The Holocaust was a horrible event that should never have happened, but the prosecution of this law-abiding American citizen will not truly offer any retribution. There are three possible situations that could have occurred. One, the defendant in this case is completely innocent of all charges and he was never a soldier stationed at this extermination camp. Two, he was a soldier at the camp, but he was there against his own volition, and he should also be considered a prisoner. Three, he did commit these heinous crimes using his own free will, and he is completely guilty as charged. No matter which of these actually happened, the ability for anyone to discern the truth is impossible, and the justice we can find will not be sufficient to rectify the injustice of the past or the potential injustice that could occur from another human mistake.
If the first situation is true, the prosecutors and the advocates for this trial are making a huge mistake. There seemingly incessant drive and motivation to produce retribution for the horrible events of the last century is understandable, but it cannot excuse putting an innocent man behind bars. The end to this scenario can only leave blood on everyone’s hands.
The second situation is slightly trickier, but we still cannot necessarily hold the defendant responsible. Everyone was living in fear during the war, and we cannot blame every member of the society simply for not fighting the totalitarian government, especially someone who was not from the society. He was not German and allegedly only began to work as a guard after being imprisoned. He might as well have had a gun to his head.
In the third situation, we probably would all jump to condemn him for his actions, and in this situation, he would deserve punishment. But, let us examine if this scenario is reasonable. After the war, he immigrated to the United States, joined the most well-known workers union in U.S, was a perfect law-abiding citizen, and raised a family. Does that sound like a cold-blooded thirsty killer? Besides, what good would this man’s conviction do? In his old age, his punishment does not allow for any legitimate punishment, and it is hard to see how the overall good done by this trial outweighs the costs.
Of course I want Justice for the victims of the Holocaust, but I think we left the proper period for justice seeking a few years ago. Additionally, this conviction would not represent the justice the victims deserve. For now, I think we should be focusing on remembering and understanding what happened, in order to ensure nothing like this horrible event will ever happen again.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/world/europe/01trial.html?_r=2&ref=global-home
1 comment:
i think more background details are necessary on this case in order to discuss the justice behind this particular holocaust rectification. However, I would argue that there is some value in modern day trials of living German ex-militia who were guilty of participating in the extermination of Jews. Sure the man on trial has a new and repentant life in America many years after the injustice was committed, but he should not be able to utterly escape legal responsibility for his past actions. If there is evidence which shows he committed an injustice towards Jewish prisoners, he should be held accountable in both case 2 and case 3. Regarding scenario 2, just because he was in compliance with the horrific precedent of German law at the time does not mean he should not be held liable for his actions. It is a man's social responsibility to disobey such extraordinarily unjust laws, and no amount of time passed can erase his accountable guilt.
Post a Comment