Isn't a trial in absence a bit draconian and unnecessary given that relatively few accused persons fail to attend?

A. Although the number of accused is relatively few we have to remember the witnesses who have attended and given evidence. The absence of the accused may be for months or years.

Some of these witnesses may be children or elderly. The longer the delay caused by the accused's absconding, the more chance there is of the evidence of the witness being lost due to the length of time between the alleged offence and the date of any trial. There are however 3 hurdles to be overcome before a trial may proceed in the absence of the accused: • evidence has to be led which substantially implicates the accused • the judge has to consider the point in proceedings at which the accused absconds and • it has to be in the interests of justice to proceed.

More.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.