Nazi Prison Guards

Thanks, NJ, for agreeing to debate the issues involved in The Reader, an excellent book and great film (which you really must see). Since the factual context for this debate is the film (as my challenge clearly indicates), I had hoped that my opponent would quickly watch the film before accepting my challenge to debate the proposition Resolved, that Hanna's sentence to life in prison was not a just sentence. Regardless, since you have only read the book, during the debate you can cite the facts that you rely upon by citing the relevant pages in the book. I will cite facts from the film. I will respond to your paragraphs that begin with the following five words: (1) Value (I agree), (2) Value Criterion (I disagree), (3) Contention One, (4) Contention Two, (5) "I really cannot..." I contend that your argument violates these fundamental principles of jurisprudence, Equality Before The Law and the Presumption of Innocence. My argument implicitly relies upon both principles: Equality Before The Law: "Equality before the law or equality under the law or legal egalitarianism is the principle under which each individual is subject to the same laws, with no individual or group having special legal privileges. Legal egalitarianism admits no class structures entail separate legal practices. Thus, canon law, star chambers, and aristocracy are alike forbidden, and the testimony of all persons is counted with the same weight. Concept: This political development arose in the 18th century in both the United States and France after their revolutionary periods. It was not immediately implemented in either place, with the United States retaining slavery and a distinction between naturalized and natural born citizens (still in place), and France descending into chaos and tyranny under Napoleon." http://en.wikipedia.org... Presumption of Innocence: "The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proved guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in many modern countries. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption is seen to stem from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies)." http://en.wikipedia.org... I contend that your following sentences violate the fundamental principles stated above: (2) Value Criterion: "The reason the defendant, Hannah, was given a fair trial is because she had an association with the Nazis." Comment: This constitutes GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. However, in a criminal case the alleged criminal acts and a guilty intent must be proved by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not by the defendant's mere association with other people. "And, at that time, Nazis given a harsh trial were considered to have a fair trial." Comment: What is a "harsh trial"? How can a "harsh trial" be a fair trial? You cite no authority for this argument. (3) Contention One: "The Nazis deserved a harsher trial." "If anything, Hannah's trial was lenient." "Hannah, if anything, got it easy. Anyone affiliated with the Nazis was considered on the same level of a Nazi. At the time it was unbiased to give Nazis a harsher trial." Comment: It is self-evident that these contentions violate both principles of jurisprudence and they lack any support in any cited authority. (4) Contention Two: "Hannah ties into this because she was one of the Germans with blond hair and blue eyes (based off the book) and she was one of Hitler's blind followers. Since she was a jail guard, she had association with the Nazis. No exception can be made for her." Comment: The argument in the first sentence is irrelevant; in the second, it violates the above principles. (5) "I really cannot rebutt..." My phrase "both states" refers to Hannah being both ILLITERATE and FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE. I implicitly argue that her sentence was unjust because the court did not know of her illiteracy. I challenge my opponent to show why her illiteracy was not a relevant mitigating circumstance relative to the sentence that she received. Finally, I argue that Hannah's life sentence was unjust. My opponent has not shown that her sentence was just in relation to the sentences given to her co-defendants (and fellow prison guards). He has not discussed the justice or injustice of their lesser sentences. I challenge him to do so. In the next round I will show why her sentence was unjust relative to the sentences given to her fellow defendants.