On the other hand, you will find the lives of individuals, their bodily safety, the respect and esteem of their personality, their liberty and the free expression of their will, certainly legal values of no less high value. There may have been hundreds of victims. But it was a meager number in comparison with the multitudes that Hitler, Himmler, and their accomplices had already murdered and continued murdering. My question runs: Which of the two contending legal values is more valuable from the point of view of proportion? I am far from excusing the ghastly crimes that happened in the concentration camps or even minimizing them, but with all my abhorrence for them I cannot help answering: The protection of civilization and humanity deserves preference over the life and health of individuals, deplorable as the inevitable sacrifices may be. So finally it was necessary, absolutely requisite, to put up with the violation of the less valuable legal values and to rescue the more precious, the whole. Sievers’ remaining at his post in the Ahnenerbe was absolutely necessary for the removal of Himmler. Of course it would not be difficult to state _post festum_ that Sievers could have acted differently, that he ought not have advanced thus far. But up to now nobody has been able to tell us _how_ he should have acted. Even the public prosecutor did not try to make a concrete proposal. * * * * * _EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT HOVEN_[5] * * * * * In two further parts of my closing brief I dealt with the killings which Dr. Hoven either undertook himself or which were undertaken with his knowledge. In part (b) of the closing brief, I stated that these killings had no connection with the euthanasia plan. I further stated that it can be considered proved that Dr. Hoven killed only two prisoners himself, and that about 50 or 60 prisoners were killed by order of those responsible for the German and foreign political prisoners with the knowledge of Dr. Hoven. I have set forth a legal evaluation of these killings in a further paragraph under (e) of the closing brief. The legal arguments as set forth in the closing brief are taken from the work of the well-known American criminologist Wharton, _Criminal Law_. The first part of this argument contains, under (e), the literal quotations from this book. According to common law, the killing of a man can be either murder, manslaughter, excusable homicide, or justifiable homicide. Excusable homicide and justifiable homicide are not punishable.