Eichmann in Jerusalem

Distinction of Crimes

• Types of Crimes: Discrimination, expulsion, and genocide.

• Supreme Crime: The extermination of the Jewish people seen as a crime against humanity.

• Judicial Responsibility: A Jewish court is justified to judge the crime against Jews, but an international tribunal is needed for the broader crime against humanity.

Hannah Arendt's Argument

• Nature of Eichmann's Trial: The law under which Eichmann was tried did not encompass the complexity of the crimes.

• Community Legal Order: Like any community, perpetrators should be judged for violating laws of humanity.

• Purpose of Trials: To achieve justice, not political aims or historical records.

Limitations of the Judicative Process

• Trial Constraints: The court must not expand its focus outside the relevant legal jurisdiction.

• Effectiveness of Punishment: No punishment can entirely prevent future crimes or deter their occurrence.

• Potentiality of Crimes: Once a crime is enacted, the likelihood of repetition increases.

Impediments to Justice

• Impaired Justice: Jerusalem court confronted issues in its proceedings, such as lack of defense witnesses.

• Definition of Criminals: The indictment reflects a misunderstanding of Eichmann as solely a 'perverted sadist', where many perpetrators were functionally normal individuals.

• Nuremberg Trials Comparison: The Jerusalem trial lacked the comprehensiveness of Nuremberg's legal framework in addressing crimes against humanity.

Moral and Philosophical Considerations

• Concept of Intent: Traditional legal systems emphasize the necessity of intention in crimes which was challenged during the trial.

• Shared Guilt: Arguments made about collective guilt obscure individual responsibility.

• Judgment and Guilt: The court needed to address Eichmann's role and the greater implications of actions against humanity more clearly.