Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIVarious
Philosophy
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume II
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
There is evidence that during the summer of 1944 Dr. Varnet conducted
the experiments referred to in Poppendick’s letter. However, the
nationality of the prisoners used for the experiments is not shown, nor
has it been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the experiments were
harmful or caused death, or injury to the experimental subjects.
We have given careful consideration to the evidence concerning the
charges made by the prosecution against the defendant Poppendick.
Certainly the evidence raises a strong suspicion that he was involved in
the experiments. He at least had notice of them and of their
consequences. He knew also that they were being carried on by the SS, of
which he was and remained a member.
But this Tribunal, however, cannot convict upon mere suspicion; evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt is necessary. The evidence is insufficient to
sustain guilt under counts two and three of the indictment.
MEMBERSHIP IN A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION
The defendant Poppendick is charged with membership in an organization
declared criminal by the judgment of the International Military
Tribunal, namely, the SS. Poppendick joined the SS in July 1932. He
remained in the SS voluntarily throughout the war, with actual knowledge
of the fact that that organization was being used for the commission of
acts now declared criminal by Control Council Law No. 10. He must,
therefore, be found guilty under count four of the indictment.
With reference to the nature of punishment which should be imposed under
such circumstances, the International Military Tribunal has made the
following recommendation:
“1. That so far as possible throughout the four zones of
occupation in Germany the classifications, sanctions, and
penalties be standardized. Uniformity of treatment so far as
practical should be a basic principle. This does not, of course,
mean that discretion in sentencing should not be vested in the
Court; but the discretion should be within fixed limits
appropriate to the nature of the crime.
“2. Law No. 10 * * * leaves punishment entirely to the
discretion of the trial court even to the extent of inflicting
the death penalty.
“The De-Nazification Law of 5 March 1946, however, passed for
Bavaria, Greater Hesse, and Wuerttemberg-Baden, provides
definite sentences for punishment in each type of offense. The
Tribunal recommends that in no case should punishment imposed
under Law No. 10 upon any members of an organization or group
declared by the Tribunal to be criminal exceed the punishment
fixed by the De-Nazification Law. No person should be punished
under both laws.”
(_See “Trial of the Major War Criminals,” Vol. 1, p. 257._)
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account