At what point does something quit being someone else's property? I was watching a TV show last week about some artwork looted during WWII in Nazi Germany. At issue was the authenticity of a painting once owned by a pre-war Jewish family that is now owned by an museum. The painting had been seized by the Nazi government and disappeared after the war.
What I am curious about is the claim the Jewish family currently has on the painting.
If I were mugged coming out of a casino and robbed of $10,000, and they later caught the thug and he still had the $10,000 dollars on him, I think I would have a legitimate claim on the money. If, instead, they caught him two years later and I was able to identify him but, of course, he no longer had the money, I would be shit out of luck. If it were a valuable wristwatch instead of the money and it turned up as stash at the muggers lair I would probably have a legitimate claim on the watch. If I spotted the watch on someone else's arm ten years later, and it had been through several legitimate owners by then, I think I would be out of luck. If it were a $10,000 Rolex I am sure I would get more of a hearing than if it were a $30 Timex.
So, I've asked myself, what is the main issue here? Is it the value of the item stolen? Is it the way the item is stolen? Is it how long ago the item was stolen? Is it by whom the item was stolen? Or is it from whom the item was stolen?
Presumably, the value of the item stolen should have the greatest weight. At least as far as the effort put into finding and retrieving it is concerned. Police would spend far less time looking for the guy that stole my Timex than for the guy who stole the Rolex. They would put more effort into solving a museum heist than who stole my lawn gnomes. And, my guess is, that they would look longer for the more valuable stuff than the cheaper stuff. So it seems that more value = more effort. Fair enough.
As a footnote to the value topic, there is also the idea of relative value. This could mean something may have sentimental value to the person who lost it. This could result in the victim not understanding why the police aren't putting more of an effort in the case. There is also the idea of inflated value. Let's say a painting is valued at $500 in 1939. It may be worth $3,000,000 today. Is the victim from 1939 out $500 or $3,000,000?
What about the way an item is stolen? Does that make its recovery and/ or restitution more imperative? If it was taken at gun point, or by a sneak thief in the night, or by government edict, is the loss any greater or less? Does it affect the victim's claim on it?
And how about when it was stolen? Is there a legal difference between something stolen last week and something stolen 65 years ago? And if there isn't, where should it end? Is 100 years fair game? What about 1,000 years? What land or buildings or fortunes or artwork cannot be trace back to some unfair exchange or unlawful taking? Isn't that why we have statute of limitation laws?
Or is the issue by whom it was taken? Are there different quality of thugs? Is it better to be robbed by the neighbor kid in the middle of the night than by a professional burglar while we are out to dinner? Does it matter if the thief wears a disguise or a uniform? I am thinking the latter one does. But again, for how long? Does personifying the evil (in this case the Nazis) make the crime more heinous? Or is a thug, is a thug, is a thug?
Or is the main issue from whom the item was stolen? If the item was stolen from a business, after a while it would be written off. If it were stolen (as an isolated incident) from a private individual, would it have any relevance 65 years later? Is it only important because it was taken from people who belonged to a group who were systematically and unfairly brutalized and "not forgetting" is the central issue?
As sad and unfair as it seems, I don't believe the last statement has much more weight than the sentimental value argument. Many bad things have happened to many good people over the course of history. And some atrocities should never be forgotten. Death and misery and loss of property are always unfair . . . and painful. But life does -- and must -- move on.
We, as a society, are leaning towards a dangerous precipice. We are creating special classes of victims and special categories of crimes. Hate crimes are a good example. If a person unlawfully assaults another person, what is the difference why he did it? He broke the law and should be punished. Why is hate a more heinous motive than greed or jealousy or misplaced patriotism in an evil Nazi regime? Is the next step thought crimes?
And why are some victims considered more import than others. Nameless street people suffer and die daily while the nation is riveted to the TV because a movie star is accused of killing his wife.
We, as a nation and as a people, might be inclined to believe the Jewish family is somehow more entitled to restitution for artwork stolen 65 years ago during the war than a man who lost a watch during a mugging, but both are victims and both lost property. This is why Lady Justice is portrayed as blind. It should be a matter of law not sentiment.
To honestly expect to recover artwork after that many years under those circumstances presupposes we single out these victims and put them in a special category. Isn't that what they were trying to avoid in 1939?
No comments:
Post a Comment