Since when has The Sun been competent!? :huh:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4429862/Sun-finds-Nazi-97-who-sent-15700-to-die-at-Auschwitz.html
QuoteThe Sun finds Nazi who sent 15,700 to die
Most wanted war criminal tracked down
THE world's most wanted Nazi war criminal — who helped send 15,700 Jews to their deaths at Auschwitz — has been tracked down by The Sun.
Sadist Ladislaus Csizsik-Csatary, 97, was a police commander in charge of a Jewish ghetto in Kassa, Hungary, during World War Two.
He took pleasure in beating women with a whip he carried on his belt, according to devastating documents uncovered by the Nazi-hunters at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Jerusalem.
Csizsik-Csatary also forced them to dig ditches in frozen ground with their bare hands, made dissenting Jews take up stress positions for hours, hit them with a dog lead and oversaw a shoot-on-sight policy if they tried to escape.
He fled Kassa — now renamed Kosice in Slovakia — after the Allied victory and was sentenced to death for war crimes in his absence in Czechoslovakia in 1948.
But Csizsik-Csatary created a new identity, turning up as an art dealer in Canada.
When his cover was blown there — in 1997 — his citizenship was revoked and the government began to build a case against him. He fled before deportation papers could be served.
For 15 years his whereabouts have been a mystery.
But a Sun team tracked him down to a two-bedroom apartment in a smart district of Budapest, Hungary.
Our investigators were given details of where he might be by the Holocaust campaigners at the Wiesenthal Centre.
The human rights organisation had been given a tip-off after launching Operation Last Chance, aimed at bringing World War Two Nazis to justice before they die.
Once our team found Csizsik-Csatary they were able to establish he was the Nazi collaborator — Number One on the Wiesenthal Centre's most wanted list. We confronted him at the flat where he had been living quietly among families unaware of his chilling past.
Csizsik-Csatary, who speaks English with a Canadian accent after decades living in Montreal and Toronto, answered the door in just socks and underpants.
When we asked if he could justify his past, he looked shocked and stammered "No, no. Go away." Questioned about his deportation case in Canada he answered angrily in English: "No, no. I don't want to discuss it." Our reporter asked: "Do you deny doing it? A lot of people died as a result of your actions."
He replied: "No I didn't do it, go away from here," before slamming the door.
The atrocities that made him the most hunted Nazi war criminal still alive were detailed by the Canadian government when it stripped him of citizenship.
The Justice Department's war crimes unit said he was a "commander" in the Royal Hungarian Police in Kassa in charge of officers who guarded the ghetto.
He supervised the drawing-up of lists of its inhabitants, conducted personal searches of Jews and confiscated valuables.
The police transferred the Jews from the ghetto to a brickyard at the end of April 1944 and loaded them on to freight trains to Auschwitz and other camps.
In a summary of its case against Csizsik-Csatary the Canadian Government stated: "For at least two transports, he was present for the embarkation, checking the Jews' names on a list." Of the approximately 12,000 Jews gathered in the brickyard and deported, just 450 survived.
During the case, Csizsik-Csatary admitted to some involvement in the "ghettoisation" of Jews and said he had played a "limited role" in the movement of Jews to the brickyard.
He also admitted handing over at least two Jews to the Germans and to attending the last mass deportation of Jews out of Kassa.
But his lawyers claimed he "did not know where the Jews were to be deported".
Before confronting him we had watched as he took a leisurely four-hour stroll through town, savouring the long life thousands exterminated in Auschwitz had been denied.
Csizsik-Csatary left his apartment dressed smartly in khaki trousers, a shirt, a grey and white checked jacket and flat cap and took a tram to a nearby shopping mall.
He browsed shops and bought a right-wing paper from a kiosk. He sat in a public seating area and casually browsed through it before a red-haired lady friend arrived to meet him.
They sat chatting and spent almost two hours in deep conversation before he left to shop for groceries.
The pensioner left the store carrying two shopping bags before returning home. He moved into his apartment just weeks ago from another flat a mile away where neighbours called him "Papa Csatary".
At the apartment his door buzzer was labelled "Smith". But behind a security door, his old mailbox had the hand-written name "Smith L Csatary".
Holocaust campaigners last night hailed our investigation and called on Hungarian prosecutors to arrest him so he can finally face justice.
Dr Efraim Zuroff, director of the Wiesenthal Centre, said time should never diminish the crimes committed in the Holocaust — or excuse those responsible from facing punishment.
He said: "Now that The Sun has found this war criminal he must be put on trial in Hungary.
"Csatary was a police commander in the ghetto of Kassa and was responsible for sending 15,700 people to death camps. He was known to be a sadist, he had a determination to round all Jews up and forcibly deport them to Poland. To achieve justice against this man will bring a degree of closure for families of the victims, for the Jewish communities of Hungary and Slovakia."
Peter Feldmajer, President of the Hungarian Jewish Community, said: "Several thousand Jewish families have felt sorrow and hurt because of this man and it would be a disgrace, for the entire Hungarian nation, if Csatary were to escape justice."
Prosecutors in Hungary were last night studying dossiers of evidence handed over by The Sun. Our investigation team met with senior prosecutor Gabor Hetenyi, who thanked us.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Dr Jeno Varga, said: "There is an ongoing investigation. Prosecutors are studying the information submitted."
When's the Sun ever been incompetent? :blink:
Wow, what a takedown. Some 97-year old. :rolleyes:
Doesn't it make you feel all warm Neil to know there is no statute of limitations on being a douche.
Let sleeping demons rest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2012, 09:36:10 PM
When's the Sun ever been incompetent? :blink:
During an eclipse. Wokka wokka.
Quite a "trackdown". As I mentioned in the Hungarian politics thread, the Simon Wiesenthal Center informed the Hungarian authorities last year. Because they were frustrated about the slow progress in the investigations by the Hungarians, they informed the press to increase pressure.
He has been arrested, finally.
Basic reaction from people in my office: WTF a 97 years old? whats the point?!!
Initial report from the police say that the old guy was expecting arrest, he prepared notes for his testimony.
Also during interrogation, as the police said "his opinion toward people of a certain religion were easily recognizable" :D
fucking old nazi. And the Hungarian public opinion appear to be perfectly fine with him walking away on account of his age.
I mean, he just brutally tortured a bunch of jews. What's the big deal, right?
Celestial bodies are involved in tracking down nazis now?
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2012, 06:18:15 AM
He has been arrested, finally.
Basic reaction from people in my office: WTF a 97 years old? whats the point?!!
A lot of people here think like this, too. (So does Neil). I disagree. There are crimes for which you should be hounded by the Kindly Ones until the day you die. His are of that kind.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 06:23:13 AM
Celestial bodies are involved in tracking down nazis now?
The Sun shines on the just and unjust alike.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2012, 09:36:10 PM
When's the Sun ever been incompetent? :blink:
They were pretty competent in hacking other peoples cell phones. Journalistic competence and ethics are another issue, but when it comes to hacking somebodies mailbox The Sun are the professionals.
Quote from: Viking on July 18, 2012, 06:40:08 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 17, 2012, 09:36:10 PM
When's the Sun ever been incompetent? :blink:
They were pretty competent in hacking other peoples cell phones. Journalistic competence and ethics are another issue, but when it comes to hacking somebodies mailbox The Sun are the professionals.
The Sun has championed investigative journalism on a scale that makes the broadsheets weep. they just don't always go about it the right way or for reasons many of us would consider in the public interest.
He was sentenced to death nearly sixty four years ago, it should be carried out immediately.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 06:25:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2012, 06:18:15 AM
He has been arrested, finally.
Basic reaction from people in my office: WTF a 97 years old? whats the point?!!
A lot of people here think like this, too. (So does Neil). I disagree. There are crimes for which you should be hounded by the Kindly Ones until the day you die. His are of that kind.
The West disagrees. We gave up on this sort of silliness when we let Speer the Slaver (I SUMMON HORTLUND) out of jail. He Abu-Ghraibed a bunch of Jews back in the day, and that's a bad thing. Still, it was 70 years ago.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 06:25:10 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 18, 2012, 06:18:15 AM
He has been arrested, finally.
Basic reaction from people in my office: WTF a 97 years old? whats the point?!!
A lot of people here think like this, too. (So does Neil). I disagree. There are crimes for which you should be hounded by the Kindly Ones until the day you die. His are of that kind.
Seems like a waste of our resources. He's highly likely to die soon anyway.
Ah I love the Sun's writing style. Straight in with the "HE KILLED THOUSANDS" and the snide "sadist, xxxxxx".
I read another article about this earlier today, apparently a lot of Jewish groups too are questioning the point of this and saying the money would be better spent countering modern far right idiots.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 08:33:33 AM
Seems like a waste of our resources.
"Our resources"?
Are you a News Corp shareholder?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2012, 09:41:33 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 08:33:33 AM
Seems like a waste of our resources.
"Our resources"?
Are you a News Corp shareholder?
Well I meant "our" in terms of government resources in the West. Presumably NewsCorp isn't holding him for arraignment/trial.
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Well I meant "our" in terms of government resources in the West.
Hungary?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2012, 09:52:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Well I meant "our" in terms of government resources in the West.
Hungary?
Sure, I'll claim affinity with Tamas. :)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
That isn't the only expense. There's also prison holding expense - I mean you're basically having the state take over financial care for him.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:54:37 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2012, 09:52:28 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:42:33 AM
Well I meant "our" in terms of government resources in the West.
Hungary?
Sure, I'll claim affinity with Tamas. :)
I'm gonna save this and file for later use.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
That isn't the only expense. There's also prison holding expense - I mean you're basically having the state take over financial care for him.
That's true with any convict. If we can afford to feed and house small time drug dealers and petty thieves, why not somebody who murdered thousands 70 years ago?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 10:17:05 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
That isn't the only expense. There's also prison holding expense - I mean you're basically having the state take over financial care for him.
That's true with any convict. If we can afford to feed and house small time drug dealers and petty thieves, why not somebody who murdered thousands 70 years ago?
Not worth it? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 09:54:37 AM
Sure, I'll claim affinity with Tamas. :)
I'm sure he'll be touched by your new-found interest in the protection of the Hungarian fisc.
But the bigger problem with your position is the one that Peter notes in his post hust above: it could be applied to many particular cases of criminal activity. There are plenty of criminal cases where there is little or no recidivism risk and the costs of taking a case to trial far exceed any direct benefit to society from that one conviction.
The money allocated to a criminal justice system is not spent to achieve a net economic benefit for each individual case as measured by some CBA. It is spent to buy effective rule of law. And the rule of law is undermined if the message is sent that heinous acts will go unpunished if the economics of punishing them don't break even.
I'm not sure it is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:40:26 AM
I'm not sure it is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
If you're not sure, why take the risk?
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
What if not prosecuting this old man causes the Hungarians to start up the Holocaust again?
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
He is a convict escaping justice - he has been convicted to death penalty but fled. So not sure what are you blabbing about.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 11:02:54 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
He is a convict escaping justice - he has been convicted to death penalty but fled. So not sure what are you blabbing about.
Not convicted by a legitimate court.
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
What if not prosecuting this old man causes the Hungarians to start up the Holocaust again?
Is that likely.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 11:14:02 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 18, 2012, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
What if not prosecuting this old man causes the Hungarians to start up the Holocaust again?
Is that likely.
It would seem some people think so.
They did kill a bunch of gypsies.
I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the elephant named Polanski.
Flee justice and keep your head down? Be hounded for the rest of your days. Flee justice and make movies? Thousands jump to make sure you don't have to do time.
Short answer: since Euros thought Polanski should be let off the hook for kiddie rape, clearly this dude should be let off the hook for Jew-killing.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the elephant named Polanski.
Flee justice and keep your head down? Be hounded for the rest of your days. Flee justice and make movies? Thousands jump to make sure you don't have to do time.
I'm not sure why anyone would mention Polanksi here.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
I'm not sure why anyone would mention Polanksi here.
Because this case single-handedly blows a hole in the reason nobody in Europe wanted Polanski extradited. You don't get to cherrypick who actually serves their sentences. Just saying, obvious double-standard is obvious.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the elephant named Polanski.
Flee justice and keep your head down? Be hounded for the rest of your days. Flee justice and make movies? Thousands jump to make sure you don't have to do time.
Short answer: since Euros thought Polanski should be let off the hook for kiddie rape, clearly this dude should be let off the hook for Jew-killing.
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2012, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
I'm not sure why anyone would mention Polanksi here.
Because this case single-handedly blows a hole in the reason nobody in Europe wanted Polanski extradited. You don't get to cherrypick who actually serves their sentences. Just saying, obvious double-standard is obvious.
What Marti just posted. I don't really see how these are comparable other than both are criminals of some stripe.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the elephant named Polanski.
Flee justice and keep your head down? Be hounded for the rest of your days. Flee justice and make movies? Thousands jump to make sure you don't have to do time.
Short answer: since Euros thought Polanski should be let off the hook for kiddie rape, clearly this dude should be let off the hook for Jew-killing.
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Well let's not leave out the drugging part but still I approve the overall message.
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 18, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
I'm surprised nobody's pointed out the elephant named Polanski.
Flee justice and keep your head down? Be hounded for the rest of your days. Flee justice and make movies? Thousands jump to make sure you don't have to do time.
Short answer: since Euros thought Polanski should be let off the hook for kiddie rape, clearly this dude should be let off the hook for Jew-killing.
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Both are crimes, and you are worthless.
There's no way Polanski didn't know the age of his victim.
That said it is a flagrant use of tu quoque to use one injustice to defend another.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
what's the limit? 50 years? 60 years? 30 years? Should Roman Polanski be safe to return in the US?
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older. It's a sane argument. Tottaly.
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2012, 06:46:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 10:54:42 AM
Sorry, if it plays better for you:
As if rule of law is undermined if after 70 years a state declines to prosecute.
what's the limit? 50 years? 60 years? 30 years? Should Roman Polanski be safe to return in the US?
I don't know - I guess it'd depend on circumstances. Someone who will do us the favor of dying soon anyway?
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2012, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older. It's a sane argument. Tottaly.
The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
Dude's already been tried and sentenced.
Just carry out the sentence.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 18, 2012, 08:36:02 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 18, 2012, 09:51:07 AM
If the government's handed these guys on a platter, the trial expense is justified IMO.
Dude's already been tried and sentenced.
Just carry out the sentence.
He was tried by an illegitimate court, and it would be illegal to carry out the sentence in any event.
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2012, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older. It's a sane argument. Tottaly.
The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.
He is equivalent in that he's a convicted criminal. That should be enough.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2012, 01:03:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2012, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older. It's a sane argument. Tottaly.
The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.
He is equivalent in that he's a convicted criminal. That should be enough.
I don't think so. Not for the hypocrisy argument that Shame was trying to make.
The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...
Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.
That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.
Quote from: Malthus on July 19, 2012, 08:06:39 AM
The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...
Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.
That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.
Well if there is no hard fast rule on when they decline to still have one carry out the sentence - wouldn't the deterrent still be there? I'm not sure there's much fun in looking over one's shoulder for 65+ years so that one will be on "easy street" in one's 90s. :D
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 19, 2012, 08:06:39 AM
The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...
Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.
That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.
Well if there is no hard fast rule on when they decline to still have one carry out the sentence - wouldn't the deterrent still be there? I'm not sure there's much fun in looking over one's shoulder for 65+ years so that one will be on "easy street" in one's 90s. :D
:lol: True enough ... it's simply a matter of degree. A 20 year limitations period is harsh, a 30 year period is harsher yet, and a lifetime one is the harshest possible.
Quote from: Malthus on July 19, 2012, 08:06:39 AM
The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...
Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.
That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.
Under US law, there are many crimes under federal and state law that carry no statute of limitations. Aside from a few academics, these rules are uncontroversial. Were this individual in US custody, he would (off the top of my head) be subject to charge on at least two federal crimes carrying no limitations period: torture resulting in death, and killing in connection with genocide.
Of course, this is not really relevant as he is in Hungarian (not US) custody and there is no question of limitation since he has already been convicted and sentenced. Preumably, the only question left to consider is whether sentence should be suspended on some discretionary ground. (although it is possible his lawyers could challenge the validity of the old conviction).
I raise the point only b/c US citizens have posted suggesting prosecutors as a matter of policy should avoid prosecuting long cold cases. Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2012, 09:23:06 AM
Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.
So? ;)
Interesting fact:
Putting aside the various categories of federal crimes that have no limitations (capital offenses, certain terrorism offenses, and certain child abduction/sex crimes), the longest federal limitations period is for . . . art theft (20 years)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2012, 09:23:06 AM
Quote from: Malthus on July 19, 2012, 08:06:39 AM
The main justifications for lacking any limitations on certain crimes is punishment and deterrence. The fact that the perp can never, no matter how long he or she lives, "live down" the crime is in effect part of his or her punishment - he or she may live to 100, but each and every day has to worry that, one day, there will come a knock at the door ...
Presumably, future wrong-doers of the same sort would see from this example and hopefully be deterred from committing the crime. Don't do [this] or, even if you aren't caught, you will live a life forever hunted and in hiding.
That said, the debate is always going to be what crimes, if any, should fall within that category.
Under US law, there are many crimes under federal and state law that carry no statute of limitations. Aside from a few academics, these rules are uncontroversial. Were this individual in US custody, he would (off the top of my head) be subject to charge on at least two federal crimes carrying no limitations period: torture resulting in death, and killing in connection with genocide.
Of course, this is not really relevant as he is in Hungarian (not US) custody and there is no question of limitation since he has already been convicted and sentenced. Preumably, the only question left to consider is whether sentence should be suspended on some discretionary ground. (although it is possible his lawyers could challenge the validity of the old conviction).
I raise the point only b/c US citizens have posted suggesting prosecutors as a matter of policy should avoid prosecuting long cold cases. Such a policy would in the US context involve effective prosecutorial nullification of the Legisalture's intent that certain crimes be punished regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed.
Under Canadian law there is no statute of limitations on indictable matters. Matters from 60 years ago would be rather extreme, but it is not at all unusual for us to prosecute historical sexual assaults that are 30 or even 40 years old.
That being said, as a prosecutor there is always discretion in which cases you prosecute. In every case we must answer whether a prosecution has a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and whether it serves the public interest. And I've pulled cases because the accused was so old and infirm it no longer served the public interest to prosecute. That discretion does not raise any issue of "prosecutorial nullification of the Legislature's intent".
Quote from: garbon on July 19, 2012, 07:34:15 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 19, 2012, 01:03:43 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 18, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 18, 2012, 06:48:51 PM
Quote from: Martinus on July 18, 2012, 03:40:20 PM
Newsflash, Einstein: having sex with a 13 y.o. who looks to be 16 y.o.: NOT THE SAME AS SENDING 16,000 PEOPLE TO DEATH.
Yes, kiddie rape should not be punished if the accused thinks she looks older. It's a sane argument. Tottaly.
The only point I'll say in Mart's favor is that who only came up with his terrible post because Shame tried to say Polanksi was equivalent to the mass murder discussed in this thread.
He is equivalent in that he's a convicted criminal. That should be enough.
I don't think so. Not for the hypocrisy argument that Shame was trying to make.
Then think again.
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2012, 09:57:21 AM
That being said, as a prosecutor there is always discretion in which cases you prosecute. In every case we must answer whether a prosecution has a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and whether it serves the public interest. And I've pulled cases because the accused was so old and infirm it no longer served the public interest to prosecute. That discretion does not raise any issue of "prosecutorial nullification of the Legislature's intent".
No question that prosecutors should have the discretion to pass on old cases, either because of problems with proof or because there are special circumstances arguing for leniency. But that is a different matter from adopting a general principle that old cases should not be pursued simply because time has elapsed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2012, 10:53:49 AM
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2012, 09:57:21 AM
That being said, as a prosecutor there is always discretion in which cases you prosecute. In every case we must answer whether a prosecution has a reasonable likelihood of conviction, and whether it serves the public interest. And I've pulled cases because the accused was so old and infirm it no longer served the public interest to prosecute. That discretion does not raise any issue of "prosecutorial nullification of the Legislature's intent".
No question that prosecutors should have the discretion to pass on old cases, either because of problems with proof or because there are special circumstances arguing for leniency. But that is a different matter from adopting a general principle that old cases should not be pursued simply because time has elapsed.
I don't really see it as a different matter. There are certain areas that are a matter of discretion, but so as to have some consistency in how that discretion is used has evolved into a written policy.
If we hold that a prosecutor has the ability to not prosecute someone due to advanced age, it's no great leap to say that a prosecutor might have a written policy to not prosecute someone past the age of 90, for example.
This case *is* different though because he has been convicted (albeit a long time ago), and has been at large on his outstanding sentence. It is not an issue of whether or not to prosecute, but whether or not to extradite.
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
If we hold that a prosecutor has the ability to not prosecute someone due to advanced age, it's no great leap to say that a prosecutor might have a written policy to not prosecute someone past the age of 90, for example.
I disagree.
Once a prosecutor's office takes a hard, bright-line rule on exercising discretion that has the effect of eliminating all possibility of prosecuting certain categories of defendants that the Legislature has after its deliberation decided to not to exempt from prosecution, then that crosses the line from justifiable exercise of official discretion to overturning the legislature's decision. It can't be squared with rule of law.
For example, at the US federal level, how and in what cases to apply statute of limitations has been the subject of considerable debate in Congress, resulting in legislation. If a US attorney's office for District "X" were to take the position that for crimes in category X, no offense would be prosecuted 30 or more years out, that amounts to the District X enacting a statute of limitations that was specifically considered and rejected by Congress.
Granted the distinction can get quite fine - for example, it would probably be OK for an office to use internal "guidelines" relating to these kinds of considerations, that while theoretically not 100% determinative, as a practical matter are close to being so. But however fine you cut it, it is still a distinction with a difference.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 19, 2012, 12:22:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on July 19, 2012, 11:03:54 AM
If we hold that a prosecutor has the ability to not prosecute someone due to advanced age, it's no great leap to say that a prosecutor might have a written policy to not prosecute someone past the age of 90, for example.
I disagree.
Once a prosecutor's office takes a hard, bright-line rule on exercising discretion that has the effect of eliminating all possibility of prosecuting certain categories of defendants that the Legislature has after its deliberation decided to not to exempt from prosecution, then that crosses the line from justifiable exercise of official discretion to overturning the legislature's decision. It can't be squared with rule of law.
For example, at the US federal level, how and in what cases to apply statute of limitations has been the subject of considerable debate in Congress, resulting in legislation. If a US attorney's office for District "X" were to take the position that for crimes in category X, no offense would be prosecuted 30 or more years out, that amounts to the District X enacting a statute of limitations that was specifically considered and rejected by Congress.
Granted the distinction can get quite fine - for example, it would probably be OK for an office to use internal "guidelines" relating to these kinds of considerations, that while theoretically not 100% determinative, as a practical matter are close to being so. But however fine you cut it, it is still a distinction with a difference.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. As long as that bright-line poliy can be shown to be a valid exercise of discretion it does not matter that it is firm, or written down.
I can think of a couple of examples. We have a policy to never prosecute s. 159 anal sex charges. The basis for that policy is quite understandable - the section has been found to be unconstitutional in other jurisdictions (but not this one), so it was determined that such charges were not in the public interest.
There is a written policy about when to seek greater punishments on drunk drivers. The Code talks about the penalties for a "second offence", without any time limit. Our written policy is to only file the paperwork to have it classified as a second offence if the first offence was less than 5 years ago. But again, this is tied into a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
Now, a counter-example. When gun registration was brought in Alberta said they would simply refuse to prosecute such charges. It was pointed out that Alberta could not do so - you can not pick and choose which laws to enforce based on political ideology. That was not a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion. (in that instance, in order to give Alberta some political cover it was agreed that the Feds would prosecute such charges, even though they only did so with the consent of Alberta)
Jeez, another anal sex hijack? :rolleyes:
SF almost did the same with prostitution. :weep:
Though, I think it does do that with nudity.
Good work. No respite for Nazi war criminals.
Quote from: Jacob on July 19, 2012, 06:20:10 PM
Good work. No respite for Nazi war criminals.
That's silly, not only as a matter of public policy, but also because this guy wasn't a Nazi.