Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume IIIVarious
History
Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under control council law no. 10, volume III
Various
Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals, Nuremberg, Germany, 1945-1946; War crime trials -- Germany -- Nuremberg
The inner connection between the afore-mentioned train of thoughts
and the principles _nulla poena sine lege_ and _nullum crimen
sine lege_ is obvious. The question is whether facts constituting
criminality were created after the war by the Charter of the London
Agreement and the Control Council Law No. 10 which, in violation of the
above principles, are applied retroactively to previous acts, which at
the time of commission did not constitute criminal acts. The resulting
cardinal problem will be discussed by the defense.
_VIII. Conclusions_
The great and famous American judge, Oliver Wendell Holmes, said in
1896, “The real reason for a decision are considerations of a political
or social nature. It is erroneous to believe that a solution can be
found solely with the aid of logic or general legal doctrines which no
one contests.” (Quoted from quotation in “Majority Rule and Minority
Rights” of Henry Steele Commager, page 46 of the German translation.)
The defense can but concur in these words. The defense requests that
consideration be given to its train of thoughts as derived from this
attitude, and stated in VI, 3, which are the corollary of similar
thoughts of the prosecution, without the Court having to fear a
misunderstanding concerning the above quotation.
F. Opening Statement for Defendant Lautz[77]
DR. GRUBE: May I begin my opening statement? The prosecution
in its arraignment of Lautz has obviously started from three wrong
suppositions. The first erroneous supposition was that Lautz evidently
was confused with the Ministry official Letz and therefore it was
erroneously assumed that Lautz had also been working in the Reich
Ministry of Justice. Only thus can it be explained why in several
counts of the indictment with which the prosecution is expressly
charging the Reich Ministry of Justice only, Lautz also is mentioned. I
do not want to lose myself in details. That the defendant Lautz never
worked in the Reich Ministry of Justice has been proved without a doubt
by the evidence submitted so far. But I shall furnish further proof
that Lautz did not take part in any of the measures, with which the
Reich Ministry of Justice is charged.
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