‘…it is often argued that trials involving genocide or crimes against humanity are less about judging the person than about establishing the truth of the events.’
‘In nearly all the criminal prosecutions concerned with crimes against humanity committed during or after World War II, some observers have doubted the ability of the criminal law to deal with the events precisely in view of their enormous moral, historical, or political significance.’
Show Trial v. The Need for Justice to be Done in the Public Realm
Hausner's intention was to not only demonstrate Eichmann's guilt but to present material about the entire Holocaust, thus producing a comprehensive record. In addition to wartime documents, material presented as evidence included tapes and transcripts from Eichmann's interrogation and Sassen's interviews in Venezuela. In the case of the Sassen interviews, only Eichmann's hand-written notes were admitted into evidence.
Some of the evidence submitted by the prosecution took the form of depositions made by leading Nazis. The defence demanded that the men should be brought to Israel so that the defence's right to cross-examination would not be abrogated. But Hausner, in his role as Attorney General, declared that he would be obliged to arrest any war criminals who entered Israel.
Moshe Landau, the presiding judge, did his best to prevent it from becoming a show trial. However, the prosecutor’s had a love of showmanship.
The Israeli government arranged for the trial to have prominent media coverage. Many major newspapers from all over the globe sent reporters and published front-page coverage of the story. Eichmann sat inside a bulletproof glass booth to protect him from assassination attempts.
A cage / a di...
... middle of paper ...
...void a show trial, the accused must be allowed to speak. But this creates the risk of the trial turning into a propaganda show.’ ‘One of the reasons for setting up a Military Court instead of an ordinary civil procedure is precisely to avoid such embarrassment.’
“As the ICJ observed in its Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons opinion in 1996, article 6 of the Convention on Civil and Political Rights prohibits only the “arbitrary” taking of lives and it cannot be determined whether the death of innocent civilians in some situation is an atrocious crime or an inevitable by-product of action that was necessary to protest some more fundamental interest.”
“But as soon as the law tries to make an assessment about that larger interest, and evaluate the relevant contextual data, it will move onto an area of indeterminacy and political conflict.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence against Eichmann, he remained concrete in his defense of himself. He played off his responsibility as something he was merely told to do and that he "condemn[s] and regret[s] the act of extermination of the Jews." A far cry in a distant world, falling on dead ears.
Adolf Eichmann was a German Nazi SS-Obersturmbannführer. He was in charge of arranging the mass deportations of Jews to the extermination camps. After his capture, Nazi war criminal, Eichmann was taken to trial for the mass murders of the Jews. The attorney general in charge of the case signed a bill of indictment against Eichmann on 15 counts, including crimes against the Jewish people as well as crimes against humanity. The Nazi trials provoked international interest, which led to world news. Arendt attended the majority of Eichmann's district court sessions where she recorded what she witnessed and later formed her own testimonials.
“ Hitler used propaganda and manufacturing enemies such as Jews and five million other people to prepare the country for war.” (Jewish Virtual Library), This piece of evidence shows Hitler’s attempt of genocide toward the Jewish race a...
The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many ways challenged earlier works like Christopher Browning’s “Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland” which arguably gives a more complex explanation for the motives of the perpetrators placing the emphasis on circumstance and pressure to conform. These differing opinions on why the perpetrators did what they did during the Holocaust have led to them being presented in very different ways by each historian. To contrast this I have chosen to focus on the portrayal of one event both books focus on in detail; the mass shooting of around 1,500 Jews that took place in Jozefow, Poland on July 13th 1942 (Browning:2001:225). This example clearly highlights the way each historian presents the perpetrators in different ways through; the use of language, imagery, stylistic devices and quotations, as a way of backing up their own argument. To do this I will focus on how various aspects of the massacre are portrayed and the way in which this affects the presentation of the per...
The atrocities of the Belgian Congo and the Holocaust are two of the main events in history that have been responsible for the mass murdering of millions of people. Although these events significantly changed the course of humanity, and the story behind each one is very different, there are significant factors that make them alike as well as different. Many would agree that comparing two atrocities that affected the lives of so many people and gave a 180-degree turn to each of their countries would be something very difficult to achieve. However, by comparing the behavior of both the perpetrators and the victims of both cases we might be able to further understand the lack of morality and the inspiration that led to these awful events. The perpetrators in both atrocities tended to have a similar pattern of behavior when it came to the way they saw their victims. But, they also acted in ways where you can draw the conclusion that one set of events was not inspired by the other. These two sets of atrocities were reported to have a very similar number of victims. However, the Holocaust is one of the most reminded events in history as a period of shame, tragedy and sadness, while many still ignore the atrocities in the Belgian Congo.
Linder, Douglas. “The Trial of Bruno Hauptmann.” Jurist Law. Jurist, 2002. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. Oxford, Edward. "The Other Trial Of The Century." American History 30.3 (1995):
“The Holocaust is the most investigated crime in history, as has often been pointed out in response to deniers. Eichmann may be that crime’s most investigated criminal” (Sells, Michael A.). Adolf Eichmann was one of the head Nazis. He had a lot of authority in enacting what Hitler had told the Nazis to do. He was just about as responsible as Hitler was for killing all of those innocent
There’s a lot to know about the holocaust. The biggest DISCREPENCY was what happened to the Nazi soldiers who were involved in the holocaust? “It was entitled the Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal, which tried the most important leaders of Nazi Germany,” ("Nuremberg Trials Project -- Introduction"). The Nuremberg Trials had a huge effect on the aftermath of World War II. This was the solution to punish the war criminals for what they’ve done. While it didn't get everyone tried, it got a very large portion of the higher ups of the Nazi regime. The Nuremberg Trials was a great precedent to be looked at and has created a bond between the Great Nations of the United States, the British, Soviet Union and the French.
SAINATI, TATIANA E. "Toward A Comparative Approach To The Crime Of Genocide." Duke Law Journal 62.1 (2012): 161-202. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Nov. 2013
The Holocaust had lasting effects on the relationship between the individual and society. Society put individual Nazis on trial for the actions they took in the Holocaust during World War II. The main trial was the Nuremberg trial and there were other subsequent trials as well. These trials were essential in showing the concern that justice and fairness should prevail for the victims. Therefore, the trials that took place after the Holocaust, especially at Nuremberg, involve and impact society as well as the lives of many people.
Throughout Denial, Lipstadt and her legal team are shown collecting evidence and talking about why even though there was no photographic proof of the Holocaust, it happened. It was interesting to see her opponent, David Irving, struggle to combat her facts with his idea of reality. One exceptional example of this is when Rampton talks about the gassing chambers
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
With the suspect apprehended there was still the trial to go through. As soon as Hauptmann was taken into custody some samples of his writings were flown to Washington D.C., where a comparison of the samples to the ransom notes could be made. Through a comparison of several of Hauptmann’s sample writings found in his home and the thirteen ransom notes, it was concluded that Hauptmann was the same person who wrote the notes. Other circumstantial evidence was also compiled. The case went to the Supreme Court where Hauptmann was ultimately sentenced to death for his crimes (FBI, 2010).
The Nuremberg Trials is considered being both a step forward in for society as it brought the birth of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. However, the tribunal was a step back for society, this is because the Allies implicitly designed it to be a show of ‘Victor’s Justice’.
...the trial, and those involved in the plot. The defendants were convicted, and most of them were executed at Berlin's prison.