I think this is wrong

Why convict him for war crimes he did more than half a century ago?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091130/wl_nm/us_germany_demjanjuk

I don't....what he did made a scar on humanity.

Yup. He deserves it, alright

It is pointless though.. it only shows how cruel humanity can be.. Of course he was no good man, not at all.. But at his age I am not even sure if he can remember it at all.
Do people now think: "Ye we sent a 89 year old man to prison, we are awesome!"
As one guy states he should tell the truth, I think that would it and an explanation why he accepted the recruitment and apologize towards the world.

If I read it correctly, I think I would have done the same though.. Being captured by the Nazis and getting a camp guard job offered. Out of fear it is no more then humane to accept something that will benefit you, even though it will hurt others. Of course I could have read it wrong or missed a part.

He not only was a guard, but he help to kill the 27.000 jews and dude that's alot of people.

I think that is a bit exaggerated no? He actually led, by himself, 27. 000 jews in the gas chamber?
I think he could be easily forced too.

But as I said, I do not know the whole story and I do not think anyone ever will.

Still, it was a horrid thing. Let them handle it.

Wow do you think I am handling it? I am just giving out my opinion about the case.
Plus I am not denying it was a horrible thing to do.

You don't think the victims want him in jail after such an massive murder?

or to death for that matter

Why don't you people read what I said?
"I think he could be easily forced too.

But as I said, I do not know the whole story and I do not think anyone ever will."
Would you sentence a man to death for a crime he was obligated to?
It is much easier to kill others then yourself.. I think a pretty great portion of the victims' relatives are elderlies now as well. Do they think killing the murderer of their (grand)parents/uncles/aunts will not make them a murderer?

At the state he is in now (coming to court in a hospital bed) you can't send him to a prison can you? If they prove he committed these crimes what is there to do? Just guard him at his hospital bed for a year or less perhaps and then dies by aging?

Seriously, do not think I am defending him!

Ah sorry, I just (skimmed read)?
I would sentence him to death for this crime, though, no matter if he was obligated or not. He knew that what he did was morally wrong.
But maybe it's too late now, anyway. You're probably right.

i think they should gas him

Perhaps, but executing him with make the victims feel a bit better but everyone else, who hadn't lost a relative, will just be a murderer like him. Of course they won't have the same number as kills he supposedly does, but a murderer nevertheless.

I won't have moral issues with it, I am pretty stone cold about people dying.. But I would like a fair trial for everyone.. And justice may serve.

If it's clear that he has done a punishable deed, literally helped or caused the death of that many people I think he deserves to be punished.
I mean, If you've commited a crime once in your life the time passing in the future won't erase that morally or anything, although it might do that legaly.

cobRa wrote:i think they should gas him

Lol, what do you gain from killing an 89 year old man? I mean, the dude doesn't look like he'll live much longer. What he did was wrong, but I'd hardly call this "justice".

he made the choice to kill thousands of people
its like a rapist raping a little girl then killing her and 70 years later they found out. youd still put the man in prison wouldnt you?

Justice should be eternal. Age regardless, justice must always be done. If he is proved to have been culpable of willing murder then he should get the sentence that is appropriate to all other murderers on that scale.

It is just a question of whether he actually did it. I've heard there will be testimonies by victims of the camp but that no evidence will specifically be brought against him.

If indeed he is proved to be killing Jews under coercion, he is still an associate to murder (perhaps even a murderer?) and should receive a reduced sentence. Depriving one of the right to life is the most heinous crime an individual can commit, regardless of intent; hence why manslaughter (or even neglect) carry such punitive sentences.

I think a incredible deal lies on whether he had choices. As a Ukranian POW, was he given the choice to partake in other camp duties such as the clearing of deceased (guaranteed without fear for his life)? If so, and thus chose to participate in associative killing, he should receive maximum penalty in my eyes.

If on the other hand, he faced a 100% dichotomy between "do" or "die" then can one blame him for putting his life ahead of others? Is it "just " that if one were to sacrifice his own life and take the "die" option he should be regarded as a hero of humanity and that if he were to take the other option, he should be viewed as nothing but criminal?

Of course, does forcibly pushing someone into a gas camp knowing that it will kill them count as murder? Of course. Would you say that out of the 27,000 or so that he was accused of assisted murdering, that he did not physically push one or two or more into the gas chamber when they tried to struggle free? Most likely, although this will never be known. This can be the distinguisher between associated and actual murder.

The Nuremburg Principle IV dictates "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him"...
I personally believe that the enforcement of morals prima facie is morally wrong and thus would not agree with the above, but is giving up one's life to save his would be victims count as a valid moral choice? Under some positive morality, perhaps it would, but in practice it can be hardly considered a choice (under general principles where harm unto others is the ultimate moral wrong).

The worst crime is to kill, but by not killing others he must kill himself. By killing himself, is he effectively consenting to his own death? Yes, in a way. This is thus exempt from criminal law. That he did not do this meant that he effectively consented to killing others but unwillingly so. He is thus guilty of murder/associated murder. The ultimate, and incredibly unfortunate Catch-22.

As such, for justice's sake, where morality can come into law is surely the severity of how the law is used as punishment. In this case, great great leniency would have to be taken due to his unescapable situation. This would surely depend on the likelihood of death upon not killing others - would he be forced to work in the concentration camp where his death was highly likely? Or would he be shot on the spot where his death is 100% certain? Or would he be sent to an area where labour was less intensive and care was higher standard for prisoners thus raising his chances of survival?

Until this is known, we cannot determine the severity of his punishment but can conclude that he does deserve his punishment (be is associated murder or actual murder).

What about My Lai? I don't see such harsh punishments there. Or is the situation different?

I think he should be killed or left to die in 2 to 3 years. Jail is useless.
(note that kill is not the same as murder)

Boomlala wrote:What about My Lai? I don't see such harsh punishments there. Or is the situation different?

The situation is no different. I think the aftermath of My Lai surrounding criminality is actually unjust, and the perpetrators brought to proper justice under International Law. As is the case with every other unneccessary massacre during war time