Does Age excuse Everything?

Blossoming

Suziewoosie no, I really wasn’t. You can’t tell what I’m thinking over the internet ? That link was one of several and probably not the best illustration. This one is better.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/auschwitz-bookkeeper-oskar-groening-german-96-nazi-ss-guard-prison-sentence-court-four-years-a8081981.html

My ‘yes you were’ comment was agreeing with you not telling you what you meant ? Honest . I do agree as well that choosing a Holocaust linked example wasn’t the best idea. My position in general is quite clear - I don’t believe in statutes of limitations and think a decision to prosecute should just turn on the facts of the case. Nothing else. The age of the accused at the time of the offence may be a mitigating factor in terms of sanction but not in terms of deciding to prosecute,

Suziewoosie no, I really wasn’t. You can’t tell what I’m thinking over the internet ? That link was one of several and probably not the best illustration. This one is better.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/auschwitz-bookkeeper-oskar-groening-german-96-nazi-ss-guard-prison-sentence-court-four-years-a8081981.html

Not at all, age is not a factor.

Blossoming

It wasn’t so much the age at which the alleged offences took place that I was wondering about, though certainly that should a consideration at any prosecution or trial. It was more the argument that people shouldn’t stand trial or serve a sentence if they are elderly.

Humm yes you were ? I suppose because of the passage of time anyone like the person in your link will have been very young at the time of the ‘offence’.

It wasn’t so much the age at which the alleged offences took place that I was wondering about, though certainly that should a consideration at any prosecution or trial. It was more the argument that people shouldn’t stand trial or serve a sentence if they are elderly.

I think that if every person who worked in the concentration camps was to be prosecuted, then it should have been done at the end of the war or soon after. Unfortunately because of the massive task in front of the allies, minor offenders, and indeed some not so minor offenders, were not dealt with at the appropriate time. It seems somewhat late in the day to be dealing with a guard who must have been around 19/20 at the end of the war. He would have had no say in where he was posted. He will obviously say he didn’t killed anyone himself, but there will be no evidence to that statement. What would he be charged with I wonder? Would the laws applicable today be those under which he was charged or those of the time he was conscripted? It’s very complicated, I just don’t know whether he should be prosecuted or not. Germany says there’s no evidence. No evidence of what? There will be evidence he served, and where, but is that in itself a crime. I have no answers.

The latest one I have heard of is a woman who was a secretary to a Camp Commandant when she was a teenager. I can't see why she should be held responsible for the Nazi in charge. She would have grown up during the Hitler era, and probably only realised what was happening after the war when she had grown up.

vampirequeen

I thought we were talking about people who ran the camps and murdered/tortured. I don't think the everyday conscript was any different to our lads. They just wanted it to be over and go home. The Hitler Youth were abused children who had been indoctrinated with hatred and the desire/willingness to die for the Fatherland.

As the war went on and losses of men grew, more and more soldiers were posted in camps as guards - many of these would have been young conscripts like maybe the one in the link.,

I thought we were talking about people who ran the camps and murdered/tortured. I don't think the everyday conscript was any different to our lads. They just wanted it to be over and go home. The Hitler Youth were abused children who had been indoctrinated with hatred and the desire/willingness to die for the Fatherland.

Some of those nazi soldiers towards the end of the war were only 14 years old. They had been brainwashed throughout their lives. I wouldn’t hold that particular group responsible for any of it though they did need ‘re-education’ afterwards. What of the Cambodians in Khmer Rouge who were atrocious and got off totally scot free for all their war crimes? They should have been jailed for life, they were as bad as the nazis.

Antonia

I don't believe that age should be an excuse to avoid punishment. But, the peer pressure to commit offences is tremendous, to the point of being impossible to overcome. A soldier in the army, for instance, is not completely free to decide whether or not to obey an order. It would take more moral courage than the average person possesses, to refuse to obey because of a moral objection.
We are social animals and not programmed to act entirety on an individual level.

I agree - there are examples of British soldiers accused of committing war crimes /crimes throughout history. It’s as ever context dependent. The man in the link was I think only a teenager at the end of the war and from what I’ve read 16 year olds were conscripted in the last two years as there was such a shortage. Many conscripted by this time would have been hungry and in poor health with no options. As a pp said we have to differentiate between justice and vengeance

I don't believe that age should be an excuse to avoid punishment. But, the peer pressure to commit offences is tremendous, to the point of being impossible to overcome. A soldier in the army, for instance, is not completely free to decide whether or not to obey an order. It would take more moral courage than the average person possesses, to refuse to obey because of a moral objection.
We are social animals and not programmed to act entirety on an individual level.

I don’t think it’s true to say all German soldiers were Nazis. And certainly as the war progresses to its bitter end, younger and younger German conscripts were used.

Nazis were adults. They knew what they were doing. They may have been indoctrinated but they didn't care about the age of the people they killed or worked to death. Some SS men who had undergone the same indoctrination were so horrified by what they saw that they asked to be transferred to the frontlines on the Eastern Front. They preferred to risk death than be that evil. Simon Wiesenthal's life was saved by an SS guard. So it was possible to not take part/alleviate some of the suffering. Why should we care how old these torturers and murderers are? They may have had no choice were they were posted but some of them enjoyed their power. Lock those ones up and throw away the key.

On the other hand, children who commit crimes aren't able to comprehend the horrors of what they do in the same way as adults and each should be judged on their own merits. Mary Bell committed murder when she was 11 but after a few years was released and has gone on to live a normal life. It was a mistake (albeit a massive one) of childhood. The Bulger killers are another case in point. Both were released. One has gone on to be a decent person. The other committed further crimes as an adult and has been dealt with accordingly.

I think this is why justice must always be objective. I know families and victims want retribution and I totally understand it. I would be the same. But not all crimes are the same and each should be judged impartially.

Absolutely fine with the idea of Nazis dying in jail. 100%

Thank you everyone for your thoughts, really interesting!

That’s a hard question, I think on balance my reaction is yes, they should not go unpunished even though all it can do for the victims/or rather their families is presumably to provide closure . Is it just punishment or vengeance .?
Lest we forget is absolutely correct.
I read Primo Levi’s book “if this is a man” and many of the things he said have stayed with me. Chilling.

Spot on chestnut.

I think this is an interesting and incredibly complex question which has to be context dependent. I don’t feel able to generalise from the case in the link. I think the most important issue is where was the person in the chain of command, how much were they contributing to decision making? I don’t think age comes into it at all if justice is being pursued. The US ( don’t know about other countries) have statute of limitations for what seem to me some very serious crimes. I don’t agree with that at all. You should never be too old or the crime too long ago for prosecution to be possible. However, the person needs to be fit to plead.

We have wondered a good distance away from my question, but that is the nature of online discussions. I feel it’s important for these things to be dragged out into the light. Lest we forget.

Someone with dementia or severe mental illness is already in many ways dead to this world, and obviously should not be imprisoned, but they should be incarcerated, whether in a care home or mental health unit.

However you cannot be tried if you are incapable of defending yourself or instructing a lawyer, this was why the late Grenville Janner was never tried on the charges he faced. We can never know whether he was innocent or guilty because he was not mentally able to stand trial.

Otherwise I am in total agreement with chestnut

I don’t think it excuses it but feel that it gives the reason for it. Just a small but subtle difference.

I honestly don’t know, if someone has dementia, or a severe mental illness would they know why they were being punished, or even that they were?

Age should not be a defence, in my opinion.

Not quite the case in point Chestnut but also an interesting question. I’m currently reading about the Buchenwald medical experiments, absolutely sickening acts carried out by those who had given an oath to preserve life. Primum non nocere indeed.