Trial Of 96 Year Old Former Nazi Secretary

[naomi24]

A former secretary at a Nazi concentration camp has been captured after trying to flee before her trial in northern Germany. Irmgard Furchner, 96, charged with complicity in 11,000 murders, fled her care home and failed to turn up at court. She has since been discovered and arrested and is awaiting trial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58747082

The question is should she stand trial after all these years and at her advanced age - or is it too late?

[pixie374]

Andy, I would say it's individual, as with all crimes and punishments.
The aim, surely, is to prevent is happening again- whether through making sure it physically can't, or education, meaning it won't, or treatment, if that's needed.
Surely, punishing a 96 year old woman, for something that happened in unique situation, and which she will never do again... is actually just "revenge", which you have said you are against on recent threads... while also seemingly to argue "for"?
I am a little confused, with your reasons and definitions of "justice" and "revenge" tbh.

[naomi24]

Regardless of whether there’s likely to be a repeat performance should a crime of that nature be ignored?

[pixie374]

After 80 years... I would say, learn what you can, but punishment... what would be the achievement there?

[naomi24]

Exposure rather than punishment I think.

[pixie374]

It is difficult, as it's such an unusual situation, and such a long time ago. Attitudes, environment, everything, is different, and we are trying to judge by today's standards.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // Andy, I would say it's individual, as with all crimes and punishments.
The aim, surely, is to prevent is happening again- whether through making sure it physically can't, or education, meaning it won't, or treatment, if that's needed. //

And I would entirely agree.

I am not saying that this woman should be found guilty for crimes she may not have committed.

i am saying that due legal process should be exercised, and she should not be excused that on the basis of her age, because that makes a mockery of the process.

I would anticipate that, should she be found guilty, and that is by no means a certainty, then an appropriate punishment should be decided and handed down, because that is how the law operates.

My argument is against the notion that she is somehow too old to be tried for the crime of which she stands accused, and that is not right, because the law does not excuse anyone simply on the basis that they have managed to live to a certain age.

//Surely, punishing a 96 year old woman, for something that happened in unique situation, and which she will never do again... is actually just "revenge", which you have said you are against on recent threads... while also seemingly to argue "for"? //

As far as I am concerned, we are not yet at the 'punishment' stage.

It may be that the lady is exonerated on the basis of the circumstances, but it will require due process, the hearing of evidence, and the decisions regarding guilt or innocence after it has been heard.

// I am a little confused, with your reasons and definitions of "justice" and "revenge" tbh. //

My notion of capital punishment as revenge, to which I assume you are referring, please advise if I am in error is consistent -

Capital punishment does not punish the offender, since he or she is no longer alive.

It does not act as a meaningful deterrent.

Therefore it has no place in a civilised society.

[pixie374]

By exposure, do you mean like name and shame, or learning?

[naomi24]

What standards would you judge her by? I would hope what happened in her place of work was horrendous by most people’s standards. Imagine seeing that every day.

[naomi24]

Acknowledging.

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // After 80 years... I would say, learn what you can, but punishment... what would be the achievement there? //

It would underline that no-one is above the law - cerrtainly not on the basis of having evaded due process as this lady clearly has.

As I have said, there is no assurance that any 'punishment' is going to take place, but if it does, it will be because due process has found her guilty as charged, and if the law simply gives her a swerve for being an old lady, it starts to dismantle its objectivity, and validity from that moment on.

Following that, the next person accused of murder, who is of pensionable age, is going to start wanting the same treatment on the same basis or argument, and where does that line stop being drawn?

The law has to be applied without fear of favour in order to be effective, and chipping away at it because of age, or infirmity, or the passage of time, or the perceived relevence of punishment, all damage it, and that is not right.

[pixie374]

Andy, you already know I disagree with your last part- i see imprisonment as far more "revenge", as it allows someone to pointlessly suffer.
If it isn't about punishment, or individual circumstances, putting a 96 year old on trial seems harsh.

[naomi24]

Just because people are old doesn’t mean they are ‘nice’. She might be a wicked old bat for all we know with no regrets for what happened whatsoever.

[Peter Pedant]

or she could be a veritable saint

[Ellipsis]

> What did she gain? Was it her choice? Did she physically kill these people, or hire murderers?

I don't know, do you? I suppose that's one reason a court case is needed.

The charge is that she is complicit in the murders of 11,000 people. That is some charge. How would the friends and relatives of those 11,000 feel to see her let off with "no case to answer" ...

[andy-hughes]

pixie - // Andy, you already know I disagree with your last part- i see imprisonment as far more "revenge", as it allows someone to pointlessly suffer. //

To my mind, the notion of incarceration is far more aboout the removal of the criminal from society at large, be that temporary or permanent, rather than the additional aspect of suffering - although that may act as a deterent for the individual.

I don't believe it acts as adeteremnt for the majority, because as I have pointed out endless times, I believe the average criminal does not commit crime with the expectation of being caught and punished.

// If it isn't about punishment, or individual circumstances, putting a 96 year old on trial seems harsh. //

At the risk of repeating myself, it is about due legal process, and that is not mitigated by age.

If the lady is accused, and she is, or serious crimes, and is judged to be fit to stand trial, and so far it appears that she is, then she should face due legal process because that is how the law operates.

As I have pointed out several times now, there is not a sliding scale of reduced culpability based on nothing more than simply staying alive.

[pixie374]

While I do entirely see your point, I still find it hard to see what will be achieved. If 11,000 relatives want revenge... that would seem extremely unlikely. The majority would just want it never to happen again.

[Peter Pedant]

// What did she gain? Was it her choice? Did she physically kill these people, or hire murderers

The charge is that she is complicit in the murders of 11,000 people. How would the friends and relatives of those 11,000 feel to see her let off with "no case to answer" ...//

almost everything here is completely wrong

What did she gain? - irrelevant
Was it her choice? irrelevant - duress is a defence, turning up for work and typing lists doesnt oucnt as duress
Did she physically kill these people, - - you dont needto
or hire murderers? hmm conspiracy to murder I think

The charge is that she is complicit in the murders of 11,000 people. How would the friends and relatives of those 11,000 feel to see her let off with "no case to answer" ... - "You plead to the JUDGE that there is no case to answer - not to the relatives who of course will chant: " yes there is, guilty guilty guilty take him down!"

[pixie374]

It shouldn't be about other people's feelings. Or, deterring others. It should be about her.

[andy-hughes]

Pixie - What will be achieved is the underlining of the essential aspect of the law - no-one is above it, and age is not a reason to be excused from due process.

That is reason enough for me to want to see this trial proceed.

[pixie374]

Underlining to others.... I am always wary, when something happens, in the hope of changing the behaviour of others. Similar crimes, get different results, due to different circumstamces... and there seems nothing to achieve here, other than pure revenge. It shouldn't be about what others "see" but genuine justice.