[rocketbop]

What we call justice has generally always involved a mix of deterrence, prevention and punishment for its own sake, ie to be seen as some sort of balancing of the wrong that’s been done. One might not like that idea but judges certainly think about all three aspects when sentencing.

[Paul-Craft]

I don't see "throwing 100 year old men who are not currently dangerous to anybody and going to die in a couple of years anyway" anywhere under the definition of "justice" in my dictionary. If anything, I'd expect to see a cross reference to "See: stupid wastes of time and money."

[wizofaus]

I, for one, would see it as a massive failure of our justice system if we had good evidence that an individual had committed heinous crimes, but then was still allowed to live out the remainder of his life in peace, freedom, and enjoying the company of his family etc. - something he had denied to so many others.

[Paul-Craft]

I, for one, would see it as a massive failure of government if the money necessary to put on one of these dog and pony shows was spent on prosecuting someone who's almost certain to die in the next 2 years, anyway, rather than real problems affecting people today and the next generation, such as climate change.

You will not talk me out of this.

[Forgeties79]

Had you been a victim of a concentration camp or served I the war you might feel differently. I think it’s a bit arrogant of us to decide a crime isn’t appropriate to punish when many of our parents weren’t even alive when the atrocities were committed.

[Paul-Craft]

I might. But, you know what? Most of those people are dead already, as are most of the potential witnesses in any such trial. Many of the surviving witnesses have dementia and are not credible witnesses. The Netflix documentary The Devil Next Door is a really good look into how difficult it is to conduct even one of these prosecutions, mostly for these reasons. And that trial took place 12 years ago. It would be exponentially harder today.

These trials are a fools errand anymore. The youngest any possible defendant could be is about 95, and the youngest any potential witness could be is probably somewhere in their mid 80s. It is literally not worth the time and effort anymore to put one of these show trials together -- and that's what they are, is show trials. The sentence a 95 year old man receives does not matter. It's not even a meaningful punishment, and he most likely will not serve a day of it. Meanwhile, we have real problems affecting people today, and the next generation, such as climate change, that are much more urgent.

You are not going to talk me out of this position, even using ad hominem like "arrogant."

[Forgeties79]

I honestly did not mean it as an ad hominem, it was more of a statement about those of us with strong opinions about this - which I do have and they largely agree with yours - taking a step back and remembering 1) we aren’t a part of this process 2) many people involved are victims/were there and 3) we just have no reference for what happened in any real sense. It’s academic to us.