I thought this one was interesting considering what we are studying. Do you think it is practical and appropriate for this individual to face prosecution? If so, should anyone, regardless of which side they fought on, be charged with war crimes if they killed civilians?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_nazi_investigation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted task." ~William James
5 comments:
I do not believe that it is practical to follow through with the persecution of these criminals but I do believe it is just and whether it is practical or not these war criminals should be brought to justice if the opportunity arises. This man killed fifty eight civilians the families of those civilians, whether there are any survivors, I believe would find it comforting to have some closer or at least an understanding of what happened to their ancestors. Killing civilians no matter what side the criminal fought on is murder and should be followed through with a fair trial.
If Mr. Storms had been accused of his crimes 50 years ago, or 40, or whatever (my purpose is not to make an exact cut-off time), I don't think anybody could disagree that he should have been prosecuted. But now he is 90 years old.
Being in bad health, and frail from being 90, we can be near positive he won't go on one last rampage. Our current safety isn't an issue, so it isn't practical to prosecute.
Mr. Storms will probably die soon regardless. Even if he did endure all of the court processes preceding his sentence, he would also probably be in jail for very little time, so the time and money spent on his trial would not be rationalized by the amount of justice he would be receiving for his crimes. In terms of the world knowing what Mr Storms did, this is probably the extent of the media coverage his case will get, since other current issues are without doubt more important. As for relatives of the dead, I doubt much of what the courts could do to him would provide a lot of solace, such as in the kind of comfortless justice provided by the recent execution of the beltway sniper. So, I don't believe that it is appropriate either.
As a general rule, anyone guilty of killing civilians should be charged with their crimes. But, in some strange cases, that is not a practical rule. Such as in the case of this old Nazi. And the Allied pilots who carpetbombed the citizens of Japan and Germany. Is it always the good decision to make people pay in the aftermath of war?
Though my sleepiness may be effecting my thoughts, I will say that there are some things that simply have to be let go. Because no amount of meaningless, good-intentioned score settling helps us go forward.
I, personally, do think that if this man is prosecuted than all members of any army should be prosecuted for any war crimes if the same logic is used, but I do not think that it is realistic to do so at all. I totally think that officers and parties responsible for commands should be held responsible but those simply following orders cannot be held entirely responsible if they were simply following orders. Also a person's conscience may punish a person more than any punishment inflicted on them. For example: my grandparents were witnessing to a man who had fought in Germany during WWII that said God could never forgive him for what he had done. The hatred for Germans had grown so much that when the American soldiers came to a German town the commanding officer chose a random soldier (which happened to be the man be grandparents were witnessing to) to rape one of the women in front of the Germans as revenge. This man became a drunk and could never get over this incident; he even gave up making peace with God whom he believed in because he did not think he deserved God's grace.
In regards to the whether or not it is practical or appropriate to prosecute Adolf Storms; I would personally have to say no. In reality, there is simply not enough evidence to bring this man to trial, with even the hopes of conviction in a just court. Although Storms may indeed be guilty in the massacre of the 57 Jewish laborers, the fact is that there are no living witnesses to testify at the trial. Also, in the case of Storms, the time, expenses and effort that would need to be put into a trial in order to try a 90 year old man are just not a practical use of public resources. Storms himself claims not to remember the killings, and he has lived for the past 50 years seemingly peacefully, and is no longer a threat to anyone. This follows the widely-held belief that the law is not always equivalent to justice.
As to whether or not anyone (regardless of sides) should be charged with war crimes if they killed civilians; the answer is, ideally, yes. However, there are certain circumstances such as the presence of adequate evidence and a speedy trial occurring relatively soon after the crime has taken place, etc. However, because with war comes chaos, it is difficult to stick to ideals, and therefore not realistic to demand such guidelines until specific situations present themselves.
Post a Comment