Philosophy Now Forum

A 98-year old man suspected of conducting war crimes as a Nazi is under trial. [http://www.dw.de/nazi-war-crimes-suspec ... a-16888584] Many juridical systems accept time lapse as a block to murder cases. Others do not. What is the limit beyond which Justice becomes… revenge?

That would depend on what was meant by "justice" and "revenge" in the first place. Most people use the word justice interchangeably with fairness, ethics and legality, while they actually mean revenge, without spending thought on the concepts, or on the question of which persons should be punished for what acts, how and why.

Obviously, that dotard can't have very much vengeance wreaked upon him - there simply isn't time: even if they tortured him very briskly, he'd probably die too soon to provide satisfaction for whoever is angry enough at him to administer the punishment.
Just as obviously, he's not repeated the crimes and is even less likely to now; nor is he likely to incite others to do so, nor set a precedent or example. In other words, he's not a threat to society.

Should he get away with his crimes (whatever they were; and assuming they've got the right man), simply because he got away with them so far?
Well, the 60+ years of his post-war life can't be taken back. We don't know whether he was haunted and wretched all that time, or happy and triumphant, so we don't know whether and how much he has already suffered the consequences of his crimes. Nor do we know - at least, i don't - whether he's made any amends or atonement.

Justice is elusive.

So, the only relevant question is:
What is the purpose of prosecution in this case?

Not murder, genocidal war-crimes so no time-limit.

Are there any countries who have time-limit upon murder?

Arising_uk wrote:Not murder, genocidal war-crimes so no time-limit.

Are there any countries who have time-limit upon murder?

Yes many. But beyond any juridical process "details, I cannot see "justice" in a process to persecute someone for something he did 70 years ago. As I said, in many countries the law dictates that after some years any crime is written off. And this is not without reason. There are limitations to what you can pursue within a court and certainly chasing down a 98-year-old man for what he did when he was 20 is well beyond them...

skakos wrote:Yes many.

Can you name some as I can't think of any?

But beyond any juridical process "details, I cannot see "justice" in a process to persecute someone for something he did 70 years ago. As I said, in many countries the law dictates that after some years any crime is written off. And this is not without reason. There are limitations to what you can pursue within a court and certainly chasing down a 98-year-old man for what he did when he was 20 is well beyond them...

It depends upon the crime, genocide should have no statue of limitations. Maybe this'll help, some of the people who survived will also be 98 and maybe they'd die happy seeing the person punished at long last. It also gives notice to those carrying out such actions in the present.

As a prophet, I can tell you that prisons of any kind should be immediately abolished. If somebody commits a crime, the government can take one of the following three actions:

Punishment
a) For revenge (serves no positive purpose).
b) For rehabilitation (unsupported by psychological evidence).
c) For deterrence (government exploitation).

Restitution
Unequal protection under the law.

Control
Positive action designed to prevent recurrence.

The only proper action is control.

And this 'control' would be applied how?

Arising_uk wrote:It depends upon the crime, genocide should have no statue of limitations.

I'd hate to see that notion put into legal effect against the British. Wouldn't you?

Arising_uk wrote:And this 'control' would be applied how?

Whatever it takes, including separation from society at large if necessary, but enabling the individual to maintain as close to a normal life as possible.

I think, if that's done on any kind of scale bigger than a few uninfluential malcontents, you'll have to redefine "normal". Not that i'm against doing that, necessarily, but it's an adjustment i can't see taking place without considerable disorder.

Skip wrote:I think, if that's done on any kind of scale bigger than a few uninfluential malcontents, you'll have to redefine "normal". Not that i'm against doing that, necessarily, but it's an adjustment i can't see taking place without considerable disorder.

By normal. I mean the ability to work and earn a living and do the things that at least make our miserable lives more bearable. The opposite of normal is imprisonment.

bobevenson wrote:By normal. I mean the ability to work and earn a living and do the things that at least make our miserable lives more bearable. The opposite of normal is imprisonment.

I'd have thought that the point? Given that many of those in prison are those who do not wish to live your definition of normal?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:By normal. I mean the ability to work and earn a living and do the things that at least make our miserable lives more bearable. The opposite of normal is imprisonment.

I'd have thought that the point? Given that many of those in prison are those who do not wish to live your definition of normal?

People do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If some of these things are considered criminal (arbitrarily-defined actions against society), the only proper response is control to avoid recurrence (I don't expect you to understand this since I'm speaking from a rarefied intellectual dimension).

Skip wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:It depends upon the crime, genocide should have no statue of limitations.

I'd hate to see that notion put into legal effect against the British. Wouldn't you?

It's a bit harsh convicting an entire nation for action many of them condemn, but if there are any living British war criminals, bang them up.

Skip wrote:I'd hate to see that notion put into legal effect against the British. ...

Why?

Wouldn't you?

No.