Does Age Absolve Guilt?
No, I don't believe it does and there's a popular perception to the contrary which disturbs me greatly.
No, I don't believe it does and there's a popular perception to the contrary which disturbs me greatly.
Eight months ago writing for watoday.com.au, Jane Cazdow asked, Is it ever too late to prosecute an accused war criminal? She was referring to Charles Zentai, "number seven on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre's list of the most-wanted suspected Nazi war criminals".
He is still fighting the call for his extradition from Western Australia to Hungary and claims he is innocent of the charges.
In his feature Murder on Arena Avenue is Charles Zentai Guilty? from the March issue of The Monthly Gyorgy Vamos begins with the question of whether "Bob Debus will conclude- as have some doctors – that Zentai is too old and frail to travel, let alone stand trial".
What's age got to do with it?
Whether or not there is sufficient evidence for Zentai to stand trial should be all that matters. That's a wholly different question beyond the scope of this blog.
There are two prongs to the age bias at play here; whether those accused should be exempt from standing trial due to their age, and if subjected to trial and found guilty what role their age should play in determining their sentencing.
Seniority should let you off the hook for snoring, grumpiness, and repeating yourself, but not murder. Our practice of excusing accused criminals from standing trial on the basis of their age is not an extension of respect for elders but a perversion of it.
Having managed to elude capture and trial for fifty years should not earn anybody a presumption of innocence, it doesn't make the alleged act less criminal.
We have taken the sentiment of forgiving someone the indiscretions of their youth and extended it to the altogether different practice absolving them of their guilt for crimes past. There's a huge difference between a jerk and a criminal, and the twain do not meet with the passing of years.
Time does not heal all wounds.
Genuine contrition coupled with a real attempt to take responsibility and make amends may conceivably entitle someone to special consideration in sentencing; but that still has no bearing on whether or not a crime occurred in the first place. We need to stop getting the two confused.
Zentai has already been involved in an extended legal battle through the Australian courts to avoid extradition. Now, I know it is ridiculous to try and bring common sense into a debate about the legal system, but surely the Australian government could have provided access to teleconferencing technology and allowed him to stand trial in Hungary without having to travel from Western Australia to Hungary. It would have allowed him to meet his obligation to answer his accusers and given him the opportunity to prove his innocence without neccessitating international travel.
Finding it unseemly to force the elderly to stand trial of serious crimes and if found guilty go to jail is just another form of aged-based discrimination. What's worse, it's really just a by-product of the inequity of our legal system, another excuse for those who can afford a protracted defence to drag proceedings out so long they are never held accountable.
As reported in The Australian this week, Zentai's defence has now shifted its focus to argue against his extradition on the basis the alleged murder was not an offence at the time, which is a whole other legal can of worms, and will no doubt buy a whole lot more time.
Anonymous
March 26, 2009 at 3:20 am
Age does not absolve guilt.
Age does not absolve guilt.
If you are accused of being a murderer you are required to prove to a court of law whether you are one or not. Regardless of age.
From the view point of someone who has suffered through a WWII concentration camp and witnessed countless murders committed at the hands of those who are now in their 80s, no amount of time past is long enough to allow them to live unpunished for their deeds.
Malcolm Crompton
March 26, 2009 at 11:28 am
We live in a society that allows you to start again: balance…
Without wishing to comment on the case in question, it is also important to remember that we live in a society that purposely allows folk to forgive and forget in appropriate circumstances. It started in 1788 with the arrival of the convicts who eventually could (but not always did) 'do their time' & become respected, valuable members of society. It is even written into our laws. See the Spent Convictions page of the website of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for a description of the Commonwealth legislation; a number of the States have similar laws.
In the end, it is a matter of balance. Some crimes we may never want to forget, including possibly those that haven't ever been brought to trial. But our current era seems to be moving back to a less forgiving era (pre 1788 Britain???) so we need to ensure a very calm debate to find a balance that is appropriate & not just listen to the shock jocks.
sally.rose
March 30, 2009 at 1:08 am
Australia’s founding
Australia's founding convicts had an opportunity to start again only once they'd served their sentence, normally one that could be considered dissproportionately harsh. So, I'm not sure I can see the similarlities?
I haven't been listening to any shock jocks, but I can imagine some would have a field day and I've read a few rather creepy reports.
There are many complicated reasons why our legal system is unjust. The point I hoped to make in this blog was that the age of the accused or the time passed since the alleged event should not in and of themselves be enough for us not to bother prosecuting.
Getting old does not neccessitate rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is much more hard to come by.
MikeM
March 31, 2009 at 8:55 am
Does age weary the evidence?
Isn't there a third? I agree that an 87-year-old who has murdered someone is as culpable as a 27-year-old who has committed a similar crime in similar circumstances. But rather than age, isn't the more important question whether someone accused of a crime many decades ago can receive a fair trial – and whether the prosecutors think there is a sufficient chance of success to be worth bringing the charge.
Many nations have a statute of limitations that prevents legal action from being taking longer than a certain time after the alleged act occurred. In Australia as far as I know, these are limited to torts (such as tax evasion) and I'd be surprised if any nation puts a time limitation on pursuing allegations of murder. Even so, eye-witness identification relating to matters occurring over 60 years ago has to be fraught. The US Innocence Project has found:
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre has displayed particular zeal in tracing suspected Nazi war criminals for reasons that are well understood. It may well advocate prosecution in cases where, if circumstances were less emotionally charged, a public prosecutor would normally not.
It can be objected conversely that someone who is genuinely guilty might see his main hope as stretching out preliminary manoeuvring as long as possible. His hope would be that by the time substantive proceedings are brought, key witnesses will have died, or even that he himself has died.
On 31 March, a Federal Court judge ruled that Zentai was eligible to be extradicted, but he still has legal avenues available to challenge that ruling.
MikeM is not a lawyer. The country already has too many of them.
Hani.Montan
April 28, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Response to Sally
Hi Sally,
I agree with you that criminal justice should apply and no one should escape it, no matter how far in the past the crime is committed.
As a journalist however, you didn't allow your objectivity to shine through to highlight the atrocities committed in recent history. The barbaric attack and the killing of many civilians, including women and children in Gaza is a good example why criminal justice should also apply. Human rights groups are calling for Israel to face examination under international criminal law. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights call for independent investigations into possible war crimes is constantly frustrated by Israeli leadership.
To sort-out facts from fictions, let these investigations be carried out, because the truth is buried somewhere in the midst of propaganda.
This is exactly what we want to achieve by our advocacy of pursuing all war criminals, no matter how old they are. In Israel's case; it is not old, it is recent. The same feeling I have towards any atrocities committed by Hamas. There are always two sides to a story.
What happened in Germany and what is happening in the Middle East is a result of extremism on all sides. It is when the curse of religion and nationalism are combined. To have a better world, journalists' efforts should be directed towards fighting religion and nationalism; the biggest threat to the world today.
sally.rose
April 29, 2009 at 12:11 am
Response to Hani
I write here as a "blogger" rather than a journalist. My intention was never to "let my objectivity shine through", nor was it to cover all world issues in the space of 500 words.
Although I am disturbed by your insistence that, "To have a better world, journalists' efforts should be directed towards fighting religion and nationalism; the biggest threat to the world today." I am not a religious person, or a nationalist, nor a fan of either, but to blame them for the sorry state of the world is a gross oversimplification. Also, to incite journalists to rally against them in principle is the antithesis of the "objectivity" you claim to wish to see upheld.