NationStates

Ok, in that other ridiculous thread there was a question about whether Hitler is innocent because he was never tried. (Yes, I Godwinned in the OP)

I responded that, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent since he was never proven guilty in court. However, history tells a different story. The person I responded to then said that I said Hitler was innocent.

I have therefore decided to make a poll, because it's what I do. Should we let the dead have their day in court?

Galloism wrote:Ok, in that other ridiculous thread there was a question about whether Hitler is innocent because he was never tried. (Yes, I Godwinned in the OP)

I responded that, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent since he was never proven guilty in court. However, history tells a different story. The person I responded to then said that I said Hitler was innocent.

I have therefore decided to make a poll, because it's what I do. Should we let the dead have their day in court?

Heh, we should create the world's most overworked court for just this purpose. Might take 50 years of cases before we could finally try Caligula!

Galloism wrote:Ok, in that other ridiculous thread there was a question about whether Hitler is innocent because he was never tried. (Yes, I Godwinned in the OP)

I responded that, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent since he was never proven guilty in court. However, history tells a different story. The person I responded to then said that I said Hitler was innocent.

I have therefore decided to make a poll, because it's what I do. Should we let the dead have their day in court?

Regarding Hitler, the death penalty (today) would be... difficult to enforce.

Kinda pointless, trying dead folk, ya think? Besides it being a colossal waste of time, money and effort, I mean to say.

leave that sort of thing for high school civics class.

He's dead. If Little Nicky is any indication, he's in Hell having Satan shove a pineapple sideways up his crack every afternoon at 4:00, all the while in a French maid's outfit.

It doesn't seem logical. But I know that Oliver Cromwell was posthumously executed in 1661 when the monarchy was restored, which is similar to crime and punishment for the dead.

Galloism wrote:OI responded that, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent since he was never proven guilty in court. However, history tells a different story.

(emphasis added)

You hit the nail on the head the first time: free people want to be presumed innocent as a matter of law, to prevent the gov't from abusing its power. We don't use the same standards for other kinds of judgement. In any case, most free states have laws preventing trials in absentia -- good luck getting Hitler back from Hell!

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It doesn't seem logical. But I know that Oliver Cromwell was posthumously executed in 1661 when the monarchy was restored, which is similar to crime and punishment for the dead.

????

How does that work?

Depends on the applications that the potential results would have. It would be a waste of time to try and prove that Hitler was indeed a very naughty boy but not if the court started hearing cases that might set precedent. For example, I know (mainly from watching "The life of David Gale") that the anti-death crowd are very frustrated that they cannot conclusively prove that innocents are executed, because an appeal against a conviction cannot take place post-mortem.

Hasn't this been done before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

By some human created rules, Hitler is innocent. By realitys law, he was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews, plus the soldiers killed in the war.

Should the dead be tried? Why? The verdict will only affect how their memories are treated (and then only vis-a-vis human created law) and not change the reality of anything they may have done one whit.

Ravea wrote:Hasn't this been done before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

That was one of the funniest things I ever read.

There is no real point to putting the dead on trial. If they were to be proven guilty in a court of law, they would be unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Kryozerkia wrote:There is no real point to putting the dead on trial. If they were to be proven guilty in a court of law, they would be unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

I imagine any defense they would present would be somewhat less than lively as well

Considering that a key feature of a proper trial is the right of the defendant to appear in person and answer the charges, I don't see how any trial of a dead person could be considered legitimate. It's the ultimate trial in absentia, and I think it would lend itself to the creation of kangaroo courts to posthumously villify anyone inconvenient to the prevailing mood of the day.

Depends on the severity. Should we try someone for petty theft after their death? No, that is a waste of the states resources and further hurts a grieving family. Should we try Hitler for the crimes he committed? Most certainly yes.

Ravea wrote:Hasn't this been done before?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

Damn, you beat me to it...

Galloism wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It doesn't seem logical. But I know that Oliver Cromwell was posthumously executed in 1661 when the monarchy was restored, which is similar to crime and punishment for the dead.

????

How does that work?

They dug up his corpse, and decapitated & quartered it as they would have done had he been convicted of regicide before his death.
(Also, I think, they did the same to the corpse of at least one of his colleagues: Ireton, perhaps?)

Kryozerkia wrote:There is no real point to putting the dead on trial. If they were to be proven guilty in a court of law, they would be unable to appreciate the consequences of their actions.

Depending on the circumstances, there might be some cases in which a conviction would allow the victims of their crimes to obtain financial compensation from their estates...

Sionis Prioratus wrote:

Galloism wrote:Ok, in that other ridiculous thread there was a question about whether Hitler is innocent because he was never tried. (Yes, I Godwinned in the OP)

I responded that, in the eyes of the law, he is presumed innocent since he was never proven guilty in court. However, history tells a different story. The person I responded to then said that I said Hitler was innocent.

I have therefore decided to make a poll, because it's what I do. Should we let the dead have their day in court?

Regarding Hitler, the death penalty (today) would be... difficult to enforce.

And whats worse is that you know Hitler would make a martyr of himself. We can't give him the exposure.

Seriously, though, no, it's stupid. Hitler can be technically innocent, it's not like it actually makes any real difference in his legacy (or at least, it hasn't much seemed to). Trials are great, but if they're dead the dispensation of justice seems rather hindered.

Bears Armed wrote:

Galloism wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It doesn't seem logical. But I know that Oliver Cromwell was posthumously executed in 1661 when the monarchy was restored, which is similar to crime and punishment for the dead.

????

How does that work?

They dug up his corpse, and decapitated & quartered it as they would have done had he been convicted of regicide before his death.
(Also, I think, they did the same to the corpse of at least one of his colleagues: Ireton, perhaps?)

Ireton and Bradshaw. They were going to do the same to Pride, but his body was too decayed.

But how can hitler be innocent? I know he was never tried but he commited genocide. there were witnesses like his right hand men. If there is something i left out or if i am mistaken please correct me.

Bears Armed wrote:

Galloism wrote:

Charlotte Ryberg wrote:It doesn't seem logical. But I know that Oliver Cromwell was posthumously executed in 1661 when the monarchy was restored, which is similar to crime and punishment for the dead.

????

How does that work?

They dug up his corpse, and decapitated & quartered it as they would have done had he been convicted of regicide before his death.
(Also, I think, they did the same to the corpse of at least one of his colleagues: Ireton, perhaps?)

That's hilarious, and makes no sense to boot.

Valipac wrote:Should we try Hitler for the crimes he committed? Most certainly yes.

Absolutely not. Hitler is as entitled to the opportunity to defend himself as anyone else is. Trying him after his death completely denies him that opportunity.

It's the same (very very good) reason charges were dropped against Kenneth Lay after he died--he hadn't been tried yet, so he wouldn't have had the opportunity to defend himself.

Denfil wrote:But how can hitler be innocent? I know he was never tried but he commited genocide. there were witnesses like his right hand men. If there is something i left out or if i am mistaken please correct me.

The legal presumption of innocence is just that--a presumption that may or may not be true but is only relevant in court.

The rest of us are entitled to judge him however we wish for own private purposes.

really depends on the context. although i think mostly its not individuals so much that needs closer examination, but popular conclusions inspired by apparent results of positions they had taken.

i'm not so sure a court system would be the best place to examine such questions either.

but again, in some cases there might be serious benefits, possibly where much needed, in considering the possibility.

What're you going to do, hang a skeleton?