|
The
Eichmann Trial - Proceedings: The 15 Charges ..............................................................
Charges
from the court transcript:
Clerk of the Court: Criminal Case No. 40/61. The Attorney
General versus Adolf Eichmann, the son of Adolf Karl Eichmann. On
behalf of the prosecution, Mr. Gideon Hausner, Attorney General,
Dr. Ya'akov Robinson, Assistant to the Attorney General, Mr.
Gabriel Bach, Mr. Ya'akov Baror, Mr. Zvi Terlo --Assistant State
Attorneys; the Accused in person and his Counsel, Dr. Robert
Servatius.
Presiding Judge: Adolf Eichmann, are you Adolf Eichmann, the son
of Adolf Karl Eichmann?
Accused: [standing] Yes.
Presiding Judge: Are you represented in this trial by Dr. Robert
Servatius and by Mr. Dieter Wechtenbruch?
Accused: Yes.
Presiding Judge: You are accused before this Court in terms of an
indictment containing 15 counts. I shall read the indictment to
you and this indictment will be translated for you into German.
This is the indictment against you on behalf of the Attorney
General.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIRST COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against the Jewish People, an offence against Section
1(a)(1) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law,
5710-1950 and Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) The Accused, during the period from 1939 to 1945, together
with others, caused the deaths of millions of Jews as the persons
who were responsible for the implementation of the plan of the
Nazis for the physical extermination of the Jews, a plan known by
its title "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question."
(b) Immediately after the outbreak of the Second World War the
Accused was appointed to be the head of a Section of the Gestapo
in Berlin the functions of which were to locate, deport and
exterminate the Jews of Germany and of the other countries of the
Axis as well as in the areas which the Axis States had occupied.
The Section bore, in succession, these identification numbers:
IVD4; IVB4; IVA4.
(c) Instructions for carrying out the plan of extermination in
Germany were given directly by the Accused to local headquarters
of the Gestapo, whilst in Berlin, Vienna and Prague the Accused's
instructions were given to the central offices (Zentralstelle für
Jüdische Auswanderung) for the administration of which he was
personally responsible until their dissolution, shortly before the
end of the Second World War.
(d) In the areas of German occupation the Accused operated through
the offices of the commanding officers of the Security Police and
the SD and the persons specifically responsible for Jewish affairs
who were appointed from amongst the personnel of the Accused's
Section in the Gestapo, and who were subject to his directives.
(e) In the countries of the Axis and the occupied areas, the
Accused made use of the offices of Germany's foreign
representatives in each individual place, and he did so in
constant liaison with the special departments of the German
Foreign Ministry in Berlin which dealt with matters concerning
Jews. In these representative offices advisers were appointed
subject to his directives.
(f) The Accused together with others perpetrated the extermination
of Jews, inter alia, by means of putting them to death in
concentration camps, the purpose of which was mass murder, of
which the more important ones were:
Auschwitz: Millions of Jews were exterminated here, commencing
from the year 1941 and until the end of January 1945, in gas
chambers, in incinerators, by shooting and by hanging. The Accused
directed the commanders of this camp to use the gas Zyklon B and
during the years 1942 and 1944 actually took steps to ensure the
supply of a quantity of gas for the purpose of exterminating Jews.
Chelmno: This extermination camp was operated from the beginning
of November 1941 until the beginning of 1945, and in it, inter
alia, poisonous gases were used.
Belzec: This extermination camp was operated from the month of
March 1942 until October 1943, and in it poisonous gases were
used, among other means of extermination.
Sobibor: This extermination camp was operated from the month of
March 1942 until October 1943, and in it were installed, inter
alia, five rooms built of stone into which poisonous gases were
introduced.
Treblinka: This extermination camp was operated on 23 July 1942
and until the month of November 1943. Here too, inter alia,
poisonous gases were used.
Majdanek: This extermination camp was operated from the year 1941
until the month of July 1944, and in it, inter alia, poisonous
gases were used.
(g) Immediately following the invasion of the German Army into
Poland, in September 1939, the Accused carried out acts of
expulsion, the uprooting of populations, and extermination which
were coordinated with massacre units mobilized from the ranks of
the German Security Police and the SS and called by the name
Einsatzgruppen ("Operation Units"). Such units operated
also after the invasion of the Soviet Union in the year 1941, and
advanced in the wake of the German Army. They received their
orders directly from the "Head Office for Reich
Security" (RSHA) and operated in collaboration with the
Accused in the extermination of Jews, each within the area of its
authority. The Units were made to act especially on the Jewish
Sabbath and Festival Days -- dates which were selected for the
massacre of Jews. These Units exterminated hundreds of thousands
of Jews in the German area of occupation in Poland.
(h) Before the invasion of the German Army into the regions of the
Soviet Union and the Baltic countries, Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia, which were annexed to her, four Operation Units were
organized by the Head Office for Reich Security (RSHA) working in
collaboration with the Accused in the extermination of the Jews in
the aforementioned regions in that part of Poland which had been
annexed to the Soviet Union after September 1939. The acts of
these Units included, inter alia, the following operations:
Operation Unit "A" put to death in the course of the
first four months of the German Army's invasion into the
aforementioned regions:
Lithuania: over 80,000 Jews;
Latvia: over 30,000 Jews;
Estonia: about 470 Jews;
Belorussia: over 7,600 Jews;
Russia: about 2,000 Jews;
The province of Tilsit: about 5,500 Jews.
A total of over 135,000 Jews.
Operation Unit "B" up to 14 November 1941 exterminated
upwards of 45,000 Jews in Belorussia and other zones.
Operation Unit "C" up to 3 November 1941 exterminated in
the Ukraine more than 75,000 Jews -- and amongst them about 33,000
Jews of Kiev.
Operation Unit "D" exterminated about 54,000 Jews up to
12 December 1941.
During the period August to November 1942, these Operation Units
exterminated approximately 363,000 Jews. These Operation Units
dealt on this scale and with this objective in the aforementioned
areas in the extermination of the Jews, beginning from June 1941,
and until the year 1944, and exterminated hundreds of thousands of
Jews in addition to those previously specified.
(i) At the end of the year 1941, the Accused gave orders to deport
thousands of Jews from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia (the
Protectorate) to ghettos in Riga, Kovno and Minsk. These Jews were
exterminated -- and amongst others --
(1) A transport of these Jews from the Reich (Germany) was
murdered on 30 November 1941 together with about 4,000 Jews of
Riga.
(2) About 3,500 Jews from Germany who were sent to Minsk as
mentioned, upon the orders of the Accused, were liquidated by an
Operation Unit in Belorussia, together with 55,000 Jews from
amongst the residents of the area.
(j) The Accused, together with others, caused the deaths of
thousands of Jews between the years 1940-1945 in forced labour
camps which were administered under a concentration camp regime
and where Jews were enslaved, tortured and starved to death in
Germany and the countries it conquered.
(k) The Accused, together with others, caused the deaths of
additional hundreds of thousands of Jews between the years
1939-1945 by means of mass deportations and the assembly of the
Jews in ghettos and other places of concentration, which were
implemented under cruel and inhuman conditions in Germany and the
other countries of the Axis, and also in the occupied regions,
namely in the following countries:
Germany, Austria, Italy, Bulgaria, Belgium.
The Soviet Union and the Baltic countries Lithuania, Latvia and
Estonia which were annexed by her, and that part of Poland which
had been annexed to the Soviet Union after September 1939.
Denmark, Holland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Greece, Luxembourg, Monaco,
Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, and Romania.
(l) The Accused caused the deaths of approximately half a million
of the Jews of Hungary by means of their mass deportation to the
extermination camp at Auschwitz and other places during the period
between 19 March 1944 and 24 December 1944 when he was serving as
Head of the "Eichmann Special Commando Unit" (Sondereinsatz-kommando
Eichmann) in Budapest. (m) The Accused carried out all the acts
detailed in this count with the intention of destroying the Jewish
People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECOND COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against the Jewish People, an offence against Section
1(a)(1) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law,
5710-1950 and Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) The Accused, together with others, subjected many millions of
Jews to living conditions which were likely to bring about their
physical destruction, during the period 1939 to 1945 and to this
end operated in Germany and the other countries of the Axis, in
the areas of their occupation and also in areas which were in
practice subject to their authority. In the said period and by
virtue of his functions mentioned in the First Count, and in order
to implement "The Final Solution of the Jewish Question"
he acted in the following ways:
Enslaving them in forced labour camps
Placing and keeping them in ghettos
Driving them into transit camps and other places of concentration
Their deportation and their mass transportation under inhuman
conditions
And all of this was done by the Accused for those same objectives,
by the same methods of operation and in the same places as
described in the First Count.
(b) The Accused carried out these acts with the intention of
destroying the Jewish People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against the Jewish People, an offence against section 1
(a)(1) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-
1950, and section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) During the period of Nazi rule, the Accused fulfilled
functions in the Security Service of the SS (SD) for dealing with
Jews, according to the plan of the Nazi Party (NSDAP). These
functions were amalgamated after the outbreak of the Second World
War with the functions of the Department in the Gestapo described
in the First Count and which was headed by the Accused.
(b) Throughout that entire period the Accused, together with
others, caused grave harm to millions of Jews, physically and
mentally, in Germany and in the other countries of the Axis, in
the occupied areas and also in the areas which in practice were
subject to their authority in those countries specified in the
First Count.
(c) The Accused, together with others, caused this grave harm by
means of enslavement, starvation, expulsion and persecution,
confinement to ghettos, to transit camps and to concentration
camps -- all this under conditions intended to humiliate the Jews,
to deny their rights as human beings, to oppress and torment them
by inhuman suffering and torture.
(d) The Accused, together with others, carried out these acts by
adopting methods, of which the most important were:
Sudden mass arrests of innocent Jews, without judicial process,
and only because of their being Jews, and their torture in
concentration camps, such as those at Dachau and Buchenwald;
The organization of mass persecution by means of arrests, cruel
beatings, the infliction of serious injury, and torture in
concentration camps, of approximately 2,000 Jews of Germany and
Austria on the night between the 9th and 10th November 1938;
Organizing operations of social and economic boycott of the Jews
and stigmatizing them as a subhuman racial group;
Putting into practice the laws known as "The Nuremberg
Laws" for the purpose of depriving millions of Jews in all
those countries specified in the First Count of their human
rights.
(e) The Accused carried out these acts with the intention of
destroying the Jewish People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against the Jewish People, an offence against Section
1(a)(1) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
5710-1950 and Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) Commencing in the year 1942, the Accused, together with
others, adopted measures calculated to prevent births amongst the
Jews of Germany, and the occupied countries.
(b) The adoption of these measures by the Accused in his official
capacity as Head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the
Gestapo in Berlin was also intended to advance the "Final
Solution of the Jewish Question."
(c) Amongst these measures were;
Instructions by the Accused to Dr. Eppstein, head of the Council
of Elders in the Concentration Camp at Terezin (Theresienstadt) in
the years 1943-44, concerning the ban on births in the camp, and
concerning the termination of pregnancies by means of artificial
abortion in every case and in all stages of pregnancy;
An order of the German police in the Baltic countries in the year
1942 against Jewish women in the Kovno Ghetto forbidding them to
give birth and compelling them to undergo operations for abortion
in every case of pregnancy;
On 27 October 1942 in the offices of the Accused (RSHA) IVB4 in
Berlin, the Accused, together with others, prescribed measures for
the sterilization of persons of mixed descent of the first degree
of Jews in Germany and in the occupied territories according to
the following principles:
(aa) The sterilization would be carried out on the person of the
individual of mixed descent, Jew or Jewess, upon their agreeing to
this in return for the favour of receiving permission to remain
within the borders under the rule of the German Reich;
(bb)The individual of mixed descent would be entitled to choose
between sterilization and deportation to the extermination areas
in the East;
(cc) The authorities were to suggest to individuals of mixed
descent to choose deportation;
(dd) Those choosing deportation would be separated according to
their sex in order to prevent any further births;
(ee) The sterilization would be performed privately and secretly;
(d) In laying down these measures the Accused intended to destroy
the Jewish People.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section 1(a)(2) of the
Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused committed acts, during the period between 1939 and
1945, in Germany and the other countries of the Axis, in the
occupied territories and also in the areas which were in practice
subject to their authority, which are to be defined as crimes
against humanity, when, together with others, he caused the
murder, extermination, enslavement, starvation and expulsion of
the Jewish civilian population in those countries and areas. The
Accused committed these acts in the course of fulfilling his
functions as specified in the first Count.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against section 1(a)(2) of
the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused in committing the acts described in Counts 1 to 5
persecuted Jews on national, racial, religious and political
grounds.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEVENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section l(a)(2) of the
Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) During the period of Nazi rule in Germany and the other
countries of the Axis, in the occupied countries, and also in the
areas which were, in practice, subject to their authority, the
Accused, together with others, caused the plunder of the property
of millions of Jews who were residents of these countries, by
means of inhuman coercion, robbery, terror and torture.
(b) Amongst the Accused's deeds were:
The establishment, organization, and management of the
"Central Office for Jewish Emigration" (Zentralstelle
fur Jüdische Auswanderung) in Vienna, immediately following the
entry of the Nazis into Austria in the month of March 1938 and
until the end of the Second World War, by means of which the
Accused transferred the property of the Jews of Austria and of the
Jewish communities of that state to German control. This property
was in part plundered in order to finance the expulsion of the
Jews of Austria beyond the country's borders and in part
transferred through coercion to the possession of the authorities
by means of terror against the owners thereof.
The establishment of the "Central Office for the Emigration
of Jews" in Prague following the Nazi invasion of
Czechoslovakia in the month of March 1939, and its organization
and management by the Accused, until the end of the Second World
War, according to the model of the Central Office in Vienna.
Through this office a "Special Account" was administered
as a channel for the transfer of the property of the Jews whom the
Accused, together with others, robbed -- within Czechoslovakia and
in other countries.
The establishment of the Central Office for the Emigration of Jews
and for Jewish Affairs in Germany (Reichszentrale) in Berlin in
the year 1939 and its management by the Accused until the end of
the Second World War. By means of this Central Office, following
the example of the Central Office in Vienna, the Accused, together
with others, plundered the property of the Jews of Germany and the
property of their communities by the same means and under the same
conditions as he laid down in respect of the offices in Vienna and
Prague.
By means of collecting forced payments from persons deported from
Germany and the occupied territories, the Accused compelled
hundreds of thousands of Jews to finance their deportation to the
extermination camps and the sites of other concentrations for mass
slaughter. To this end the Accused set up the Special Account
"W" which was at the exclusive disposal of his Section.
The property of the Jews slain in the countries of German conquest
in Eastern Europe was also plundered by their murderers -- the men
of the SS. For purposes of centralizing the act of robbery,
special operations were organized in the years 1942 - 1943 within
the framework of a special campaign for the slaughter of the Jews
of Poland, which was known by the description "Reinhardt
Action" (Aktion Reinhardt). The person in charge of this
special operation was the Senior Commander of the Security Police
and the SD for the district of Lublin. During these two years
property estimated at a nominal value of 200 million marks, but
the actual value of which amounted to several times this sum, was
stolen.
During the Second World War and until shortly before its
conclusion, freight trains were dispatched to Germany every month
from the areas of occupation in the East, containing the movable
property of those murdered in the extermination camps, in the
concentration sites and in the ghettos. This property also
included enormous quantities of parts of the bodies of those done
to death such as hair, gold teeth, false teeth, artificial limbs;
furthermore, every other personal item was plundered from the
bodies of the Jews before and after their extermination.
The Accused, together with others, planned all the operations of
comprehensive robbery so that the property of millions of those
brought for extermination might be taken from them and brought to
Germany. The extent of his success emerges from the fact that,
when at the time of their retreat in January 1945, the Germans
burned 29 stores of personal effects and articles of value out of
35 such stores established in the extermination camp at Auschwitz,
there were found in the stores that were saved from the fire,
inter alia:
348,820 men's suits, 836,255 women's costumes, 38,000 men's shoes.
(c) The Accused carried out the said operations until the end of
the year 1939 by virtue of his special duties in the Security
Service of the SS (SD); and since the end of that year the Accused
merged these duties with his functions in Department IV of the
RSHA.
(d) The Accused carried out the robbery of the property of the
Jews in Germany and in the other territories of occupation, over
and above those already mentioned in this count as aforesaid, by
means of issuing instructions to the local commanders of the
Security Police and to those in the countries of the Axis and the
occupied areas, through the foreign representatives of Germany as
described in the First Count.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EIGHTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
War crime, an offence against Section l(a)(3) of the Nazis and
Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950 and Section 23 of
the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused performed acts, during the period of the Second World
War, in Germany and in the other countries of the Axis and also in
the occupied territories, which are to be defined as war crimes,
when, together with others, he caused the persecution, expulsion
and murder of the Jewish population of the countries occupied by
the Germans and the other countries of the Axis. The Accused
committed these acts in the course of fulfilling his functions as
specified in the First Count.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NINTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section 1(a)(2) of the
Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950 and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused, between the years 1940 and 1942 committed acts in
Poland, which at that time was occupied by Germany, which are to
be defined as crimes against humanity when, together with others,
he caused the deportation of more than half a million Polish
civilians from their places of residence, with the intention of
settling German families in those places. The displaced Poles were
transferred, some to Germany and the territories occupied by her
for the purpose of employing them and holding them under
conditions of servitude, coercion and terror; some were abandoned
in other regions of Poland and the German areas of occupation in
the East; some were concentrated in labour camps organized by the
SS under inhumane conditions; and some were transferred to Germany
and were destined for the purpose of Rückverdeutschung ("Germanization").
The Accused committed these acts of his by virtue of a special
appointment in the month of December 1939, according to which he
was empowered by the Chief of the Security Police in Berlin to act
as the person responsible for the "evacuation" of the
civilian Population.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section 1(a)(2) of the
Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
(a) The Accused committed acts in the year 1941 in Yugoslavia in
parts then occupied by Germany, which are to be defined as crimes
against humanity when, together with others, he caused the
deportation of more than fourteen thousand Slovene civilians from
their places of residence, with the intention of settling German
families in their stead;
(b) The deported Slovenes were transferred to the Serbian province
of Yugoslavia by methods of coercion and terror, and under
inhumane conditions.
(c) The planning of these expulsions was effected by the Accused
at a meeting on 6 May 1941 which took place in Marburg (Untersteiermark)
and to which the Accused invited representatives of the other
authorities dealing with the matter. The expulsion headquarters
continued to be located in that city, and acted in accordance with
the directives of the Accused. The Accused committed these acts by
virtue of his special appointment as mentioned in the Ninth Count.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELEVENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section 1(a)(2) of
the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law 5710-1950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused committed acts during the period of the Second World
War which are to be defined as crimes against humanity in Germany
and the occupied territories when, together with others, he caused
the deportation from their places of residence of tens of
thousands of Gypsies, their assembly in places of concentration,
and their dispatch to extermination camps in the areas of the
German occupation in the East, for the purpose of murdering them.
The Accused committed these acts by virtue of his special
appointment as mentioned in the Ninth Count.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWELFTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Crime against humanity, an offence against Section l(a)(2) of
the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, 5710-l950, and
Section 23 of the Criminal Law Ordinance, 1936.
Particulars of the Offence
In the year 1942 the Accused committed acts which are to be
defined as crimes against humanity when, together with others, he
caused the deportation of approximately 100 children, residents of
the village of Lidice in Czechoslovakia, their transfer to Poland
and their murder there. The Accused committed these acts in the
course of fulfilling his functions in the Gestapo in Berlin.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRTEENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Membership of a hostile organization, an offence against Section
3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
5710-1950.
Particulars of the Offence
The Accused, during the period of the Nazi rule in Germany, was a
member of the organization known by the name of Schutzstaffeln der
NSDAP (SS) and during the course of his service in this
organization attained the rank of SS Obersturmbannführer. This
body was declared a criminal organization in the Judgment of the
International Military Tribunal on 1 October 1946 in accordance
with Section 9 of the Charter of the Tribunal which was attached
to the Agreement of the Four Powers dated 8 August 1945, in regard
to the trial of the major war criminals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOURTEENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Membership of a hostile organization, an offence against Section
3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law,
5710-1950.
Particulars of the Offence
During the period of Nazi rule in Germany, the Accused was a
member of an organization known by the name Sicherheitsdienst des
Reichsführers SS (SD). This body was declared a criminal
organization in the Judgment of the International Military
Tribunal on 1 October 1946 in accordance with Section 9 of the
Charter of the Tribunal which was attached to the Agreement of the
Four Powers dated 8 August 1945 in regard to the trial of the
major war criminals.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIFTEENTH COUNT
Nature of the Offence
Membership of a hostile organization, an offence against
Section 3(a) of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law
5710-1950.
Particulars of the Offence
During the period of Nazi rule in Germany, the Accused was a
member of the Secret State Police (Geheirne Staatspolizei) known
as the "Gestapo" and served therein as Head of the
Department for Jewish Affairs. This body was declared a criminal
organization in the Judgment of the International Military
Tribunal on 1 October 1946 in accordance with Section 9 of the
Charter of the Tribunal which was attached to the Agreement of the
Four Powers dated 8 August 1945 in regard to the trial of the
major war criminals.
Presiding Judge: Did you understand the indictment?
Accused: Yes, certainly
Sentencing
Presiding Judge:
After considering the appropriate sentence for the Accused with a
deep feeling of the burden of responsibility borne by us, we
reached the conclusion that in order to punish the Accused and
deter others, the maximum penalty laid down in the law must be
imposed on him. In the Judgment we described the crimes in which
the Accused took part. They are of unparalleled horror in their
nature and their scope. The objective of the crimes against the
Jewish People of which the Accused was found guilty was to
obliterate an entire people from the face of the earth. In this
respect they differ from criminal acts perpetrated against persons
as individuals. It may be said that such comprehensive crimes, as
well as crimes against humanity which are directed against a group
of persons as such, are even more heinous than the sum total of
the criminal acts against individuals of which they consist.
But at the stage of passing sentence consideration must also, and
perhaps primarily, be given to the injury inflicted on the victims
as individuals, which was implicit in these crimes, and the
immeasurable anguish which they and their families suffered and
still suffer to this very day because of these crimes. For the
despatch of each train by the Accused to Auschwitz, or to any
other extermination site, carrying one thousand human beings,
meant that the Accused was a direct accomplice in a thousand
premeditated acts of murder, and the degree of his legal and moral
responsibility for these acts of murder is not one iota less than
the responsibility of the person who with his own hands pushed
these human beings into the gas chambers.
Even if we had found that the Accused acted out of blind
obedience, as he argued, we would still have said that a man who
took part in crimes of such magnitude as these over years must pay
the maximum penalty known to the law, and he cannot rely on any
order even in mitigation of his punishment. But we have found that
the Accused acted out of an inner identification with the orders
that he was given and out of a fierce will to achieve the criminal
objective, and in our opinion, it is irrelevant even for the
purpose of imposing a punishment for such terrible crimes, how
this identification and this will came about, and whether they
were the outcome of the training which the Accused received under
the regime which raised him, as his Counsel argues.
This Court sentences Adolf Eichmann to death, for the crimes
against the Jewish People, the crimes against humanity and the war
crimes of which he has been found guilty. We shall not impose a
penalty on him for membership of a hostile organization, of which
he was found guilty (see the Criminal Procedure (Trial Upon
Information) Ordinance Section 30(2), last part, and Crim. App.
132/57, 11 Piskei Din , 1544, 1552).
This is the Sentence. You are entitled to appeal against the
Judgment and the Sentence, and if you wish to do so, you must
submit the Statement of Appeal to the office of this Court within
ten days from today and the grounds of appeal within fifteen days
from today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Scottsboro
Trial,".................................................................
Tom
Robinson's trial bears striking parallels to the "Scottsboro
Trial," one of the most famous-or infamous-court cases in
American history. Both the fictional and the historical cases take
place in the 1930s, a time of turmoil and change in America, and
both occur in Alabama. In both, too, the defendants were
African-American men, the accusers white women. In both instances
the charge was rape. In addition, other substantial similarities
between the fictional and historical trials become apparent.
A study of the Scottsboro trials will sharpen the reader's
understanding of To Kill a Mockingbird. Both the historical
trial(s) and the fictional one reflect the prevailing attitudes of
the time, and the novel explores the social and legal problems
that arise because of those attitudes.
First, it is essential to understand the social and economic
climate of the 1930s. The country was in what has been called the
Great Depression. Millions of people had lost their jobs, their
homes, their businesses, or their land, and everything that made
up their way of life. In every American city of any size, long
"bread lines" of the unemployed formed to receive basic
foodstuffs for themselves and their families, their only means of
subsistence.
Many people lived in shanty towns, their shelters made of sheet
metal and scrap lumber lean-tos. All over America it was common to
see unemployed men and women riding the rails, looking for work,
shelter, and food-for anything that offered some means of
subsistence, some sense of dignity. It was a time when even a
full-time employee, such as a mill worker, earned barely enough to
live on. In fact, in 1931 a person working 55 or 60 hours a week
in Alabama and other places would earn only about $156 annually.
The economic collapse of the 1930s resulted in ferocious rivalry
for the very few jobs that became available. Consequently, the ill
will between black and white people (which had existed ever since
the Civil War) intensified, as each group competed with the other
for the few available jobs. One result was that incidents of
lynchings--primarily of African-Americans--continued. Here,
lynching should be defined as the murder of a person by a group of
people who set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner
outside the legal system.
It was in such a distressing social and economic climate that the
Scottsboro case (and Tom Robinson's case) unfolded.
On March 25, 1931, several groups of white and black men and two
white women were riding the rails from Tennessee to Alabama in
various open and closed railroad cars designed to carry freight
and gravel. At one point on the trip, the black and white men
began fighting. One white man would later testify that the
African-Americans started the fight, and another white man would
later claim that the white men had started the fight. In any case,
most of the white men were thrown off the train. When the train
arrived at Paint Rock, Alabama, all those riding the
rails-including nine black men, at least one white man, and the
two white women--were arrested, probably on charges of vagrancy.
The white women remained under arrest in jail for several days,
pending charges of vagrancy and possible violation of the Mann
Act. The Mann Act prohibited the taking of a minor across state
lines for immoral purposes, like prostitution. Because Victoria
Price was a known prostitute, the police were tipped off (very
likely by the mother of the underaged Ruby Bates) that the two
women were involved in a criminal act when they left Tennessee for
Alabama. Upon leaving the train, the two women immediately accused
the African-American men of raping them in an open railroad car
(referred to as a "gondola") that was carrying gravel
(or, as it was called, "chert").
The trial of the nine men began on April 6, 1931, only twelve days
after the arrest, and continued through April 9, 1931. The chief
witnesses included the two women accusers, one white man who had
remained on the train and corroborated their accusations, another
acquaintance of the women who refused to corroborate their
accusations, the physician who examined the women, and the accused
nine black men. The accused claimed that they had not even been in
the same car with the women, and the defense attorneys also argued
that one of the accused was blind and another too sickly to walk
unassisted and thus could not have committed such a violent crime.
On April 9, 1931, eight of the nine were sentenced to death; a
mistrial was declared for the ninth because of his youth. The
executions were suspended pending court appeals, which eventually
reached the Supreme Court of the United States.
On November 7, 1932, the United States Supreme Court ordered new
trials for the Scottsboro defendants because they had not had
adequate legal representation.
On March 27, 1933, the new trials ordered by the Court began in
Decatur, Alabama, with the involvement of two distinguished trial
participants: a famous New York City defense lawyer named Samuel
S. Leibowitz, who would continue to be a major figure in the
various Scottsboro negotiations for more than a decade; and judge
James E. Horton, who would fly in the face of community sentiment
by the unusual actions he took in the summer of 1933.
In this second attempt to resolve the case, the trial for the
first defendant lasted almost two weeks instead of only a few
hours, as it had in 1931. And this time the chief testimony
included the carefully examined report of two physicians, whose
examination of the women within two hours of the alleged crime
refuted the likelihood that multiple rapes had occurred. Testimony
was also given by one of the women, Ruby Bates, who now openly
denied that she or her friend, Victoria Price, had ever been
raped. As a result of this, as well as of material brought out by
investigations and by cross-examinations of the witnesses of
Samuel Leibowitz, the character and honesty of accuser Victoria
Price came under more careful scrutiny.
On April 9, 1933, the first of the defendants, Haywood Patterson,
was again found guilty of rape and sentenced to execution. The
execution was delayed, however; and six days after the original
date set for Patterson's execution, one of the most startling
events of the trial took place: local judge James Horton
effectively overturned the conviction of the jury and, in a
meticulous analysis of the evidence that had been presented,
ordered a new trial on the grounds that the evidence presented did
not warrant conviction. (It is probably not a coincidence that
Judge Horton lost an election in the fall following his reversal
of the jury's verdict.)
Despite judge Horton's unprecedented action, the second defendant,
Clarence Norris, was tried in late 1933 and was found guilty as
charged; but his execution was delayed pending appeal.
During this time all the defendants remained in prison, and not
for two more years was any further significant action taken as
Attorney Leibowitz filed appeals to higher courts. Finally, on
April 1, 1935, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
convictions of Patterson and Norris on the grounds that qualified
African-Americans had been systematically excluded from all juries
in Alabama, and that they had been specifically excluded in this
case.
However, even this decision by the Supreme Court was not the end
of the trials, for on May 1, 1935, Victoria Price swore out new
warrants against the nine men.
Primary documents related to the case afford several avenues of
comparison between the Scottsboro trials and Tom Robinson's trial
in To Kill a Mockingbird. This is in addition to the more obvious
parallels of time (1930s), place (Alabama), and charges (rape of
white women by African-American men). First, the threat of
lynching is common to both cases. Second, there is a similarity
between the novel's Atticus Finch and the real-life judge James E.
Horton, both of whom acted in behalf of black men on trial in
defiance of their communities' wishes at a time of high feeling.
In several instances, the words of the Alabama judge remind the
reader of Atticus Finch's address to the jury and his advice to
his children. Third, the accusers in both instances were very
poor, working-class women who had secrets that the charges of rape
were intended to cover up. Therefore, the veracity or
believability of the accusers in both cases became an issue.
In order to keep straight the people and events in this
complicated case, a brief list of the main characters and a brief
chronology of main events follow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
Trial of Charles I, 1649
..............................................................
Excerpts from the Original Electronic Text at the web site of the
Hanover Historical Texts Project.
On Saturday, being the 20th day of January 1648, The Lord
President of the High Court of Justice with near fourscore of the
Members of the said Court, having sixteen Gentlemen with
Partisans, and a Sword and a Mace, with their, and other Officers
of the said Court marching before them, came to the place ordered
to be prepared for their sitting, at the West end of the great
Hall at Westminster, where the Lord President in a Crimson Velvet
Chair, fixed in the midst of the Court, placed himself, having a
Desk with a Crimson Velvet Cushion before him; the rest of the
Members placing themselves on each side of him upon the several
Seats, or Benches, prepared and hung with Scarlet for that
purpose, and the Partisans dividing themselves on each side of the
Court before them.
The Court being thus sat, and silence made, the great Gate of the
said Hall was let open, to the end, That all persons without
exception, desirous to see, or hear, might come into it, upon
which the Hall was presently filled, and silence again ordered.
This done, Colonel Thomlinson, who had the charge of the Prisoner,
was commanded to bring him to the Court, who within a quarter of
an hour's space brought him attended with about twenty Officers,
with Partisans marching before him, there being other Gentlemen,
to whose care and custody he was likewise committed, marching in
his Rear. Being thus brought up within the face of the Court, The
Sergeant at Arms, with his Mace, receives and conducts him
straight to the Bar, having a Crimson Velvet Chair set before him.
After a stern looking upon the Court, and the people in the
Galleries on each side of him, he places himself, not at all
moving his Hat, or otherwise showing the least respect to the
Court; but presently rises up again, and turns about, looking
downwards upon the Guards placed on the left side, and on the
multitude of Spectators on the right side of the said great Hall.
After Silence made among the people, the Act of Parliament for the
Trying of Charles Stuart, King of England, was read over by the
Clerk of the Court; who sat on one side of a Table covered with a
rich Turkey Carpet, and placed at the feet of the said Lord
President, upon which table was also laid the Sword and Mace.
After reading the said Act, the several names of the Commissioners
were called over, every one who was present, being eighty, as
aforesaid, rising up and answering to his Call.
Having again placed himself in his Chair, with his face towards
the Court, Silence being again ordered, the Lord President stood
up and said:
Lord President: Charles Stuart, King of England; The Commons of
England Assembled in Parliament, being deeply sensible of the
Calamities that have been brought upon this Nation (which is fixed
upon you as the principal Author of it) have resolved to make
inquisition for Blood, and according to that Debt and Duty they
owe to Justice, to God, the Kingdom, and themselves, and according
to the Fundamental Power that rests in themselves, They have
resolved to bring you to Trial and Judgment; and for that purpose
have constituted this High Court of Justice, before which you are
brought.
This said, M. Cook Attorney for the Commonwealth (standing within
a Bar on the right hand of the Prisoner) offered to speak, but the
King having a staff in his Hand, held it up, and laid it upon the
said M. Cook's shoulder two or three times, bidding him hold;
Nevertheless, the Lord President ordering him to go on, he said:
M. Cook. My Lord, I am commanded to charge Charles Stuart, King of
England, in the name of the Commons of England, with Treason and
high Misdemeanors; I desire the said Charge may be read.
The said Charge being delivered to the Clerk of the Court, the
Lord President ordered it should be read, but the King bid him
hold; Nevertheless, being commanded by the Lord President to read
it, the Clerk began. The Charge of the Commons of England, against
Charles Stuart, King of England, Of High Treason, and other High
Crimes, exhibited to the High Court of Justice. . . .
The Charge being read the Lord President replied:
Lord President. Sir, you have now heard your Charge read,
containing such matter as appears in it; you find, that in the
close of it, it is prayed to the Court, in the behalf of the
Commons of England, that you answer to your Charge. The Court
expects your Answer.
The King. I would know by what power I am called hither. . . . by
what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful
Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but
I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and
carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I
know what lawful Authority, I shall answer: Remember, I am your
King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads,
and the Judgment of God upon this Land, think well upon it, I say,
think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a
greater; therefore let me know by what lawful Authority I am
seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer, in the
meantime I shall not betray my Trust: I have a Trust committed to
me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it to
answer a new unlawful Authority, therefore resolve me that, and
you shall hear more of me. . . . I will stand as much for the
privilege of the house of Commons, rightly understood, as any man
here whatsoever. I see no House of Lords, here that may constitute
a Parliament, and (the King too) should have been. Is this the
bringing of the King to his Parliament? Is this the bringing an
end to the Treaty in the public Faith of the world? Let me see a
legal Authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or
warranted by the Constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.
Lord President. Sir, you have held yourself, and let fall such
Language, as if you had been no ways Subject to the Law, or that
the Law had not been your Superior. Sir, The Court is very well
sensible of it, and I hope so are all the understanding People of
England, That the Law is your Superior, that you ought to have
ruled according to the Law, you ought to have done so. Sir, I know
very well your pretence hath been that you have done so, but Sir,
the difference hath been who shall be the Expositors of this Law,
Sir, whether you and your Party out of Courts of Justice shall
take upon them to expound Law, or the Courts of Justice, who are
the Expounders; nay, the Sovereign and the High Court of Justice,
the PARLIAMENT of England, that are not only the highest
expounders, but the sole makers of the Law. Sir, for you to set
yourself with your single judgment, and those that adhere unto
you, to set yourself against the highest Court of Justice, that is
not Law.
Sir, as the Law is your Superior; so truly Sir, there is something
that is Superior to the Law, and that is indeed the Parent or
Author of the Law, and that is the People of England, For Sir, as
they are those that at the first (as other Countries have one) did
choose to themselves the Form of Government, even for justice
sake, that Justice might be administered, that Peace might be
preserved, so Sir, they gave Laws to their Governors, according to
which they should Govern, and if those Laws should have proved
inconvenient, or prejudicial to the Public, they had a power in
them and reserved to themselves to alter as they shall see cause.
. . .This we learn, the end of having Kings, or any other
Governors, it's for the enjoying of Justice, that's the end. Now
Sir, if so be the King will go contrary to that End, or any other
Governor will go contrary to the end of his Government; Sir, he
must understand that he is but an Officer in trust, and he ought
to discharge that Trust, and they are to take order for the
animadversion and punishment of such an offending Governor.
This is not Law of yesterday Sir, (since the time of the division
betwixt you and your People) but it is Law of old; and we know
very well the Authors and the Authorities that do tell us what the
Law was in that point upon the Election of Kings, upon the Oath
that they took unto their People; and if they did not observe it,
there were those things called Parliaments; the Parliaments were
they that were to adjudge (the very words of the Author) the
plaints and wrongs done of the King and the Queen, or their
Children, such wrongs especially when the People could have no
where else any remedy. Sir, that hath been the People of England's
case, they could not have their remedy elsewhere but in
Parliament. . . .
Sir, that road we are now upon by the command of the highest
Courts hath been and is to try and judge you for these great
offenses of yours. Sir, the Charge hath called you Tyrant, a
Traitor, a Murderer, and a public Enemy to the Commonwealth of
England. Sir, it had been well, if that any or all these terms
might rightly and justly have been spared, if any one of them at
all.
King: Ha!
******
The Lord President commands the sentence to be read. Make an O
yes, and command silence while the sentence is read. O yes made.
Silence commanded. The Clerk read the sentence, which was drawn up
in parchment.
Whereas the Commons of England in Parliament had appointed them an
High Court of Justice for the trying of Charles Stuart, King of
England, before whom he had been three times convented, and at the
first time a Charge of High Treason, and other Crimes and
Misdemeanors, was read in the behalf of the Kingdom of England,
etc.
Here the Clerk read the Charge.
Which Charge being read unto him as aforesaid, he the said Charles
Stuart was required to give his Answer, but he refused so to do,
and so expressed the several passages at his Trial in refusing to
answer.
For all which Treasons and Crimes this Court doth adjudge, That he
said Charles Stuart, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer, and a public
Enemy, shall be put to Death, by the severing his Head from his
Body.
After the sentence read, the Lord President said; This sentence
now read and published, it is the act, sentence, judgement, and
resolution of the whole Court.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE
TRIAL OF LOUIS XVI .............................................................
Barere: On January 29, 1792, the Legislative Assembly issued a
decree against factious priests, which you suspended.
Louis: The constitution left me the right of sanctioning decrees.
Barere: You used money from the civil lists to encourage
counterrevolutionary activity.
Louis: I had no knowledge of the projects they were engaged in.
Never did the idea of counterrevolution enter my head.
Barere: Who are those to whom you promised or gave money in the
National and Legislative Assemblies?
Louis: None.
Barere: You reviewed the troops on the morning of August 10 and
extracted from them a personal oath of obedience. This was a
prelude to your proposed attack on Paris.
Louis: I reviewed all the troops who were assembled at the
Tuileries that day. Then the constituted authorities accompanied
me, the department and the mayor. I even asked for a delegation
from the National Assembly, and I finally went, with my family, to
the Assembly.
Barer: Why did you gather troops at the Tuileries?
Louis: All the constituted authorities saw them, the chateau was
menaced, and since I was constituted authority, I had to defend
myself.
Barer: Why was the mayor called to the Tuileries on the night of
August 9, 1792.
Louis: Because of the trouble that was brewing.
Barer: You are responsible for shedding French blood.
Louis: No, Monsieur, it was not I..
When the interrogation was over, after three hours, Barer asked
Louis if he had anything to add.
Louis: I ask to see the accusations and the pieces of evidence
that accompany them, and the right to choose a counsel to defend
me.
After this, Valeza, who refused to stand in the king's presence
and refused to look at him, passed some documents to the King.
Vales: Do you recognize any of these documents as your own
handwriting.
Louis: No .
Barer: Did you build a secret safe in Tuileries?
Louis: I have no knowledge of it.
Barere: I invite you to retire to the conference room, the
Assembly is going to deliberate.
Louis begged for a lawyer to help him, but at this time was
ignored. In a few days he was allowed to look for a lawyer. Louis
was concerned because old friends who had said they wanted to
retire only to be some of the most prominent lawyers just a few
years after his death. Finally Seze was found to represent him.
Barrere: Louis, the French Nation accuses you of having committed
various crimes to re-establish tyranny on the ruins of liberty;
the National Convention has decreed that you shall be tried and
the members who compose it are to be your judges.
President:: You distributed money among the populace for the
treacherous purpose of acquiring popularity and enslaving the
Nation.
Louis: I always took pleasure in relieving the needy, but never
had any treacherous purpose.
Seze: I don't want to play on their feelings. Louis came to the
throne at the age of twenty... he was thrifty, just severe: he
proved himself the constant friend of the people. When the people
desired the destruction of a crippling tax, he destroyed the tax.
When asked for reform in criminal law, to ease the lot of accused
persons, he made these reforms. When the people wished thousands
of Frenchmen to enjoy the civil rights of which they had long been
deprived, he made the appropriate laws. When the people wished for
liberty, he gave it them. He took the lead in making sacrifices,
and yet in the name of this same people you are today
demanding...Citizens, I leave the phrase unfinished; I stop before
History; remember that it will pass judgment on your verdict and
that its judgment will endure.
Louis: I confess that the repeated signs I have given that I love
the people, and my behavior throughout my reign seems to me
abundant proof that I was not afraid to spare any trouble in order
to prevent bloodshed, and forever to banish such an imputation.
Assembly's Sentence Question: Is Louis guilty of plotting against
the Nation's freedom and of a criminal attempt on the general
security of the State?
Verdict: On this question, 749 members were present, 28 were
absent, thirteen abstained, all the others found Louis guilty.
Question: Shall the sentence, whatever it is, be sent to the
people for ratification?
Verdict: On this question a majority of 141 decided against
ratification.
Question: What is the penalty to be?
Verdict:: This question was close. 387 voted for death
unconditionally, 334 for detention or for a suspended death
sentence; a majority of 53 for death...
 |
