Squeezing The Last Drop?

[douglas9401]

Is this really neccessary, an admin teenager tried nearly eighty years on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64036465

[ZebuSanctuary]

// i think the judgement is cruel and unfair... //

1. Going on the run during the trial.
2. 40 days were to elapse before she broke her
silence and apologise for her involvement.
3. Marriage to an SS squadron leader.

The reasons above illustrate she didn't quite act in a way that would help her own case!

Had she held her hands up and come clean, my sympathies would have been outpouring and in favour of her. That simply wasn't the case.

Perhaps you have more details about the case which would persuade me to think otherwise?

[Untitled]

I don’t have any additional information zebu…

i would like to ask what you think she should have done though….

“ Had she held her hands up and come clean, my sympathies would have been outpouring and in favour of her. ”

So is she on trial for what she did or for her behaviour in 2021?

[Khandro]

ZebuSanctuary


//3. Marriage to an SS squadron leader. //

Link please

[Untitled]

it is on her wikipedia page khandro

[jno]

indeed, it's on the link in the OP.

[Zacs-Master]

Sounds like Stockholm syndrome to me.

[jno]

So is she on trial for what she did or for her behaviour in 2021?

Untitled, the way the accused behaves during a trial will always be taken into consideration; it's one of the reasons for having a trial. This may or may not be fair: someone who turns up in a suit and tie may get a better hearing than someone in ripped jeans and tattoos. Someone who speaks clearly and briskly may be thought more reliable than someone who stutters and stumbles.

Someone who apologises immediately may be looked on more favourably than someone who waits 40 days.

It's because the person as much as the offence is on trial; and judges and jurors (and anyone else listening in) will inevitably form an opinion of the accused. As ZS says, she did her credibility, and her case, no favours.

[Untitled]

she may well have had nazi views… she would have been 8 when Hitler came to power and racist/antisemitic attitudes were far from uncommon before that…

i take your point jno about defendant behaviour jno… the judgement still sits poorly with me… they admit that the prosecution is largely symbolic but fascism has reinvented itself and is alive and well in the modern day… it won’t be beaten by poking at the corpse of nazi germany!

[douglas9401]

Perhaps there will be a move to hound descendants when all the original perpetrators are gone, in the interest of historic justice of course.

Think slavery and apologies.

[Zacs-Master]

I try not to.

[Khandro]

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, yes; but because she married him AFTER the war & there is no evidence that she met him at the camp, (you can't rely on Wiki which says "probably") It seems that he was definitely a member of the SS, but of which type I don't know.
The two main constituent groups were the Allgemeine SS (General SS) and Waffen-SS (Armed SS). The Allgemeine SS was responsible for enforcing the racial policy of Nazi Germany and general policing, whereas the Waffen-SS consisted of the combat units of the SS, with a sworn allegiance to Hitler.

He was one the lowest ranking non-commissioned officers & if he was in the combat units, it doesn't mean he is culpable of what went on in the camps which is implied in the OP article.

[jno]

murder (and by extension genocide) is I think the only crime for which there are no time limits on prosecution. (I'm open to correction here.) Would anyone actually prefer it otherwise? Mass immunity conferred on anyone picking up their pension?

[Untitled]

weren’t the ss also selected for their ideological loyalty? they were a party organisation… i don’t think there is any doubt that her husband was a committed nazi… there’s a high chance that she shared many of his beliefs too…

[Untitled]

no jno but the basis on which she was judged to be aiding and abetting genocide does seem rather dubious and unfair

[Khandro]

Unttld ; // i don’t think there is any doubt that her husband was a committed nazi…//

Of that you can be sure, but there were over 8.5 million Nazi members & few of them believed in (or even knew about) 'the final solution'.

[andy-hughes]

I don't subscribe to the 'no choice' argument - that could be used for any crime whatsoever in which more than one person was involved.

Coersion is a reason, but it is not simultaneously an excuse.

[Peter Pedant]

the basis on which she was judged to be aiding and abetting genocide

complicity in murder - Stutthof wasnt a death camp.

as for coercion - duress is a defence in English law
Oh
Duress is a defence at common law to all crimes except murder, attempted murder and treason involving the death of the sovereign: R v Gotts [1992] 2 AC 412. The defence is not available to a person charged with murder as a principal or as an aider, abettor, counsellor or procurer: R v Howe [1987] A.C. 417.

The one eyed cop killa - I thought the person that he holed up with, for a week end, has successfully pleaded 'duress' - "he said he would kill me and my family if I didnt do as he said"

[Peter Pedant]

complicity cases ( English) here
https://lawprof.co/criminal-law/complicity-cases/

[naomi24]

I think a lot of Germans did a lot of things they didn’t want to do - for obvious reasons.

[andy-hughes]

We'd better abandon any thought of bringing any Russians to trial for any of the atrocities in Ukraine then - after all, war is hell and all that.