Josef Fritzl may plead insanity to avoid imprisonment for his heinous perverted crimes however what will the authorities and the Police including Interpol plead (Elisabeth Reported Missing) because they were Intent on turning a blind eye?
It is evident widespread indifference was responsible for the destruction of Elisabeth, Kirsten, Stefan and Felix Fritzl lives. The Public Alarm Bells rang loud and early in the 1960s but they were repeatedly ignored by the authorities.
It is a fact some men including the police, do not treat Rape and Incest as serious crimes. Certain men laugh and sneer at Rape Victims and maintain the attitude "It is only sex!" Clearly the private fantasies and sexual behaviour of these men are responsible for such attitudes towards women and Rape. Rapists often go on to committing more violent crimes against the physically weak. Fritzl clearly liked to dominate people and despised dissent. A clear warning that his relationships would be imbalanced, seriously problematic and abusive.
There is no compensation including financial compensation, for long term captivity/imprisonment. You can not compensate anyone for years lost from their life, especially those years when humans normally enjoy good physical and mental health. For this reason punishment for crimes of imprisonment must be extremely severe. Clearly Elisabeth and her children will not want to be tortured mentally further, by being involved in any public legal proceedings. However legal action of some kind must be delivered, as a public deterrent to all those men who fantasize and engage in the acts of imprisonment, rape and incest.
In the European Courts - European Convention on Human Rights
Mrs Mulkiye Osman and her son Ahmet complained that the authorities had failed to act on the warning signs that a Paul Paget-Lewis was a serious threat to the physical safety of Mr Osman and his family. Mr Paget-Lewis has extensively stalked and harassed the son and the family, and eventually he shot dead the father in March 1988.
David Pannick, QC, a leading public law barrister: “Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to life and if authorities have been seriously negligent so as to create a real risk of loss of life or serious harm then legal proceedings can be brought against them.”
The long-standing immunity enjoyed by police in the UK was overturned by the European Court of Human Rights in a case called Osman in 1998. It was brought by Mulkiye Osman and her son Ahmet, who had been badly injured. His father, Ali, was killed in 1988 by a man about whom the family had warned police.
The court ruled that although in that case the police could not be criticized, if in future they failed to take appropriate measures to avoid risks, the State might be liable for that failure.
In the case of Osman v UK, the court had this to say (on the police): "It must be established... that the authorities knew or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal acts of a third party and that they failed to take measures which were in the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk."
Osman v the United Kingdom, overturned a House of Lords ruling on police immunity from actions for negligence. The judgment said individuals should have access to the courts to hold the police accountable for the "actions and omissions".