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
The proof in this case has demonstrated beyond all doubt that so-called
criminals sentenced to death were very rarely used in any of the
experiments. True it is that Himmler said prisoners condemned to death
should be used in those high-altitude experiments where the
long-continued activity of the heart after death was observed by the
experimenters. He was generous enough to say that if such persons could
be brought back to life, then they were to be “pardoned” to
concentration camp for life. But even this unique amnesty had no
application to Russians and Poles, who were used exclusively in those
experiments.
But, assuming for the moment, that this alleged defense might have a
mitigating effect under some circumstances, it certainly has no
application to this case. Be it noted that this is an affirmative
defense by way of avoidance or mitigation. There has been no proof
whatever that criminals sentenced to death by an ordinary court could
possibly be executed in a concentration camp. Such matters were within
the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice, not Himmler and the SS. The
experimental subjects we are dealing with are those that Himmler could
condemn by a “stroke of his pen.” If the inmate used in the experiments
was condemned for merely being a Jew, Pole, or Russian, or, for example,
having had sexual intercourse with a Jew, it does not answer the
criminal charge to say that the victim was doomed to die.
Experimentation on such a person is to compound the crime of his initial
unlawful detention as well as to commit the additional crime of murder
or torture. As has been said by another tribunal, “Exculpation from the
charge of criminal homicide can possibly be based only upon bona fide
proof that the subject had committed murder or any other legally
recognized capital offense; and, not even then, unless the sentencing
tribunal with authority granted by the state in the constitution of the
court declared that the execution would be accomplished by means of a
low-pressure chamber.”[10]
In this connection, it might be noted that German law recognized only
three methods of execution, namely, by decapitation, hanging, and
shooting. (_German Penal Code, Part I, Section 13; Reichsgesetzblatt
[Reich Law Gazette], 1933, Part I, p. 151_; _Reichsgesetzblatt 1939,
Part I, p. 1457_.) Moreover, there is no proof that any of the
experimental subjects had their death sentence commuted to any lesser
degree of punishment. Indeed, in the sulfanilamide crimes it was the
experiment _plus_ later execution for at least six of the subjects.
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account