NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
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 Prosecutions 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 to determine to what extent a member was guilty.
The indictment alleged four counts of wrongdoing: Count One- Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War, Count Two- Waging Aggressive War, or Crimes Against Peace, Count Three- War Crimes, and Count Four- Crimes Against Humanity. Conspiracy, although we didnt talk about it in class, was mentioned as a specific intent crime; that is, the intent to commit the crime cannot be inferred merely because of acts that were undertaken by the defendant. Considering this in the context of the Nuremberg defendants, to prove that each of the twenty-one men involved individually had the requisite intent to conspire to commit aggressive war would be difficult. Solely demonstrating that they were all involved in the planning is not enough.
It must also be shown that their acts were done with the intent that they succeed in waging aggressive war. This count of the indictment would therefore be the most difficult to prove. Count two of the indictment cites the actual overt act of waging aggressive war. Whereas count one charged that there was a common plan, count two charges that there was planning and engaging in the plan in order that it may be completed.
The same evidence was introduced to prove both of these counts, since the acts themselves were essential in proving the existence of a common plan. In order to prove specific intent with respect to the above charges, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendants acted with knowledge, and purposefully, since this will show that there was intent to do something beyond the actus reus. Furthermore, they must demonstrate that the defendants acted in such a manner with respect to each and every element of the aforementioned crimes. For example, in regards to the crime charged in count one of the indictment, the elements of the crime can be summarized as follows: A person is guilty of conspiracy to wage aggressive war if he: i. Plans, prepares, initiates, or wages a war of aggression ii. Plans, prepares, initiates, or wages a war that is in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances iii.
Participates in a common plan or conspiracy to wage EITHER an aggressive war OR a war that is in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances 2. His purpose in such participation is to further the accomplishment of any of the foregoing. So while in a general intent crime, the burden of proof would include only the first three circumstances listed under element number one, a specific intent crime adds the second element to the burden of proof, and requires that it be shown what the defendants intended to occur as a result of their acts. It would appear that the charges listed in counts three and four of the indictment are, in contrast, strict liability crimes, since there is no direct mention in the statutory language of any Mens Rea.
A closer look reveals that there is indeed a requirement for Mens Rea in these charges. When the statute mentions what offenses constitute crimes of war, words such as murder, killing, wanton destruction, and plunder appear. Each of these terms carries with it a definition that details the requisite Mens Rea for that offense. Unfortunately none of these particular offenses were directly discussed in our class. Indirectly, however, the Nuremberg Tribunal addresses questions of the Equal Protection Doctrine, and Ex Post Facto Laws, as well as the issues of legality discussed early in the quarter: Freedom of Speech, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments. The Nuremberg Defendants treatment of civilians in the territories they occupied embodied all of these issues, and ultimately led to their trial.
Jews were not offered Equal Protection of the Law, were victimized by Ex Post Facto Laws, stripped of their right to free speech, and subjected to cruel and unusual punishments, as an understatement. The examples of these facts are too numerous to discuss here, so will be understood as part of the larger picture. Four committees were organized to handle the investigation and prosecution of the four counts in the indictment. The United States would address count one, the British count two, the Russian and French count three and four jointly. Karl Doenitz, Supreme Commander of the Navy, Hans Frank, Governor-General of occupied Poland, Wilhelm Frick, Minister of the Interior, Hans Fritzsche, Head of the radio division in the Propaganda Ministry, Walther Funk, President of the Reichsbank, Hermann Goering, Chief of the Air Force, Alfred John, Chief of Army Operations, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Chief to Reich Main Security, Wilhelm Keitel, Chief of Staff of the High Command of the Armed Forces, Erich Rather, Grand Admiral of the Navy, Alfred Rosenberg, Minister of the Occupied Eastern Territories Hjalmar Schacht, Minister of Economics, Arthur Says-Inquiry, Commisar of the Netherlands, Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production, Julius Stretcher, Editor of the Der Summer, Constantin von Neurath, Protector of Bohemia and Moravia, Franz von Papen, Chancellor of Germany, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Baldur von Schirach, Reich Youth Leader.
Of the twenty-four indicted, only twenty-one were actually tried. One of the defendants, Robert Ley hanged himself before the trial began. Another, Gustav Krupp, was judged too frail to stand trial. Martin Bormann, private secretary to Hitler, missing and presumed dead, so he was tried in absentia and sentenced to hang if he should ever turn up. After the trial of the 21 individual defendants was concluded, the court heard testimony about the organizations. The six indicted organizations included the SS, Gestapo, Corps of the Political Leaders of the Nazi Party, the SA, the Reichsregierung, and General Staff and High Command of the German Armed Forces.
The last two of these organizations were determined to contained so few members that it was better to try each member individually. The charges of counts one and two revolve around the concept of aggressive war, its planning and execution, respectively. The Nuremberg War Charter details this as illegal and states: "planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing" Count three of the indictment alleges War Crimes, which are defined by the International Military Tribunal for the trial of war criminal...
Free research essays on topics related to: war crimes, armed forces, equal protection, high command, mens rea
Research essay sample on The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal
