Quite how do you determine his guilt?Spot on. If he is guilty he needs to spend whats left of his time behind bars. Justice and history demands it.
Or is the fact that he was present at Sachsenhausen enough to determine his guilt?
Quite how do you determine his guilt?Spot on. If he is guilty he needs to spend whats left of his time behind bars. Justice and history demands it.
A court determines his guilt or otherwise.Quite how do you determine his guilt?
Or is the fact that he was present at Sachsenhausen enough to determine his guilt?
A court determines his guilt or otherwise.
If Jerry Adams was charged at age 99 with ordering the death of British Soldiers would you dither and question the procedure of justice just the same?
It is absolutely not crap at the age of 90+ there's almost a 50% chance of someone having dementia(not senility as you called it that's out of date terminology which as politically incorrect as calling someone coloured by the way).The notion that being old makes the former Nazi almost senile is crap.
I'm not dithering. The procedure of justice - or jurisprudence I think you mean - is about establishing whether the German (in this case) legal system could deliver a fair trial and arrive at a just verdict when there's so much evidence and opinion that could be prejudicial to the defendant. Some of it is posted on this thread above.A court determines his guilt or otherwise.
If Jerry Adams was charged at age 99 with ordering the death of British Soldiers would you dither and question the procedure of justice just the same?
I suggest you do your research on Adams.I'm not dithering. The procedure of justice - or jurisprudence I think you mean - is about establishing whether the German (in this case) legal system could deliver a fair trial and arrive at a just verdict when there's so much evidence and opinion that could be prejudicial to the defendant. Some of it is posted on this thread above.
Gerry Adams at 99 being charged with ordering a killing of a British soldier is a red herring. The legal issues that would determine whether there was a trial are primarily about evidence. What evidence is there and who are the witnesses? What is the likelihood he'd receive a fair trial? He has been implicated in the 1972 murder of Jean McConnell, but he has never been tried. After 30 years (in 2002) there was insufficient reliable evidence.
Now go back to the concentration camp guy. It's at least 75 years. Would he (or she) be savvy enough to defend himself? Would the prosecution witnesses be able to identify him? Would they be able to to say definitively what he did or didn't do? German law disregards superior order as a defence, but it's unusual in that respect, it would be a defence in most jurisdictions. Would international pressure influence the trial?
And as I said before, where does the line end? Should the Red Army guards who starved and beat half a million German pows to death be tried? Or the Soviet soldiers who committed crimes against German civilians in 1945?
Justice must be blind.
No.It is absolutely not crap at the age of 90+ there's almost a 50% chance of someone having dementia(not senility as you called it that's out of date terminology which as politically incorrect as calling someone coloured by the way).
If you read about the case they are talking about limiting trial time per day 2 to 2.5 hours purely because of his age. Therefore there has to be some physical or cognitive impairment otherwise trial times would be normal. As much as you want justice to be served I don't believe the man can get a fair trial at his age
Thats the job of the court hence "if he is guilty"Quite how do you determine his guilt?
Or is the fact that he was present at Sachsenhausen enough to determine his guilt?
Sorry zzzzz didn't mean to offend or insult you.What a ridiculous reply.
The man is still alive.