When getting deeper to the real nature of crime and punishment connected to the case of Adolf Eichmann, the author underlines two main challenges that the readers witnesses. The first one is connected with the legal judgment that is closely connected with legal intention. The main issue here is whether the courts had to present the reliable proof of the fact that Eichmann had an intention of the genocide commitment in order to convict him of this terrifying crime (Ardent 19).
Here the main interest represents the fact that Eichmann had a serious lack of real intentions as he did not understand that he took [part in the crime commitment. This issue follows the fact of his passiveness and indifference to the things he was doing. Financial success and authority seem to be the key interest of this man. The ability to achieve the desired results was the only thing that Eichmann understood.
The second challenge is to moral philosophy and therefore it has to be regarded in general perspective. The morality of Eichmann and the morality of Israeli courts and the society in common represent special interest as both are disputable. Eichmann’s guilt is obvious, although author depicts him in unusual way. Eichmann sometimes can look better than his so-called victims (Ardent 45-48). The image of immoral and inhumane monster confronts with the image of the normal ordinary man with no mental diseases.
The unusually high rate of the judicial proceeding and the serious lack of evidence also support the development of the issues connected with the morality of the Eichmann’s judges. The right for legal defense, of appeal from judgment is an important part of any lawsuit. Moreover, such a serious verdict has to be based on the series of strong and reliable facts and evidences in order to exclude the possibility of mistake. This is connected with morality of fair trials, democracy and human rights.
Another interesting detail that can be mentioned while reading a book is the understanding of guilt. It seems that Eichmann, as many other Nazi soldiers and officers, understood his work on monster as a specific alibi of himself. He tried to protect himself from responsibility for all the committed horrible crimes. Eichmann gave away to the power of a real beast of evil because he considered it to be normal that cannot be said about the yielding to a normal person. The indirectly brings the readers to the increasing role of Hitler in the crimes committed by Eichmann that is not right and unfair.
However, the objectiveness and fairness of prosecution puts the current issue on the secondary position as the multiple actions that took place during the process were questionable. The defense had much fewer lawyers and they did not always have an access to the evidence that gave prosecution the ability to destroy or change them. Moreover, the evidence that were used by the prosecution did not necessarily had attitude to Eichmann’s actions specifically. This connection was extremely disputable and no real arguments were presented in the court.
The series of evidence that were used by prosecution were sued mostly for provoking certain emotions within the audience, not for supporting the main though of the prosecutor. This was followed by the dominance of emotions and feelings among people, and indirectly diminished the role of logical thinking. This means that prosecution had no real evidence and required emotional support.
The book perfectly demonstrates the destructive character bureaucratic system that stimulates the development of such people as Eichmann that are used to obey orders without thinking about the potential outcomes of these actions. The Nazi system separated the orders of sending Jews to the camps where they would be killed from the orders to arrest the concrete Jews or getting them away from their houses.
Works Cited
Hannah Arendt. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking, 1964. Print.
