Should we still be spending time and resources on prosecuting Nazi war criminals, many of whom are old and sick?

Prosecuting Nazis

 

 

 

Jewish survival in the future is to my mind more critical than punishing the crimes against us in the past.

When it comes to Jewish values, there is no statute of limitation on pursuing justice. The two overarching principles that come to mind are:

 

Justice, Justice, shall you pursue.  Deuteronomy 16:20

 

You are not obligated to complete the task, but you are not free to ignore it. Pirkei Avot 2: 21

 

The first text reminds us that we are to continually pursue justice throughout our lives. And the second text reminds us that while we cannot fix all of the problems of our world, we must never stop trying.  It is with both of these texts in mind that I would argue we should absolutely still be spending time and resources prosecuting Nazi war criminals who are accused of some of the worst human atrocities of recent history.

 

Of course, when the accused are caught, they should be given a fair trial and hearing based on the evidence. We should remember even, and especially in cases such as this, that dan l'kaf zechut, giving someone the benefit of the doubt, prior to their proven guilt, is also a Jewish concept. And if found guilty, we must also remember that these individuals are still human beings and deserved to be treated accordingly even though their actions were beyond reprehensible.

 

Finally, this question goes beyond any one individual cases and gets at the heart of the type of society that Jews are called upon to create. (I would like to thank my colleague and fellow JVO participant, Rabbi Eric Yanoff for this insight).  The introductory prayers on Friday night, the Kabbalat Shabbat service, are filled with references to a world that is judged by God with fairness, justice, and kindness. Each week, we pray for such a world only to remember that it is not yet here, and that it is our obligation to create such a society as we begin a new week.  There is no statute of limitations on the holy endeavor of pursuing justice.

 

There is no statute of limitations on murder American legal system, nor in halakha, our traditional Jewish code of law. The prohibition against murder is one of only three mitzvot (Jewish commandments) that may not be broken in order to save one’s own life. (Self-defense is not considered murder. The tricky part, as illustrated by recent events in Florida, is determining what constitutes self-defense, and according to whom. In the case of Nazi war criminals, things are more clear-cut.)

 

Given these circumstances, one might reasonably argue that when and whether a society holds a murderer accountable for his or her crimes reflects on the moral fiber of that society.

 

Many lovers of justice, especially the Mississippians among us, felt a sense of closure, of justice served, even a partial redemption from the stain of such a heinous crime in 2005 when Edgar Ray Killen, the man who ordered the 1964 deaths of civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, was convicted and sentenced, essentially, to die in prison. (Edgar Ray Killen, 80 years old and apparently faking poor health during the trial, was given 60 years.) Same in 1994 when Byron De La Beckwith, who felled Mississippi NCAA President Medgar Evers one night in 1963 on his own front yard, in view of his wife and children, was finally convicted.

 

Granted, we cannot judge one another as God can judge us, but we are called to be God’s partners in pursuing justice. What kind of justice would it be for six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust (not to mention perhaps seven million others) if a Nazi war criminal were allowed to live out his natural life simply because he has eluded us so far? None at all.

 

Judaism does not counsel vengeance. Many of us, based on our Jewish convictions, oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. But should we “still” be spending time and resources on bringing some of the worst criminals of human history to account, to some imposition of responsibility and consequence? My answer is an unequivocal yes.