David Cesarani is a historian and researcher whose judgment is always sound. His book, Justice Delayed, about the campaign to bring to justice Nazi war criminals living in the UK, was a great influence on us as we campaigned (successfully) to change British law on suspected genocidaires from modern conflicts.
Therefore, its noteworthy that he's come out and called the Demjanjuk court proceedings a 'trial too far'. Essentially, his argument goes like this: justice isn't served when this sick man is dragged into a courtroom. Even if he is found guilty - which Cesarani thinks is extremely likely - whose interests are served by sending him to send his last years in a prison hospital bed? Another possibility, Cesarani argues, is that he's given an extremely light sentence - which will make the process seem ridiculous.
But is that last part of the argument right? Is it not a sign of moral progress that we can hold a trial, hear the truth, judge a perpetrator, and then pass a sentence that reflects their age and ill-health? I agree that the idea of sending this sick old man to die in prison is repulsive. But allowing the scales of justice to work, while sparing her sword, is to offer a glimpse of the humanity which concentration camp guards never showed their victims.
