some of the opinions expressed here are unfortunately true
ya, but they are still true…
All circumstantial evidence and there is no way a murder suspect today would be sentenced to life on evidence of that kind. The whole justice system is based on the belief that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man (especially where the death sentence is a possibility) therefore solid proof is required to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I say let the guy go unless they find a “smoking gun”.
In English speaking common law countries that’s true, although the adverserial system they use can be excellent at concealing the truth.
In some other countries, such as China, they take the opposite view and think it better to convict the occasional innocent than let a thousand guilty go free, ably assisted by the absence of an independent judiciary.
European countries take a different course with their civil (Roman) law inquisitorial system which aims to find the truth by giving judges a more active role in directing investigations aimed at finding the truth.
The finding in the present case has more in common with a Chinese style legal system than the ideals of the European system.
All true. The UK and American systems are open to “abuse” on technicalities. In civil cases the costs involved mean the wealthier of the two parties involved has a much better chance of winning because he or she can afford the better representation. In criminal cases the law has put such emphasis on the burden of proof that the slightest of technicalities can raise a “reasonable doubt” in the minds of the jury members if handled correctly (OJ Simpson). I don’t know anything about the Italian or German legal systems, but I do know that in the immediate aftermath of WWII many “war criminals” were taken out the back and shot on the strength of an eye witness saying “that’s him” because the authorities knew that they would never get convictions in a Nuremburg style trial - and it would take too long and cost too much anyway. Nobody objected - they were righteous and indignant. To convict this guy 70 years later on circumstantial evidence is just morally wrong and, as somebody said above, probably has more to do with politics than justice. Strange to say, but I hope for his sake the guy is guilty.
So do I.
It’d be a bastard to be found guilty of something you haven’t done, although it happens in all legal systems for various reasons.
I still can’t see that, on the report, there is anything like enough evidence to be satisfied that he is guilty. But newspaper reports rarely reflect accurately what happened in court.
Just proves that WWII is still an “open wound”. When everybody who was there is dead, and their children and their grandchildren, few people will care any more. The children and the grandchildren of the people who were murdered will be dead as well so who will pursue justice? And if anybody does pursue justice, who will they prosecute? WWII was yesterday in historical terms, that’s why these things still happen, and I guess that’s also what makes it so fascinating to us. We are still affected by it. The middle-east conflict is a constant reminder and the Germans, the Italians and the Japanese still bear the stigma. The Allied nations still revel in the glory and continue to mourn their dead, while the Axis nations would rather put it all behind them and move on. It won’t last forever but for now it is very much “living history”… for people like us anyway!
I found this article interesting…as it relates to old Nazi criminals…and for those that seem to complain a lot, I have attached the LINC below at the end of the article. I have even made it in BOLD, so you can’t miss it>:rolleyes:
BERLIN — German authorities say a 90-year-old former member of the Nazi’s SS has been charged with 58 counts of murder for the 1945 killings of Jewish forced labourers in Austria.
The Duisburg state court said Tuesday that state prosecutors had charged the suspect with the killings of the Jewish labourers near Deutsch-Schuetzen on March 30, 1945.
The suspect lives today in Duisburg but was not identified by the court.
The court says it has two weeks to decide whether the evidence presented supports the charges enough to bring the case to trial. The charges carry a possible sentence of life in prison.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2009/11/17/11773361.html
Herman, if you’re going to be a prick, post somewhere else…
There are reasons for demanding source links as it clears up attribution and plagiarism issues (to an extent) and prevents people from just making up random shit and posting it on a website with a pretension of historical accuracy. If you have a problem with this, post at frigging Ebaums world or something…
oh come on, I thought it was funny…but ok, I will refraim from fonting my sources in furure…sorry about that…I was getting bored at work…won’t happen again…but you have to admit its an interesting 2 articles I posed today:):):army:
All you’ve said above is true.
But you are forgetting one detail.
It was Italian Government policy in such places as Ethiopia, to kill 10 native Africans for every Italian killed by natives, on the rare occasions such events happened.
The Italian Governement of the time admitted as much, when challenged on the topic by the British Government of the time (who were no agents of innocence either, being largely guilty of the same things in Afghanistan, though vastly less publicised).
Arguably, it was the Italian Government who (long before September of 1943) taught the retreating Germans the “10 to 1” rule, though I agree it had seen reasonably wide use by most European Colonial Powers.
As to this 90 year-old being sentenced as guilty, the idea is ridiculous.
In no way would I, or many, be convinced the “Burden of Proof” had been met , let alone met to any degree resembling “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” - which two Qualifications have, in English-speaking Jurisprudence at least, long been enshrined as foundationstone and keystone of Justice.
Regards, Uyraell.
Don’t forget that German jurisprudence is very different from any based on Anglo-Saxon Common Law. There is no right to a jury trial in German law; Judges are the sole “triers of fact.” In very serious cases where the penalty may be life in prison, or very complex cases, the court may try the case before a panel of up to five judges, but a simple majority may convict.
Also, in German law, there is no requirement for finding that the evidence establishes guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If it seems reasonable to the majority of judges to believe the defendant is guilty, that 's all it takes to convict.
As for “circumstantial evidence”, even English and American jurisprudence allows convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence; defendants are convicted everyday in the US and Britain based on “circumstantial evidence”. The only requirement is that it convince the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Despite what was reported in the news media, we have no idea how convincing the evidence was or what it consisted of; the news media is notorious for miss-reporting evidence in legal proceedings. German law has different rules of evidence from Anglo-Saxon law; hearsay evidence, for example, is admissible, as are depositions, if the witness is absent. While German law is quite different from British or American law, legal experts who have studied it, contend that it is fair and usually dispenses justice as well as any other system.
My Thanks, Wizard, for pointing out the differences between the German and Anglic Jurisprudences.
I’d not stopped to consider the influence the differences would have.
Kind and Respectful Regards Wizard, Uyraell.