicity, but what were the gains?

That was a special case, not one of "normal" murder or murders, and was seen as
a "symbol" rather than a murder trial per se. I don't think that was comparable
to things that happen under "normal" conditions (no war or extremist violence).

RB>> leaving no written records or people to whom they told their story.
RB>> Very arbitary period, very short. This is why I find this so strange.

MV> Nevertheless, 18 years it was until 2006. I think it was long eneough.

MV> Different cultures, different laws...

Apparently. You know my opinion. And I might add that there was even a short
report in our Datteln paper yesterday about the arrest of a guy who had raped
and murdered three young (20s) girls starting in 1969 and ending sometime at
the end of the 1970s. The evidence was genetic, as might be expected. And since
Germany has no statute of limitation for murder (nor, incidentally, does the
USA), the consequence for this guy - presently 64 years old - are going to be
serious.

And frankly, I think that's perfectly OK and not in the least unjust. But I
have to agree with you on one thing: I do, in fact, think more of the victim
than of the criminal - and I do, in fact, think it's a perversion to worry so
much about the rights of criminals who have so abused the rights of their
victims.

That's something that's also popular in Germany - _all_ the RAF murderers,
sentenced to "life imprisonment" (sometimes even multiple "life
imprisonments"), are meanwhile free (including one who shot a Dutch policeman
and is _not_ going to be extradited to the Netherlands for that, although the
Dutch have requested it). They are _not_ reformed, however, with perhaps 1-2
exceptions, and remain the same antisocial persons they were in the
1970s-1980s. Violent criminals - people who inflict permanent physical damage
on others - are released after a few years of prison, and often enough repeat
the process.

Sometimes I wonder why the Germans even bother to try such people, since
they're often only "punished" by a slap on the wrist or even a suspended
sentence. Just costs taxpayer money and doesn't have any particular effect
except to provide the newspapers with stuff to publish. I particularly "love"
the headlines in German newspapers like: "Criminal sentenced to _long_ jail
term!" (the exclamation point is always there) - if you read the report,
they're talking about 2-3 years for deadly assault or something similar. Why
bother paying courts to convict them? Waste of good time and money.

And I disagree with you that severe sentences are mere "revenge". There's the
old saying "Let the punishment fit the crime", that many people appear to have
forgotten nowadays.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)