Except for the unfair and false 1924 conviction (it was unfair because it was politically motivated and it was false because as far as I know the police killed the martyrs and all he did was save some people from the same fate).
And if he has never been convicted of any of those ALLEGATIONS, then what happened to the innocent until proven guilty thing? In reality, it's always guilty until proven innocent for men otherwise no man will ever get arrested or not get bail until proven guilty. With women it's a completely different story. I have heard of women killing their innocent children and raping other innocent children and they still get bail and even after conviction get out soon if they got any jail time at all.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/14/preacher.slain/index.html
http://www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/29/wilson.released/index.html
http://www.fathermag.com/news/rape/parker.shtml
2007-12-27 01:02:38 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
If a man does ne of those things, he would never get bail or released after conviction. If he is released, that will only be to get constantly monitored, etc and rearrested coz the bracelet showed that he went 10 cm too much east or watever while shopping (he had to in order to reach the vegetables in the store or w/e) or sumthing like that.
2007-12-27 01:05:07 · update #1
If he gets released 4 sumthing like that, it's coz he's been in there 4 years.
Is there a double standard for men and women?
2007-12-27 01:15:43 · update #2
good lord.
2007-12-27 01:17:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mr Htiler was convicted at Nuremburg posthumously I believe.
In the real world, we don't try dead people. Only a fool or someonw with a political agenda could believe that lack of a conviction against a dead man makes him "Innocent untill proven guilty"; and that is an American Law standard, not a german one,
2007-12-27 01:07:37 · answer #2 · answered by wizjp 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well let me see here. I am a dictator of a country. I own the judicial system. Was Saddam convicted of anything before he was overthrown? If Adolf had been captured it might have been different huh?
2007-12-27 01:27:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Innoent until proven guilty applies to United States criminal law, not to the crimes you are referring to.
Also, unless the office held by Adolf Hitler carried "honorable" as a form of address, or unless you are actually in a court of law, then it is innapropriate in this instance.
2007-12-27 01:12:07 · answer #4 · answered by Edward S 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
His conviction was in a court of law - thus you answered your own question - whether or not you agree with the court or it's reasons.
As far as war crimes go , US law does not try people who are dead. They can't defend themselves.
2007-12-27 01:12:14 · answer #5 · answered by Prophet 1102 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would be tempted to think that his suicide was evidence of self-aware guilt. Also, sugar coating his end does not make him in any way honorable. He was an evil demented sick mind. Thats reality.
2007-12-27 01:29:11 · answer #6 · answered by sam p 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't really be convicted if your dead now can you?
2007-12-27 01:16:02 · answer #7 · answered by Adeptus Astartes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2015-05-15 07:39:20 · answer #8 · answered by Vahe 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋