The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal
In early October 1945, the four powers victorious after the Second World War issued an indictment against 24 men and six organizations. Fifty years ago the Prosecution's opening statement was read by Associate United States Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson. Just eight months prior to that reading, the very building in which the historical trial took place was "an enemy fortress in the hands of German troops" The Nuremberg Trials are historically significant because they represent the first time leaders of a defeated nation were prosecuted in the name of International law- the first time such leaders were actually given a chance to plead for their lives in a tribunal setting.The charges pertaining to the six organizations were designed around the problem of what to do with the hundreds of thousands of people who had been members of organizations such as the SS and the Gestapo. To indict an organization raised an important legal question regarding the legitimacy of creating a system whereby one could be found guilty based solely on proof of his association with that organization. The idea behind creating such a system was to find these organizations to have been criminal, and then to later hold hearings t
There was little doubt in the minds of the defense or the prosecution that the essence of the Nazi Regime's culpability had been proven. Frank's testimony was labeled a 'cheap and dramatic confession' by Justice Biddle, et al. As their defensive strategies were chiefly to minimize their personal involvement in the whole affair, each defendant that testified attempted to dissociate himself from the rest. The CrimesThe charges of counts one and two revolve around the concept of aggressive war, its planning and execution, respectively. Plans, prepares, initiates, or wages a war of aggression ORii. There was, in fact, so much evidence, that the court was belabored to hear it all, and several times noted that a certain point had already been made satisfactorily in order to avoid getting lost in the sea of paperwork. Unfortunately none of these particular offenses were directly discussed in our class. Due to the fact that all of this evidence was seized from and created by the Germans, its authenticity was never really in question. When the statute mentions what offenses constitute crimes of war, words such as murder, killing, wanton destruction, and plunder appear. Among the evidence provided to the Tribunal were correspondence to and from the Fuehrer, as well as records kept by the concentration camps of Jews killed and experimented with. o determine to what extent a member was guilty. Each of these terms carries with it a definition that details the requisite Mens Rea for that offense.
Common topics in this essay:
Issues Conspiracy,
Chief Prosecutor,
Military Tribunal,
Hans Frank,
Nazi Regime's,
Mens Rea,
World War,
Facto Laws,
SS Gestapo,
Nuremberg Trials,
aggressive war,
count indictment,
common plan,
waging aggressive war,
waging aggressive,
treaties agreements assurances,
international treaties,
treaties agreements,
agreements assurances,
conspiracy wage aggressive,
mens rea,
violation international treaties,
specific intent,
war violation international,
intent crime,
|
Acceptance Essays
