Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Should the world continue to prosecute Nazi war criminals?
From Debatepedia
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Serving justice: Can justice be further served by prosecuting WWII war criminals? | |
YesThat time has elapsed is not a legal defence for war criminals: If the evidence had been available at the end of the war they would have been prosecuted then. No matter how long ago these crimes were committed, their horrific nature can leave no doubt that their perpetrators must be hunted to the ends of the earth. We must do justice equally to all war criminals, or we are seemly allowing that fleeing justice is a valid option for avoiding prosecution. No legal system can establish such a precedent. We owe it to the dead to prosecute those responsible for their deaths: If we do not, then they have died in vain. |
NoNazi war criminals uncovered now were usually just following orders, and so they aren't fully responsible for their acts: WWII was so long ago, that these individuals were usually very young and of low rank. They may have had not choice in committing war crimes. If they had resisted, they probably would have been killed, so, in effect, they performed these acts under duress. They were also frequently not German, adding to the consideration that they can't be held fully responsible. Most of the major figures responsible for atrocities are now dead. For this reason, there is little remaining potential for justice to be furthered. These crimes are remembered and eternally punished by events such as Remembrance Day: War crime prosecutions are likely to fail now, given the problems of identification and proof after so much time: |
Interests of living victims: Do living victims of War Crimes desire prosecutions? Is it in their best interests? | |
YesLiving WWII war crimes victims desire continued prosecution: Victims who have survived are in fact those most in favour of prosecution, and we should not make assumptions on their behalf. Nor should we insult them by publicly exculpating their torturers and refusing to prosecute them. |
NoClick on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here |
Deterrence: Are prosecutions important for deterring future war crimes? | |
YesProsecutions will deter future war crimes: With the terrible genocide and ethnic cleansing in recent times, such as the massacre of Kosovans by Solobodan Milosevic, we need to send a signal to criminals that they will be made to pay for their crimes. Otherwise leaders will continue to follow such policies, believing themselves safe from all retribution. |
NoThose that commit war crimes are frequently irrational, and would be deterred by visible prosecutions: It is doubtful whether genocide such as this is based on rational calculations; the diversion of resources into the ‘Final Solution’ was a major reason why Hitler lost the war. In the same way, war criminals are unlikely to be deterred by legal threats such as these; they are driven by a fanatical hatred, not common sense. |
Public good: Will prosecutions help guide and improve public behavior in relation to war crimes? | |
YesBringing the issues involved out into the open again will remind the world of the terrible event, and promote greater peace: Societies are sometimes accused of having short memories, in which terrible wars and atrocities of the past are forgotten, along with their lessons. Prosecuting war crimes will bring these events back out into the public eye, reasserting how bad they were and how important continued public vigilance remains on these matters.
|
NoProsecuting elderly war criminals may provoke sympathy for them: Such sympathy could even have the effect of causing people to identify with their far-right activity, and with the effect of causing a resurgence of such beliefs. |
External links
Books:
|