Efriam Zuroff, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Jersusalem says " The passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the perpetrator. If you were to set a chronological limit on prosecution we would be saying you could get away with genocide, which is morally outrageous". Do you agree with Zuroff's argument? What is the point of prosecuting an 86 year old man for crimes committed when he was 33 years old?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
I agree with Zuroff's argument that a person's guilty actions do not go away with time. The SS soldier is still responsible for the crime of killing three civilians no matter how long ago the crime was committed. Even though the man was 33 years old at the time of the murders, he was still responsible for an illegal action and he needs to face to consequences for what he did. Just because of his age, he should not be able to get away with murder. Boere is still capable to stand trial despite his age because it is an unfair justice system for someone to get away with murder because it happened so long ago.
I srongly agree with Zuroff's arguement. It doesn't matter how young or how old someone is, if they committed a crime they should be punished for it. Just because 50 years have passed since the three men were shot, that doesn't make Boere any less guilty. By not punishing him, you are saying if you kill people and then hide for long enough, you won't get in trouble. That is ridiculous. The man is just as guilty at 86 as he was at 33, but only now is he going to have to deal with the consequences. He deserves punishment just as much as all of the people who were convicted at the Nuremburg Trials.
Yes, I agree with Zuroff's statement. That people will be getting away with genocide if there is chronological limit on who could be judged. Anyone who has committed any type of crime should be judged right away so we can avoid issues like this. No matter how old you are, you can still be judged for a crime you committed many decades ago and still be hanged or spend life in prison. That is only if there are many witnesses still alive and loads of evidence against you. The point of prosecuting an 86 year old man for a crime that happened in 1944 is important because this man was never put on trial. The hard part is finding witnesses in order to have a trial. Heinrich clearly wants to die; he has had enough of torture in his miserable life. He has had to live will killing three Jews for most of his life and that is enough torture for an old guy like him to handle. The point being is this guy is going to die soon and to have a trial for him is pointless; he may die during this trial. Prosecuting living Nazis will not work anymore because there are very few witnesses left and the top Nazis are all dead. The only Nazis anyone will be prosecuting are the innocent soldiers.
I agree with Zuroff’s argument, a person can murder no matter how old he or she is, but they all need to be put to trial for murder. It is not morally right to let a person who is responsible for deaths to walk free even when he committed the crimes 53 years ago. At the time there was no punishments because the government was not morally correct but now a court can judge Heinrich Boere’s fate and decide if he is guilty or not. The point of prosecuting him is to show everyone that there’s a price to pay for injustice against humanity.
I absolutely agree with Zuroff’s argument. In such a situation, time does not serve as a way to get out of the crime committed years ago. It is of no matter how long ago the crime was committed; this does not make him more or less guilty because of it. He is just as guilty as he was 50 years ago and should still be punished for what he did. If Boere is not penalized for the crime he committed, it is implied that people will continue to get away with genocide because of this “chronological limit” which is absurd. While Boere has approached the last years of his life, being 86, I still think it is important that he be put on trial to show that time is in no way a “pass” out of a crime one has committed.
I agree with Zuroff. Boere should still be punished and time doesn't take the crimes he made. Boere said "I'm not interested in what happened back then. I'm alone, don't have much longer to live and am just waiting to die." By saying this he’s saying that he doesn’t have to long to live and it’s late to convict him. He doesn’t understand why he can’t understand his last years. But by saying this it’s shown that Boere feels no remorse. The people that he killed didn’t get to say how they wanted to spend their last years; he took that away from them, why should he have a right? If he actually felt bad he wouldn’t fight his punishment. It is pretty late for him to be punished; he should have been punished much earlier. He escaped so many years in prison, and the time that he’d serve now would be half the amount of punishment he would have gotten. He should definitely be punished.
I agree completely with Zuroff's statement about how guilt does not fade away with time. Firstly, there is evidence that this man not only killed three men, but his SS squad partook in many executions. Prosecuting this man at age eighty six should be no different than prosecuting a forty year old or an eighteen year old. The law is the law, and clearly this man committed many atrocities. If he continued on in life without a trial, it would be like saying anyone could get away with murder. In no way does time make his acts less atrocious or wrong. Why should this man go on without punishment for horrible acts, when he killed three innocent people?
I definitely agree with Zuroff's argument that no matter how many years have passed, a person's guilty action remains. Even if the SS man regrets the actions that he made when he was younger, he still at some point in his life made a conscious decision to participate in the mass killing of a certain people...which is definitely morally wrong. He deserves the same punishment now that he would have deserved if he were to be punished at the age of 33. His punishment should not be lessened just because he is older.
I agree with Zuroff's arguement that time does not diminish the guilt of the perpetrator. Time is not an excuse to get away with murder. The SS soldier still killed three people, regardless of the amount of time that passed, and he should be held responsible for his actions. Prosecuting this man at 86 years old should be no different than prosecuting him when he was 33 years old, because he still commited mass atrocities. By not holding him accountable for his actions, it gives everyone else the idea that they too can get away with murder if they just wait long enough. He deserves the same punnishment as all the others convicted that the Nuremburg Trials.
I agree with Zuroff’s argument. I think that if someone were to be persecuted for committing crimes against human rights at all, it is still valid for them to be persecuted later in life. Just because fifty years has passed does not mean that the person didn’t do what they did. The point of prosecuting an 86 year old man for crimes he committed when he was 33 is so that getting away with genocide is not encouraged. If people see former SS men getting away with what they did, they would probably be able to make a plan in which the orchestrators cannot be tracked down for so many years. Then when enough time has passed, they would be able to come out and say, “You cannot prosecute me because it has been x years.” I don’t think that is morally right. I think the people who committed crimes against humanity a long time ago should have to make the sacrifice instead of letting future genocides happen.
i agree with Zuroff's statement, no one should be allowed to get away with a crime regardless of their age. Although in Heinrich Boere's case there is not much to be done because he is already 86 years old and lived a full life and life in prison wouldn't be a strong punishment. Being immediately executed wouldn't be a very strong punishment either because he is close to death already being so old. Nevertheless to keep justice in our society, Boere should still be tried and punished. It would be outrageous if he could just get away with murder because he was able to hide himself very well for many years.
I agree with Zuroff's argument. Guilt doesn't deminish with age. This 86 year old SS killer is no less guilty now than he was when he committed the murders of innocent people. By not punishing him, his prosecuters run the risk of sending the message that if a criminal hides for long enough, his crime will no longer be punishable. If not for serving justice for victims of SS crimes, then to set an example that crimes similar to those committed during the Holocaust will not be tolerated, no matter how long ago they were committed.
I definitely agree with Zuroff's argument. Guilt is not something that just fades over time, but is something that will always be with the person for their life. Time does not change someone's actions and should certainly not change their guilt as a perpetrator. Once someone commits an atrocious action, or any action at all, there is no way to go back and change that. At 86 years old, Boere is still the man who committed crimes and executions against the Dutch civilians, and will always remain that man. The point in prosecuting this man for these crimes is to show others that no one gets away with something as morally outrages as genocide. It not only gives peace to the victims of the genocide, but also warns others willing to commit these kinds of horrific crimes.
I completely agree with Zuroff's argument. Just because a criminal managed to escape prosecution for a long time does not mean that they no longer deserve to be punished. If that were so, it would send the message that if one hid long enough after committing a crime, then one could go free. What if it were Hitler who had escaped for so long? There wouldn't even be a question over whether or not he was still guilty. The 86 year old man committed those murders so he is just as guilty now as he was when he was 33. Although there is not much more they can do to punish him because of his age, they should still follow through with the persecution to send the message that a crime, no matter how long ago it was committed, is never excusible.
I do believe that there should be no age limit on prosecutions. Just because a person is older doesn’t mean that they are somehow above the law. They are still people in this world who need to see the consequences of their actions no matter how much time lies between. Even if an older person is exempt of facing justice for their crimes, how can one define the age line? Is there that much of a difference between being 85 and 86 years old? Not only would this policy be impossible to enforce, it would allow people to get away with outrageous crimes. It is important that Zuroff be prosecuted in order to set an example and tell the world that no one is above the law. Zuroff, although old, has been evading justice for his entire life and needs to realize that there are consequences for every action. Even though he is dying and has lived most of his life unscathed of justice, he needs to notice that his life should not have been this and he should not be free of consequences in the future.
I think that the man should just go ahead and take the life-sentace. He should get whatever sentance people get for killing others, even though it took extra long to put him on trial for real. Besides, he said himself that he's just waiting to die, anyway, so it shouldn't make that much of a difference.
Then again... Are people on both sides tried for killing people in the countries they were at war with? It sounds like, even though this man was in the SS, what he's being accused of isn't a crime against anyone because of race, but because his military unit was ordered to kill thes three people on the opposing side because they believed in the Dutch resistance. That seems like a perfectly normal thing to do in war, actually. That's pretty much the reason why certain areas get bombed sometimes-- to threaten the remaining resistance. I never hear about anyone being tried for that...
I completely agree with Efriam Zuroff stance on this issue of putting the Former SS guard, Heinrich Boere, on trial. 86 years old or not, the man is a war criminal (Murdered 3 unarmed Dutch Civilians) and their should not be a statute of limitation on such actions. Though some may argue that he’s simply and old man and putting him in jail would serve no purpose, they fail to see the larger picture of holding these trials. The real importance of holding a trial for War Criminals is to make sure these kinds of atrocities no longer take place. By holding these criminals accountable, even after 50 years have passed, it sends a clear message to all those who have or may one day commit war crimes. It states that no matter where they hide or how long they stay hidden, they will be hunted down as long as they live. They will never live peacefully and they will face justice for their crimes.
I agree with Zurfoff's argument that a guilty person's actions do not decrease over time. Once a person commits a crime, they are responsible for their actions. In the case of the SS man, he committed murder and although it was 50 years ago, he should still be held accountable like all the other Nazis. It all comes back to the idea that time does not heal all wounds; just because a person commits a crime many years ago, that does not mean that people have forgotten about it nor does it mean that people have gotten over that crime. There are still many people alive today who witnessed the Holocaust in some way and still feel the pain. If a person is able to stand trial, he/she must be brought to justice for his/her crime. The article references the fact that Boere is 86 years old, but is still able to stand trial. Thus, no matter how old he is, he must have a trial because he cannot get away with murder when so many of his fellow Nazis did not get away with their crimes. By not prosecuting Boere, it shows the world how the age factor contributes to a lesser punishment and possibly not even a trial. If Boere is not prosecuted, it shows an injustice into the legal system.
Zuroff makes a good argument that a person's guilt cannot be overlooked with time. Heinrich Boere still committed a war crime during the Holocaust and he managed to escape sentences that called for his death. I couldn't believe that Boere would try to ignore having a trial by stating that "He said he only realized after the war that he had believed in 'total nonsense.'" I believe that there is no justification for ignoring the trial although he regrets the murders of three Dutch resistence fighters. International law needs to be carried out, either he is given the death sentence or he spends the rest of his life in prison. Despite the wide length of time when Boere commited the murders, his victims would want to see justice carried out, a justice that is long overdue.
I agree with Zuroff's argument that "the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt". No matter how old you are or how long ago you committed a crime, especially like this one, you should be tried and punished. There is no reason for someone to be obsolvled of a crime against humanity because of their age and time of trial. If we don't try people who have done something wrong, then in the future people are going to act in similar ways. This should not be treated any different from the Nuremburg trials, since it is the same crime, the date is just different. Even though there is only one witness alive, there is no reason why this man can't be punished for his actions, even though he commited them 33 years ago.You can't let a murderer get away with murder because of his age. If you do, it will lower the precident for the future crimes.
I have to agree with Zuroff's argument because I believe that a person should still be able to be held responsible for actions he did, regardless of how long they are ago. That is my point of view in order or justice.
In a moral way I would still want to accuse him for his actions, although I would diminish his sentence if I would recognize a kind of repentance. Understanding that it was wrong what somebody did is the first step of growing to a higher level of mind in which you can find peace and pardon for your actions. Normal people in our community, for example, would never kill somebody, and if it happens he would immediately ask for forgiveness and would show that he knows he made a mistake. And this is the difference to many Nazis, who killed people, but never said that they were wrong or that they think that they did a mistake.
If a 85 year old knows that he made a mistake he would not be free of accuses. But it would prove my point of view that people can change and I would give him a lower sentence. But still, he did it, and he has to be accused for it.
I agree with Zuroff's argument. We, as people, can not say that he has totally gotten over his actions. Anyone who has taken a part in such atrocities, should be held accountable. He may say that he only killed three people, which to him may be a small amount because killing was so popular back then. The man was 33 years old when he killed those three people, regardless of how old he was or why he did it, he still should be convicted for murder. Anyone who has committed a murder should be tried. It shouldn't matter that its 56 or 80 years later, murder is murder and it is a crime. This man should be tried with 3 counts of murder, regardless of how long ago it was.
I have to agree with Efraim Zuroff - time isn't a factor when it comes to bringing murderers to justice. Heinrich Boere helped commit horrible atrocities. Allowing Boere to go free would be absolving him of any guilt; it would be letting him go free. And when it comes to genocides like the Holocaust, people must be held accountable. Trials of people who slaughtered innocents send a clear message that the world will not stand for genocide, and that every person who plays a role in it will be brought to justice. To let him off for his age would be a disservice to that message and to the memories of his victims. A thousand years wouldn't change what he did, and he should be punished for his crimes.
It's not really even worth a discussion whether or not the man deserves to stand trial for his crimes. Even if he dies a day after being sentenced, it's the principal of the thing that matters. Saying that genocide or murder should go unpunished just because the one time perpetrator is elderly is absurd. How can these most terrible of crimes not have any kind of punishment attached to them, regardless of the curcumstances.
I strongly agree with Efriam Zuroff's opinion on the matter of Heinrich Boere, and new trials against Nazi's in general. It simply makes no sense to me for someone to claim a trial to be unnecessary simply because the crime was committed many years ago. Time cannot erase the action, and no matter how many years pass the guilty will still be guilty. Not only do i disagree with the argument, but i really cannot understand it, especially in the case of murder. The argument might seem at least a little more understandable if the crime could somehow be undone over time, making it irrelevant to the present, but with murder there is absolutely no excuse, and nothing to back up that argument. It can never be undone, and no matter how long ago it was, the outcome can never ever be changed. If the result of the crime will never change over time, why should the punishment? Also, letting him off easier would be like supporting the fact that he deceivingly escaped the original trials that the others faced. He should not be saved for running away from the consequences of his actions. No matter how much I think about it, nothing about that argument makes sense. Zuroff is completely correct. It would be a disgusting and despicable thing, and would display only the worst of human qualities.
While in general I agree with Zuroff, that time doesn't diminish guilt, I think in this case Boere shouldn't be prosecuted further. The man is elderly, the crime was committed almost half a century ago, and since then he has not repeated his crime, and has lived in shadow of his action. He has expressed remorse for his actions, and even said that at this point he is "just waiting to die". Prosecuting him now would do nothing to avenge the families of his victims, who are by now long dead. The point of putting someone in jail is to
a. keep them from committing a similar crime again
b. make them feel sorry for their crime, and
c. make an example out of such criminals to discourage others who may commit similar crimes.
It is clear that Boere only committed murder because he was ordered to. This doesn't make it better, but it is clear from his 48 year abstention from crime that he would not have committed the acts under different circumstances. Also it is unlikely that an 86 year old man is going to commit another crime.
For b, it is fairly clear from his words that Boere does feel remorse for his actions, and wishes he hadn't committed them. He still has to live with his guilt, and making him go to jail to make him feel bad is unnecessary.
As for c, true, this does set the example that one can get away with murder if enough time has passed, but I think the Nuremberg trials and other thousands of Nazis who have since paid for their crimes sends enough of a message to others considering committing similar offenses.
It's like in the movie The Shawshank Redemption. Red (a convicted murderer) truly deserves parole at the end of the movie, he has truly been rehabilitated. He feels bad for what he has done, he wishes he hadn't done it. Boere is in a similar position. True, he never went to jail, but it is clear that he has lived in shadow of his crime for his whole life. He just wants to die in peace, and should be allowed to.
Although in many cases, I think that after so many years, digging up old cases like this is doing no good, in this case I make an exception to that belief. I agree that to not try him simply because he is old is letting someone get away with murder, and not only that, but murder of innocent civilians who did nothing but sympathize with the resistance. If we were to let this case go, just because the man is old, that would be saying that as long as the murder happened more than fifty or so years ago, then it is okay. And that statement is not alright. No matter how many years have gone by, killing another human being is still murder, no matter what way you look at it, and no one should be allowed to go free simply because they are elderly.
I agree strongly with Zuroff's argument, I do think that a person's guilt is always with them. No matter what they do to get ride of their guilt I think personal guilt remains with you forever. I do think that the man is still responsible for his crimes but I don't think he should be punished as harshly as some of the other people were. His personal guilt I think in this instance is enough for him. I would image he felt very guilty about what he did and has had to live with that guilt for many years. I just don't think he should be put to death I really believe that this would be and unfair justice. He is 83 years old and has had to live most of his life with the extreme guilt of what he has done I truely think that is enough. .
I definitely agree with Zuroff's argument. I think that no matter how old you are or how long it has been, once you've participated in a crime, especially genocide, you need to be punished. Even if that punishment comes at a much later date, it is only fair. If the SS man doesn't get punished, he will be getting away with a crime. It doesn't matter that he was 33 when he committed the murders, he still did something horribly wrong. He doesn't become innocent over time, a crime is a crime and he is just as much guilty today as he was at 33.
Zuroff's argument penetrates the fundamental purpose of the justice system. Our persecuting courts should be indifferent to age and face, they should look at the bare facts and determine consequences accordingly. Time is no jail sentence and to release the 86 year man would be to debase laws and dilute the purpose of trials. The purpose of prosecuting the elderly man is also in the name of justice. If one case is allowed "to slide" then the entire system of punishment is cheapened. Every case is an example and should be a deterant for future crimes. By showing that criminals can not outlast their crimes the courts are setting a clear precedent: to sentence the elderly man is to maintain that precendant and uphold the system of law.
Yes, I agree with Zuroff's argument. Had Boere not killed those 3 people, they could have led a happy life later. But on the other hand, it was Boere who got the life, not them. If those 3 Dutchs were not given a chance to live, then why should someone who killed them be given the chance? Although many years have passed since the crime was committed, Boere is a murderer and this fact would not change with a change in decades. He has to be punished especially when we know that he fled Germany before his trial in the 1940's. This makes him even more guilty. So time does not make a difference in terms of crimes. It is imperative that the victims of those crimes receive justice and that is possible only by prosecuting Zuroff.
I agree with Zuroff’s argument. By setting a chronological limit on prosecution, one is saying that the terribleness of the genocide is only in effect for the time surrounding the period. It suggests that genocide may be committed again. While it does not agree with genocide, it’s meaning can be warped that there is room for genocide. By never having a limit on the prosecution of genocide, it is sending a clear message that genocide is a crime, legally and especially morally, that will not be tolerated under any circumstances, even with years passed. The point of prosecuting an 86 year old man for crimes committed when he was 33 years old is to show that genocide may be forgiven but it may not be forgotten. He must pay some retribution for his actions, and whether it comes to him a little late, it does not matter. He may argue that he is close to death and would like to experience a quiet death at the end of his life but does he deserve that after killing others in cold blood (such as shooting the pharmacist to death in his own store)? By clearing of him of his crime just because of his age, it is suggesting that any crime is permissible as long as you can stay clear of the law for long enough.
I agree with Zuroff’s argument. Even though the events happened a long time ago, they still did occur and the people reasonable should be held responsible for their actions. It does not matter that Boere is 86, he still killed 3 innocent people and was part of “silbertanne.” I think the court should take into consideration the fact that he realized his mistakes after they occurred and he feels guilty about them. But I don’t think he shouldn’t be tried just because of his age. The time lapse doesn’t condemn what he did, and he should be tried just like the other Nazis.
I agree with Zuroff's argument that if a man committed a crime but ran away to escape for being tried after being captured. So in other words not only did he kill 3 unarmed civilian but he also escaped from a prision before his trial, so not only is he a murder but a runaway as well. It does not matter if you only 33 years old when you committed the crime you committed a wrong doing and should be punished for it even if you are 86. I think that Boere was old enough then to know right from wrong and should be faced with the punishment even if is old now.
It's not the practicality of the punishment that counts, it's the principal behind it. Zuroff's argument is dead-on. To let this man go free and not have to face the consequences of his actions (no matter how long ago his actions occured) is to say that time somehow erases guilt. I'm sure if you could ask this man's victims if time has erased his guilt, they would most certainly say no it has not. Criminals deserve to be brought to justice no matter what their age. A crime is a crime and time doesn't change that.
I agree fully with Zuroff's argument. Although the crime was committed years before the 86 year old man was penalized, it still happened. Not only did the three victims suffer the loss of their lives, but so did their families and friends who have had to cope with the death of their loved one for the past 53 years. Time does not erase the actions of a person nor does it make it acceptable they were "younger" when it happened. If this man was capaple of killing people, he is capable of standing trial for his actions, no matter how old he is. He deserves his consequence and the people he killed, along with their families and loved ones, all deserve justice for his hainous crime.
If Boere wasn't faced with any charges until now, I think it would be completely ridiculous to want to put him in jail. Because Boere ran from the charges he was originally faced with, I think that it is the right decision to put him on trial. He admitted to murdering innocent civilians then deliberately left the country to hide from the punishment. Of course he is going to tell them that he is 86 and it has been 53 years since the crimes and he just wants to die in peace and all that, but because he spent a chunk of his life running away from murder charges, he shouldn't have the right to be let off the hook. He still committed murder and should deal with the punishment. Zuroff is completely right in saying that if you run away from the charges for so long that people forget about you, you aren't off the hook when someone realizes that your crime still lies dormant. That's basically saying "Oh yeah! Those innocent civilians... That was so long ago, lets just forget about it ok?" No one should get away with murder, even if it happened years before the killer gets punished for it.
I would have to agree with Zuroff that he should be punished, but for slightly different reasons. I don't think this man has really escaped his murders. Although he never faced any jail time, which was an injustice at the time, I still think he has suffered. Those deaths, I believe, have haunted his memories for some time. I don't think any real person could ever really forget the stains of their past, they may try and avoid them, but they are always lurking around. Whether he likes it or not, his life has also been defined by his wrongdoings, as the rest of the world only knows him for this, and he has had to dodge legal persecution for the better part of his life. The time to punish him to make sure he suffers for his crimes has passed do to a corrupt and fragmented legal system. Now the only reason to punish him is to keep the dignity of the Jews, Dutch, and other victims that died because of him or the Nazis he was with. He has gotten to live and they haven't, which is wrong. Prosecuting him now will not change that, but it will at least finally bring to light and give a voice to the ones who have suffered.
I absolutely agree with Efriam Zurof's argument that time cannot diminish the guilt of a perpetrator of any crime, let alone the ultimate crime of genocide. If a person was pardoned simply because of their age, it states to the public that under some circumstances committing genocide is acceptable. I doubt that the old man they arrested feels any of the hatred or malice he experienced as a 33 year old that caused him to commit those three murders, but I don't think the case is centered about him. The point of this case is to set a precedent for all remaining Nazis and other perpetrators of crimes against humanity. The world must set an example of how any such crime will not remain ignored and the guilty will be punished. The point of a trial, and especially the Nuremberg trials was to deter people in general from ever believing they can get away with similar crimes. Punishing a criminal never brings the victim back from the dead, never rectifies the damage inflicted by the crime, and never redeems the criminal. Trials are meant for the greater good. They make the facts of a crime public and establish laws and guidelines for future crimes. The main reason Hitler believed he could get away with the Holocaust was because no one cared about or remembered the Armenian genocide.
I strongly agree with Zuroff's statement. The age of a criminal, in my opinion, should not even be factored into the level of punishment. If we were to let the punishment of a genocide to diminish, then every criminal would abuse this system. It would make it harder to give justice to the victims of a genocide, not to mention if such a thing was allowed, it would basically be a message saying that genocides without retribution is possible, creating a greater possibility for genocide. Another point in prosecuting the 86 year old man is to prove that the justice is not to be taken lightly.
I definitely agree with Zuroff's argument. In my opinion, it would be completely immoral if Boere were to be forgiven and not tried at all. This would be like saying that time erases horrible actions and that, even if it has been a long period of time, they can go unpunished. No matter how much time has passed, crimes being an SS soldier and killing three people is not the type of crime that should be forgotten. If this one man was able to get away with his actions, we would be lowering our standards of who should be punished.
I agree that the argument that it has been to long and that the man is to old is ridiculous and should not cause the trial to not take place. The man is just as guilty today as he was when he commited the crime. It does seem to me that the nature of this crime is different than most other nazi criminals. Although this man is guilty of murder just like the other nazis the motive seems different. This man's motive seemed to be vengence and not a desire to kill them simply because he didn't like the Dutch. The man's crime doesn't seem to fit with the four possibly accusations that we talked about it seems to be just plain murder. However since the murderer's only motive was cold blooded vengence it seems that his crime should be condemned and punished.
Though it certainly appears that Boere feels remorse now and sees the evil of his actions in the past, now that they are long behind him, it is on principle that he must still be tried in the court of law. Time does not erase to horrors of the holocaust, and so even fifty years later it is just as important to set the example of the international communities refusal to stand by and let those responsible walk free.
However, given the regret that Boere expresses, I'm not sure that as harsh a punishment is necessary as it would have been in the years directly following the war. The purpose of the trial is to make sure those responsible take responsibility, and it appears that Boere has already done that.
Efriam Zuroff's statement that "the passage of time in no way diminishes the guilt of the perpertrator" is absolutely true. Even though this man is 86 years old and committed these crimes against humanity when he was only 33, it doesn't change anything. He was still part of the SS and still killed innocent people during the Holocaust. He may want to die in peace, but how would justice be brought if he died in peace? Letting this man get away with his crimes without being condemned for his actions is just plain insanity. Age is nothing but a number, thus he should be tried for murder and at least held accountable for what evil he has caused.
I agree with Zuroff in saying that the passing of time shall not diminish one's guilt, but I also believe that through self change that one's guilt may lessen. I think that if one changes their life for the better in regret of their crimes that they have atoned in some way for their crimes and are therefore are not as guilty as before. If one doesn't change over time, then they are essentially the same as when they committed the crime and just as guilty. There is also the argument that all people who commit crimes should be brought to justice, so that an example can continue to be set that one who commits a crime will eventually be brought to justice. Also for the people who the crimes were committed against, it is harder to forgive when the criminal may have lived without remorse or punishment afterward. In the case of this man I do not think that he should be sentenced to death, due to being a changed person. In the end it is the decision for the people who were affected by the crimes such as family members to decide if they want to persecute him because they cannot be at peace otherwise.
I agree with Zuroff's argumen completely. Just because you did something a long time ago does not make it ay less of a crime. Time does not heal all wounds, especially when dealing with genocide. Persecuting an 86 year old man is symbolic in two ways. It firstly reminds people of how wrong his actions were, that the wrongness has lasted sixty years. It also sows that one can always be persecuted for the wrongs they committed against others. There is no way to run or hide from such horrible mistakes and atrocities.
I strongly agree with Zuroff's argument. No matter how long ago the crime was done, it was still commited. He should be punished for his actions no matter of his age. Just because he is old now doesn't mean he can't sit through a court room and discuss his actions in the past. Time doesn't change what was done, and it can't be forgotten or pushed to the side. His age is not an excuse to not be put in trail, no matter what he should be put to justice. It wouldn't be fair to others if he just got away with it while others were punished for similar crimes. Your mistakes will always catch up to you, and eventually you have to face them no matter the consequence.
I agree with Zuroff because no matter what the age is he should be punished for his actions. If everyone else got punished so should he because he did the crime so now he has to be punished for it.
Post a Comment