Meanwhile 4 years ago an Arab man raped a toddler nearly to death at a public pool and a Judge dismissed it because "he had a sexual emergency and his culture said it was a okay."
But nah, gotta lock up near hundred year old women.
That is not at all what happened.
The case has some questionable aspects, but what you're saying has very little relation to the reality of the case. Firstly, it was an Austrian case, so the comparison to the German case has little relevance with regards the relative state of jurisprudence you seem to be reaching for. The case in question is probably the
Vienna swimming pool rape.
The 20 year old Iraqi raped a 10 year old, the son of a Serbian refugee. He did claim it was necessary because he had not had sex for four months, and he acknowledged it was not acceptable in any countries laws to rape a 10 year old. He was sentenced to six years, to pay compensation, and to face deportation after he served his time. He appealed, and the compensation was increased, as was the sentence, although the specific charge of rape was overturned, because it wasn't possible to prove to the appropriate legal standard that his victim did not consent. Bearing in mind that this is a high burden, which is established devoid of emotional context, and was overturned potentially due to prosecutorial mistakes.
His conviction for aggravated sexual assault was upheld, and the sentence increased. His sentence was revised downwards later. Looking at the translated source from the wiki link, this was done because his conviction for Aggravated Sexual assault would not generally have gotten the incarceration sentencing that it did, and there were mitigating factors that precedent would require were taken into account. In this case a confession with clearly expressed remore, no previous convictions, and relative youth. He was still required to pay compensation.
I don't think it was right, and he is a candidate for the death penalty if I have ever seen one.
Regardless, what you actually said is complete fiction, rendered meaningless when given the reality of the case, although the reasoning of the final Judge has some relevance, in that he compares being part of campaign of sustained abuse and violence, to a singular event, and how the law treats such things differently.
In this case it's less about the cannot let bygones be bygones, and more of the fact that they had her in court nearly forty years ago. She was not an unknown to the German government, she testified against people who led the camp. They have had over half a century to nab her if they thought she was both guilty and worthwhile. So why would a woman nearing a century in age who did not wield a weapon and had no hand in policy making be the person you'd want to make an example of?
She is being prosecuted now because
the legal precedent was relatively recently set to allow her to be prosecuted, from a purely legalistic perspective, and they have been working their way down from people who pulled triggers, and sent orders, to those who might be considered complicit rather than directly responsible. The Germans have been revising their laws as time passes, originally because of statutory limitations on crimes. This was extended specifically for murder several times, to target various Nazi's.
So when she was in court forty years ago, there was probably no motivation to prosecute, with bigger fish around, and potentially no legal precedent.
It shouldn't be ignored that in Germany, making sure they do everything to separate themselves in every sense from Nazi era Germany is something they are very keen to do, whereas it might not be for another nation, as well as it being a nice bonus for someones career.