Chapter XXXIX: Part VI: Final Regulations (2)

_Whatever man can do to forestall dangers, I have done and shall continue to do in future._

PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-102
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 75

FOUR COMMUNICATIONS, MAY-JUNE 1942, CONCERNING THE
AUTHORITY FOR THE CONFIRMATION OF SENTENCES[247]

1. A Letter from Schlegelberger to Hitler, Enclosing a Proposed Decree
for Hitler’s Signature

The Acting Reich Minister of Justice

Berlin, 6 May 1942

My Fuehrer!

Repeatedly, and finally in the session of the Greater German Reichstag on the 26 April of this year, you expressed that the front and the homeland require the unrelenting punishment of criminals, and that the judgments of the courts which do not meet these requirements cannot be tolerated.[248]

In order to accelerate the setting aside of such decisions, you, my Fuehrer, created the extraordinary objection to the Reich Supreme Court.[249] With the help of this legal resource the judgment against Schlitt, which you mentioned in the session of the Reichstag, was quashed within 10 days by sentence of the Reich Supreme Court. Schlitt was sentenced to death and executed at once. I believe, however, that the desired aim could be achieved even better and quicker if the Reich Minister of Justice, by means of an authority of confirmation, were given decisive influence on the award of punishment.

If you, my Fuehrer, could decide, by signing the attached draft of a decree, to transfer to the Reich Minister of Justice this right of confirmation for cases in which you do not want to decide yourself, the following would be achieved thereby:

The entire administration of penal justice be placed under the supreme control of the Reich Minister of Justice as far as the award of punishment is concerned. He could then achieve an increase of insufficient punishment in every case.

The Reich Minister of Justice would pronounce the nonconfirmation either himself or, more probably, in view of the approximately 300,000 penal sentences per annum, through the presidents of the courts of appeal.

In case of a nonconfirmation, the president of the court of appeal would himself fix the punishment or bring about another judicial decision on the measure of punishment.

The Reich Minister of Justice could, as soon as it is obvious that a criminal court cannot master a case, transfer the matter to another court.

It is guaranteed that the Reich Minister of Justice will immediately be informed about all important criminal matters. The attorneys general who, according to the draft, would have to propose the nonconfirmation, are under his direction. I can absolutely rely on the insight and willingness to serve of the 35 presidents of the courts of appeal. Should they ever lack the necessary severity, I myself would pronounce the nonconfirmation.

Therefore I believe that, if you, my Fuehrer, will agree to the draft, I could assume the responsibility that the punishment awards of the courts will no longer lead to complaints.

Heil, my Fuehrer!

[Signed] DR. SCHLEGELBERGER

[Draft]

Decree by the Fuehrer on the authority for Confirmation in
Criminal cases of 1942.

I

As far as I shall not decide myself, in my capacity as holder of the supreme judicial power, I charge the Reich Minister of Justice to regulate within his jurisdiction the confirmation of sentences passed by special courts and other penal courts. In this connection the following is ordered:

II

I authorize the Reich Minister of Justice to pass on to the presidents of the courts of appeal the right to refuse confirmation to the amount of penalty following a valid judgment upon application of the general prosecutor in as much as such nonconfirmation of the sentence is not pronounced by the Reich Minister of Justice himself.

III

In case the president of the court of appeal denies confirmation of the sentence, he will return the case to the same or another court for another award of penalty. In case it was wrongly denied or disregarded that the culprit was a people’s parasite [Volksschaedling], brutal criminal, dangerous professional criminal or a dangerous immoral criminal, he is also entitled to quash the sentence for award of a just penalty and to pass the case to the same or another court for a new trial and judgment.

IV

Upon demand of the general prosecutor, the president of the court of appeal, by calling in two judges as advisers, can also commute the sentence in free procedure himself.

V

The court to which the president of the court of appeal has passed on the case will, with the aid of the prosecutor, decide by writ or judgment in a proceeding that will be freely determined by itself.

VI

In case of urgent reasons dictated by public interest, the Reich Minister of Justice can pass a pending trial on to another court within his jurisdiction.

VII

The Reich Minister of Justice, in accordance with the Reich Minister and chief of the Reich Chancellery and the head of the Party Chancellery, is entitled to issue instructions for the execution of this decree.

1942
THE FUEHRER

The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery

2. File Memo by Lammers Concerning Discussion with Hitler’s Subject
Decree on Authority for Confirmation of Sentences

To RK. [files] 6832 u. 6833 B.

Fuehrer Headquarters, 11 May 1942

Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer decree on the authority for
confirmation in criminal cases

1. Miss Buege: (_a_) The enclosed letter[250] of the Reich Minister of Justice, dated 6 May 1942, addressed to me and also the enclosed notes of the Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger are to be registered under Rk., (_b_) the original copy of the Fuehrer decree is to be placed into a separate file.

[Handwritten] carried out.

[Initial] BG
11 May

2. I have presented the matter to the Fuehrer on 7th instant and recommended the suggested decree. It seems to me indeed the only and safe way to master insufficient punishment in legal sentences.

The Fuehrer agreed to the decree in principle but could not decide on signing it; moreover, suggested whether it was not appropriate to soon fill in the position of Reich Minister of Justice and to leave the reform in question as well as the other reforms also to the new Reich Minister of Justice.

3. Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger, who visited me here, has been briefly informed by me on 8th instant about the state of the affair. He told me that he had already interested the Reich Marshal [Goering] also in the draft of the decree, and that he [the Reich Marshal] had promised him to speak in favor of the decree.

Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger further stressed the fact that the decree would naturally lose all its value for him if the confirmatory authority would pass to party offices (Party Chancellery, Gauleiter). To that I replied that one could perhaps consider to listen to the party before using the confirmatory authority. With regard to this question on 9th instant, Under Secretary Schlegelberger presented the notes of the same day to me. (Rk. 6833 B). He promised me also to send more material to the case in hand.

4. Office--Please enclose files for the filling of the position of Reich Minister of Justice!

5. To UStS. Kritzinger with the request for consultation conferences for further adaption of this matter. (Support of chief of Party Chancellery, contact with the Reich Marshal.)

[Handwritten]
Rk. 1527 H 41
Mg. Rk. 553 Bg. 41

3. Letter by Bormann Opposing Schlegelberger’s Proposed Decree and
File Note by Lammers Concerning It

[Stamp] Reich Chancellery 8457 B 13 June 1942 Fi [Handwritten] Submitted with Reich Chancellery 7964 B 13 June

NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY

PARTY CHANCELLERY

The Chief of the Party Chancellery

Fuehrer Headquarters
10 June 1942

[Stamp] See affair of 10 June--III C--Ku. [Stamp] Submitted through adjutant [Handwritten] Duly submitted to the Reich Minister 13 June Settled R 15 June

[Initial] F [Ficker]
[Initial] L [Lammers]

To: The Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery Dr. H. H. Lammers Berlin W 8 6 Voss-Strasse

Subject: Draft of a Fuehrer decree concerning the authority for
confirmation [of sentences] in criminal cases

Reference: Your letter dated 21 May 1942--Reich Chancellery
7010 B.

Dear Dr. Lammers:

During the session of the Reichstag held on 26 April 1942, the Fuehrer requested the Greater German Reichstag expressly in consideration of the exigencies of the war, for the authorization to take all measures he deemed expedient without being bound by the existing legal provisions.[251] The Fuehrer’s choice of [expressing his desire] this way shows the importance he imputes to sovereign acts of the State [Hoheitsakten]. It is not proper to limit pronounced sentences--which have a certain effect on legal affairs--in their guiding effect on legal and factual circumstances by questioning their irrevocability through further unpredictable interventions, after all lawfully provided legal resources have been exhausted. This applies to a special degree to the judgments of courts which, in every case, represent a considerable intervention into the personal conditions of the people involved and, moreover, have a certain effect on the entire nation, be it as an intimidation or as a satisfaction with the strong, order-establishing hand of the State. Moreover, the arrangement of the life of the people requires that the further development of legal conditions starts from certain fixed basic conditions which cannot be shaken from any side, and that the security of the law be guaranteed. If the Fuehrer expressly requested the right of direct intervention over all formal legal provisions, then this emphasizes particularly the importance of the modification of a judicial sentence.

The proposal made by the Reich Minister of Justice, however, is likely to obliterate the impression of this authorization, and to impair its importance. However, this would be an inevitable consequence of the transfer of the correcting authority to the presidents of the court of appeal and of the strong decentralization originating thereby. The proposed decree of the Fuehrer would be nothing more than another effort to correct insufficient sentences as has been repeatedly undertaken before by the Reich Justice Ministry. In addition to the analogy provision of article 2 of the Reich criminal (penal) Code, I am especially thinking of the extraordinary objection, the nullity plea, the participation of the public prosecutor in civil proceedings, the public parasite decree, the decree against desperate criminals, and the provisions concerning dangerous professional criminals and immoral criminals.

[handwritten] Justiz 3

Despite all these provisions we were not in the position to silence the complaints on judgment inadequate in consideration of the exigencies of war. We observed again and again how these provisions were applied as mildly as possible, and not at all with the required readiness for responsibility and strictness which actually would have been possible.

It is my conviction that the proposed decree of the Fuehrer will have the same fate as the measures whose execution remained with the administration of justice.

It must be expected that the presidents of the courts of appeal will shrink from an intervention into the independence of the judge, of which they still have the old conception. They will bring the judge concerned on to the right path, not so much guided by their own conviction, but in order to get him to pass a sentence which will satisfy the threatening criticism. Even less, however, can one expect, for the same reason, more rigorously enhanced measures against an obstinate or incapable judge. Therefore, we must not expect the elucidating and guiding decisions hoped for in the material and personal field, the value of which lies first of all in the educational influence on other judges and on the public, but only measures or indications limited to individual cases.

In a formal respect, the following misgiving should be stressed: With the wording provided under paragraphs I and II of the draft, the Fuehrer literally deprives himself to a vast extent of the right of correcting sentences. In all cases which are brought to the Fuehrer’s knowledge only after the president of the court of appeal or the Minister of Justice has decided on the confirmation of a sentence, this decision was taken “by order of the Fuehrer.” Even with regard to the authorization by the Reichstag there would not be any room for the Fuehrer’s decision, since by the proposed decree he would have renounced the authorization legally assigned to him, in favor of the Minister of Justice or even of the president of the court of appeal.

Because of these considerations I am not able to agree with the draft of a Fuehrer decree as suggested by Under Secretary Schlegelberger.

In view of the importance which I assign to these fundamental objections, I have refrained for the time being from showing the additional objections I have to the structure of the decree and its individual provisions.

Heil Hitler!

Yours very truly

[Signed] M. BORMANN
[Typed] (M. BORMANN)

1. During yesterday’s conference with Under Secretary Schlegelberger I informed him of the basic ideas in Reichsleiter Bormann’s letter dated 10 June 1942. Schlegelberger would appreciate a copy of this letter. I do not think that there are objections to this. However, I wish to answer Reichsleiter Bormann’s letter and perhaps make my reply available to State Secretary Schlegelberger.

[Initial] KR [Kritzinger]
26 June

2. a. UStS. Kritzinger
b. RKabR. Dr. Ficker

With request for conference

[Initial] F [Ficker]
26 June

Berlin, 25 June 42

[Initial] L [Lammers]

4. File Memo Noting Postponement of Proposals for Judicial Reform Until
a New Reich Minister of Justice is Appointed

Following report to the Reich Minister [Lammers]

To RK. 8457 B Berlin, 26 June 1942

Subject: Confirmation of sentences in criminal cases

1. The Reich Minister does not consider to pass on the letter written by Reichsleiter Bormann to State Secretary Schlegelberger and intends to discuss the matter orally with Reichsleiter Bormann on occasion.

2. Submitted to the Reich Minister according to instructions. Reichsleiter Bormann’s objections are aiming essentially at two points:

[Initial] L [Lammers]

_a._ He does not expect much from a delegation to presidents of courts of appeal as these would not interfere with sufficient energy;

_b._ He fears the Minister of Justice’s proposal would flatten the impression made by the Fuehrer’s Reichstag speech.[252]

As to the doubts of a more editorial nature expressed at the end of the letter, it should be possible to remove them by another formulation, which will also be necessary for other reasons. This reediting might be taken in hand as soon as an agreement exists on the fundamental points.

3. In file Bormann.

[Initial] F [Ficker]
Turn over

[Reverse side]

1. Discussion with Reichsleiter Bormann took place.

We agreed that further handling of all proposals regarding justice reform must be reserved to the new Minister of Justice.

2. _a._ To UStS. Kritzinger. [Initial] KR [Kritzinger] August 3
_b._ To RKabR. Dr. Ficker. [Initial] F [Ficker] July 31

Who are requested to take notice.

3. To files.

Fuehrer Headquarters, 28 July 42

[Initial] L [Lammers]

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-387 PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 400

REPORT FROM DEFENDANT ROTHENBERGER TO DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER, 4 JULY 1941, CONCERNING CRITICISM OF JUDGES BY THE SS PERIODICAL, THE DRAFT LAW ON “ASOCIALS”, AND THE LACK OF SUITABLE CANDIDATES FOR JUDGESHIPS

The President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal
3130 E-1a/3/ (3x)

Hamburg 36, 4 July 1941

_Registered_

To: Under Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger Reich Ministry of Justice, Berlin

Subject: Report on the general situation

Reference: Your No. Ia 11012/35

I

The article “Mental Black-out” in the “Schwarzes Korps” of 17 April 1941 had a disastrous effect on the morale of the judges; in the last paragraph of this article the actions of the judges are compared with the conduct of a people’s parasite, who takes advantage of the black-out to commit his crimes. If the judges read the correction in the bulletin of the Reich chamber of attorneys of 20 May 1941 and then see there is no vindication of the judges to the public, a further increase of the displeasure among the German judges can scarcely be imagined.

II

I was confidentially informed of the draft of the law of April 1941 concerning the treatment of asocial elements.[253] According to this law the custody of these persons is exclusively in the hands of the Reich Security Main Office, and so the sterilization insofar as the decision of this office as to whether a person is asocial has been declared binding on the eugenics court. I consider so extensive a disregarding of a judicial authority very dubious, and I propose that the local court consisting perhaps of a judge, a physician, and a representative of the police should decide whether an asocial element should be kept in lifelong custody or should be sterilized.

III

Day before yesterday I undertook a careful review of the courts of Bremen, and I learned anew that there is in Bremen a complete lack of suitable younger men to become judges. One of the reasons for this lack was the fact that the customary manner in which lawyers had hitherto applied for the judicial career has been made impossible because only up to 4 years of their activity as attorneys may be included in their service age for purposes of calculating salaries. As the Finance Minister has agreed, for the annexed eastern territories, three-quarters of the period of service as an attorney may be added to the service age for purposes of calculating salaries. I propose that this provision shall also be issued for Bremen, because of the special circumstances. In view of the whole development of the judicial situation in Bremen, I should consider it very regrettable if the Bremen lawyers were deprived of the opportunity of becoming judges.

[Signed] ROTHENBERGER

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-395
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 74

REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF APPEAL IN HAMM, 7 JULY 1942, CONCERNING THE ALARM AMONG JUDGES CAUSED BY HITLER’S REICHSTAG SPEECH OF 26 APRIL 1942, AND CERTAIN ACTIVITIES OF THE GESTAPO AND THE NAZI PARTY AFFECTING LEGAL MATTERS

The President of the Court of Appeal File No. 3130 I

To: The Reich Minister of Justice, Berlin W 8

Hamm (Westphalia), 7 July 1942
Telephone 1780-1786

Subject: General situation, Decree of 9 December 1935--Ia
110/2

Enclosures: 2 copies of the foregoing report.
3 copies of a report by the senior judge of the local
court [at] Haltern, of 22 June 1942.

1. The Fuehrer’s speech at the meeting of the Reichstag on 26 April 1942 has, as far as the administration of justice is concerned, caused alarm among the judges of my district. Uncertainty in the administration of justice was threatening, since the Fuehrer’s reproaches--except in the Oldenburg case, particulars of which were, however, not given either--were held in general terms, and the question on what reasons the Fuehrer based his reproaches could not be answered. As soon as possible, I called together the judges of the court of appeal and informed them, and through the presidents of the district courts, the judges of their courts, and of the local courts that I, too, did not know the reasons for the Fuehrer’s reproaches, but that it was the duty of all of us to examine ourselves earnestly as to the extent to which he was to blame; the judges were to continue to do their duty and were to hold themselves responsible to the Fuehrer and to their own conscience; the sentences passed by the courts of this district have always been severe, except for some cases, and this standard should be kept up in the future. It has been reported to me that my words have had a calming effect; the administration of justice in this district continues to proceed along the proper lines, and according to my observations the standards of sentences have remained the same.

Among the population, the Fuehrer’s critical remarks about the administration of justice have given rise to spitefulness as well as to sympathy for the profession of the judges. At the moment the matter is hardly talked about, but it has not been forgotten. Above all, it is painful for the judges that the number of persons is increasing who do not believe that the judges pass unbiased sentences. In my opinion, endeavors must be made to restore the confidence of the people in the unprejudiced administration of justice. At any rate all things have to be avoided which could further that impression. I have asked the attorney general to take measures to prevent the sentence demanded by the prosecution from leaking out previously. It is quite natural that if it becomes known before the trial that the prosecutor will demand the death sentence with the approval of the Ministry of Justice, it will easily be believed that the judges are prejudiced.

According to my observations, information about the sentence which the prosecutor will propose with the approval of the Reich Ministry of Justice, is disturbing to the judges, even if mentioned only in the course of conversation, which is understandable on account of the authority of the Ministry of Justice and the position of the judges. Even old, experienced judges find their unprejudiced state of mind upset. But according to my observations, the judges are absolutely ready to accept general directives and to follow them in the administration of justice. Therefore, I think it highly desirable that the directives which are issued at the conferences of the presidents of the courts of appeal in the Reich Ministry of Justice as well as those given some days ago at the meeting of the attorneys general in the Reich Ministry of Justice should be submitted in writing to the presidents of the courts of appeal for the information of the judges. I think this will greatly assist the administration of justice.

2. The number of death sentences passed within the area of this court of appeal shows the following development. There were--

1940 27 death sentences.
1941 52 death sentences.
1942 (first 6 months) 45 death sentences.

The increase is due to wartime conditions and to the extension of the sphere of the death sentence by the law of 4 September 1941. Of the death sentences passed this year, 6 were passed for offenses against war economy, 10 for sexual offenses, 8 for crimes of violence, and 20 for theft.

On an average, 5 to 6 weeks elapse between the pronouncing of the sentence and the execution.

3. Since last May, police officials have appeared frequently in the criminal court in order to report to their superior office about the proceedings. The president of the district court at Dortmund has reported the following cases to me:

“(1) In the middle of May 1942, a habitual criminal was
tried before the criminal court and was sentenced to death.
A Kriminalsecretaer [detective] of the local criminal police
attended the trial as an observer. He told the president
himself, and expressly pointed out during the trial, that the
Reich criminal police office had instructed him by teletype to
attend. I heard that this criminal police official telephoned
the prosecuting attorney before the trial and told him that
he could imagine why he had been sent. The official had a
conversation with the prosecutor during the deliberation of the
court. During this conversation he declared that the police
would have no reason to take action if an order for security
detention would be made. He indicated that his presence was
connected with the speech of the Fuehrer. I have neither spoken
to the prosecutor nor have I had any reason to ask for a written
statement. For the president who informed me vouches for the
truth.

“(2) At the end of May, a trial was held before the criminal
court against another criminal who was condemned to death. An
official of the criminal police was summoned as a witness.
Before the opening of the trial this official submitted to
the court a letter from the Reich criminal police office, in
which the local police authorities were requested to inform
that office of the result of the trial--especially whether the
demand for the death penalty, which was to be expected, had been
complied with--and of the mitigating circumstances mentioned
in the court’s findings in the event that a punishment other
than the death penalty be awarded. Unfortunately, the president
failed to take note of the exact contents of the letter. The
official attended the proceedings after having been interrogated
in the witness box.

“(3) At another trial held before the criminal court, at which
the death sentence had been demanded but was not passed, a
criminal police officer who had been summoned as a witness took
the court’s findings down on a sheet of paper.

“(4) An SS member in uniform, holding the rank of a sergeant,
attended a trial before the Special Court in which, among other
persons, the wife of a Landrat was involved. He asked for
permission to be present at the hearing and said that he was
coming from _Kassel_ on behalf of a police or security
authority.

“(5) An official of intermediate rank of the local secret State
police office participated as observer at another out-of-town
trial of the Special Court lasting several days. No further
details are known.

“(6) A detective from Bochum participated as witness at
the trial of a juvenile perpetrator by the Special Court
in Bochum. He compared the penalty imposed by the Special
Court with another penalty--a term of imprisonment for many
years--allegedly imposed the day before by the penal chamber at
Bochum upon a juvenile perpetrator (because of poisoning?). On
this occasion he remarked, with regard to the sentence handed
down by the penal chamber, that the police had but to examine
whether there was a motive, in order to interfere. This remark
was made after the trial.”

4. As the attorney general has already reported to the Reich Ministry of Justice, the Secret State Police recently did not commit two civilian workers from the Ukraine who had shot a forest keeper in the Dortmund district court area to the court for prosecution, although the court had issued a warrant for arrest and the Special Court was prepared for an immediate conviction. They were hanged later on by the secret State Police. Furthermore, it was reported to me by the local court at Haltern that on 19 June 1942 a Polish laborer was hanged in its district by the police because he was said to have had sexual intercourse with a German woman. I enclose a copy of the report dated 29 June 1942. If the rumors are true that the Fuehrer has transferred capital jurisdiction to the police to this extent, it would be desirable to inform the judges and public prosecutors of this arrangement through official channels, as it is assumed that the police are engaged in unauthorized and unlawful activity. Publications in the daily newspapers give the impression that these were executions of sentences which had been legally imposed.

5. The office of racial policy [Rassenpolitische Amt] of the NSDAP issued a treatise on “National Socialistic policy with regard to foreigners” for official use by the Party of which I received confidential information. It contains regulations for marriages between Germans and members of other nations which are of importance with regard to the exemptions of foreigners from the marriage clearance certificates which are subject to the approval of the presidents of the courts of appeal. I propose to ask the office of racial policy to submit this treatise to all presidents of the courts of appeal. Applications for exemptions from marriage clearance certificates have assumed large proportions within my district. The procedure which I have adopted is in accordance with the principles of the treatise “policy with regard to foreigners.”

6. The district of this court of appeal has been very disturbed by air-raid alarms at night during recent months, until about two weeks ago. Air raids occur only occasionally now, keeping within moderate limits. In a number of places the Wehrmacht has started employing male inhabitants to replace the antiaircraft personnel. Older age groups have been trained for this purpose in daily courses from 1900 till 2200 hours. 15 officials and employees of the court of appeal have been detailed for this.

[Signed] SCHNEIDER

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-417
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 23

SUMMARY BY DR. CROHNE OF THE REICH MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
CONCERNING GOEBBELS’ SPEECH TO THE MEMBERS OF THE
PEOPLE’S COURT, 22 JULY 1942

_Report on the Speech of Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels before the
Members of the People’s Court on 22 July 1942_

Reich Minister Dr. Goebbels stated at the outset that he had been asked by President Thierack to address the members of the highest German court of justice. He had gladly complied with this request. What he had to say had a special political aspect owing to the Fuehrer’s approval of his comments, the draft of which he had submitted to the Fuehrer.

The civil servants of the administration of justice had, owing to the nature of their work, always been subject to public criticism. Also today decisions of the courts were criticized and called alien to the spirit of the German people. One must not reply to the reproach that justice had failed by protesting that always only certain cases of wrong decisions had been singled out and the great number of the good and correct judgments had been disregarded. We are dealing here with a principle, i.e., of a wrong attitude of many judges who could not redeem themselves from their old ways of thinking. The one-sided teaching at the universities is to be blamed for it to a considerable extent and also the fact that the judge lived secluded in his professional surroundings and knew too little of life itself. Decisions alien to the spirit of the German people had, however, very detrimental effects especially during wartime. All must be done to remedy the situation before it is too late for the administration of justice. No professional men except the judges had heretofore had the guaranty of being irremovable. Even generals could be removed. A powerful state could not renounce the right to remove officers unsuitable for their office because of inaptness or other reasons. This had to apply to the judge as well. The idea of the irremovable judges he went on to say, originated in an alien intellectual world, hostile to the German people.

The Minister then referred to individual judgments that nowadays were unbearable. He cited in the first instance the case of the Jew Leo Sklarek. (In the Minister’s speech stated by error is the case of “Barmat.”) He could not understand that this notorious Jewish profiteer, who after his emigration to Prague had been a spy, had only been sentenced to 8 years’ penitentiary (the judgment of the People’s Court of justice of 16 April 1942 was delivered for having incited to commit high treason, based on paragraph 92 of the Penal Code). The judgment which the court of Eichstaedt had delivered, in the case of a man killed in action in the East having been insulted, was also untenable. A woman upon receipt of the news of his death who had uttered, “Thank God,” had been acquitted by reason of impossible justification. The Minister also referred to Moelder’s letter.

While making his decisions the judge had to proceed less from the law than from the basic idea that the offender was to be eliminated from the community. During a war, it was not so much a matter of whether a judgment was just or unjust but only whether the decision was expedient. The State must ward off its internal foes in the most efficient way and wipe them out entirely. The idea that the judge must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt must be discarded completely. The purpose of the administration of the law was not in the first place retaliation or even improvement but maintenance of the State. One must not proceed from the law, but from the resolution that the man must be wiped out. The criminal must know beforehand that he will lose his head, should he assault the foundations of the State. These drastic measures must not be left to offices outside of justice but are the duty of justice. The big sacrifices of life which must be made by the best part of the people during the war give us a special reason to treat the offender with all ruthlessness. We must bear in mind that during the winter 1941–1942 every criminal had better billets in the prisons than 3½ million German soldiers. Today we have an entirely different conception of certain offenses which in normal times would not have been considered serious at all, but are now regarded as deserving death penalty; (theft during an air-raid alarm, robbery of handbags during black-out hours, and heavy penalties in cases of listening to foreign wireless stations this action being mental self-mutilation). Justice ridiculed itself by placarding summons to missing persons prior to their being pronounced dead, as everybody knew the missing person in the East or even in any enemy’s country could not report at all.

In this connection the Minister went on to speak about the Jewish problem. He went on to say that if still more than 40,000 Jews whom we consider enemies of the State could freely go about in Berlin, this was solely due to the lack of sufficient means of transportation. Otherwise the Jews would have been in the East long ago. The officers of justice must recognize their political task also while attending to the Jews. To feel sorry for them would be a blunder. It was an untenable situation that still today a Jew could protest against the charge of a president of the police who was an old Party member and a high SS leader. The Jew should not be granted any legal remedy at all nor any right of protest.

In his final comments the Minister pointed out again that the State must apply all means to ward off its foes at home and abroad. During a war it was therefore necessary that the idea of the expedient decision took the first place in justice. The people had to be possessed with the will of absolute self-maintenance. He recalled the words which the Fuehrer had said on 30 January 1933 to him on their way from the “Kaiserhof” to the Chancellery of the Reich upon entering the chancellery, “Nobody will ever get me out of here alive.”[254]

After this speech President Thierack expressed his thanks to the Minister for his fundamental comments and said that the Minister had greatly assisted him once before and asked him to repeat his inspiring and directing instructions also in future.

[Typed] [Signed] DR. CROHNE
23 July

TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NG-071
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 98

SECRET REPORT OF THE CHIEF OF THE SECURITY POLICE AND SD, 3 SEPTEMBER 1942, CONCERNING “THE CONTROL OF PENAL JURISDICTION” AND THE REACTIONS OF JUDGES THERETO

5 September 1942

[Stamp] Reich Chancellery

The Chief of the Security Police and of the SD Office III

Berlin SW 11, 3 September 1942
Prinz-Albrechtstrasse 8

[Stamp] Secret!

Personal--Submit immediately

Reports from the Reich No. 314

1. To be secretly submitted to the attention of the Reich Minister.

[Initial] L [Lammers]
10 September

2. Circulation--
Cabinet Counsellor Dr. [illegible]
Cabinet Counsellor v. Stutterheim
Cabinet Counsellor Dr. Ficker

3. To be filed.

Berlin, 5 September 1942

This report is strictly for the addressee personally and contains news material transmitted unreviewed in order to retain its character of fresh news.

_ADMINISTRATION AND LAW_

_Reports on the Control of Penal Jurisdiction_

Under the impression made by the Fuehrer’s Reichstag speech of 26 April 1942 and by the general criticism of penal jurisdiction, the former leadership of the Reich Ministry of Justice[255] had, according to additional clauses already previously existent, been persuaded to reinforce the so-called control of penal jurisdiction. This control consisted in an extensive participation of the Ministry and of the supervising judicial officials, and presidents of the district courts of appeal and of the district courts in the sentencing-activity of the individual criminal judge on the principle that, especially in criminal cases with a political implication, the judge must receive assistance when pronouncing a sentence. Actually, it involved then a substantial extension of the already existing consultative obligations of the public prosecutor to the Ministry and, on the other hand, the introduction of a consultative obligation in the relations of the courts to the Ministry as well. According to numerous reports from the whole territory of the Reich, these measures have met with an extremely _dissentient reception among juridical circles_. The complete break with the hitherto prevailing conception of judicial independence which the control of penal jurisdiction means, is said to have been, to a certain extent, very unfavorably commented upon within the judiciary. In certain cases, this is even said to have led to outspoken expressions of opinion against the National Socialist State which allegedly wished to suppress judicial independence in order to surrender justice to a right of control by political offices. The origin of this attitude on the part of certain judges in this respect is always the conventional conception of judicial independence according to which the judge was exclusively subordinated to the written law and therefore did not need to follow any directives even of the most general character, that may be issued by the administration of justice with reference to any precise line of conduct in jurisdiction.

_Politically enlightened judges have_ likewise, according to the reports, viewed _the control of jurisdiction with misgivings_. In this, they have indeed not so much perceived a danger to judicial independence, for it was clear to them that its implication up to now, namely, exclusive subordination of the judge to the law, has been deeply altered to suit the National Socialist juridical philosophy, as in the fact that the obligations to the National Socialist ideology must have precedence over the obligations to the law if jurisdiction was not to be in opposition to the political objectives of the nation’s leadership. Since the execution of law in the National Socialist State has important _political_ tasks to fulfill, a certain influence on the judges must be made possible in the form of instruction on important political viewpoints which the individual judge cannot grasp outright by himself.

As reported, however, these judges have likewise given an unfavorable reception to the method of control of penal jurisdiction, for it amounts only to an attempt with inadequate means to solve from a wrongly selected principle _the_ very problem posed to the administration of jurisdiction, namely _the uniform political and ideological_ adjustment of the judge.

The intention of the administration of justice to gain influence on legal jurisdiction through the channel of the Ministry and the presidents of the district courts of appeal and of the district courts was therefore doomed to failure. The indispensable prerequisite for the possible success of such a gain of influence would have been that the officials exercising the control base their action on a unified political principle. As shown by experience, however, this has by no means been the case.

On the whole, the objective pursued by the leaders, who have been at the head of the Reich Ministry of Justice so far, in introducing the control of jurisdiction in order _to reduce_ the far from negligible number of _wrong sentences, can only be reached under certain conditions_. Indeed certain sources of error have been removed with great difficulty. Without active handling of the basic problem of the political and ideological adjustment of the judiciary itself, a real improvement [Gesundung] of the execution of law cannot be expected in the long run.

The following example extracted from a series of similar cases is characteristic of the situation created by the introduction of the control of jurisdiction.

Roaming about at night at his place of domicile for several months, a Polish civilian workman stole from gardens and dwelling places money, numerous articles of underwear and clothing, as well as other articles of daily utility. As the competent special court established, he had carried this out under cover of the black-out.

In line with provisions, introducing reporting as a duty, the president of the competent district court of appeal had brought the case by telephone to the knowledge of the Reich Ministry of Justice. In its reply to the telephone message the Ministry advised the following day that the death penalty would probably not be deemed necessary for the Pole. That in any case the public prosecutor would receive explicit instruction before opening of the court hearing as to the penalty which should be asked against the Pole. The Ministry thereupon instructed the public prosecutor to propose 10 years of particularly rigid confinement in a place of detention. The court ruled accordingly.

As reported, the hypotheses under which this verdict took place, as well as the degree of the sentence itself, met with lively criticism on the part of politically awake lawyers. On the one hand it caused concern that by the direction of the administration of justice in such a manner the judge might from the outset be relieved of personal responsibility for his verdict. In as much as in a very great number of cases it becomes known to the court that the public prosecutor is being supplied with instructions regarding the application in criminal proceedings, it merely needs to comply with the request of the public prosecutor, thereby evading embarrassment which might possibly result from mistrials through reference to the concept of the Ministry. On the other hand, the case as described illustrates that the success of such a control stands and falls with the persons to whom such control is entrusted. If confusion prevails in the Ministry itself as to the line which the administration of justice should follow in regard to the Pole, there naturally is no guaranty that mistrials are excluded through the concept of control. The verdict in the case under consideration must be considered a faulty judgment; because under prevailing conditions there is no justification for the leniency which it expresses on behalf of a Pole who commits crimes under the cover of the black-out.

In connection with this and a series of similar cases reports of judges whom this development fills with serious concern stressed over and over again the _need_ for informing the _judiciary about the great goals of the leaders of the State_. At the present time there is but a comparatively small number of judges who make an earnest endeavor to analyze the State political necessities as such, and the political foundation of the administration of justice. Unfortunately, it has so far been a fact that any civil servant in the administration who has just passed his second state examination in law has been more fully informed about the political goals of the State leaders and the political opportuneness than perhaps any president of a senate.

Also, this circumstance should be recognized as an important reason for the failure so far experienced in the administration of justice. Consequently, there exists a greater need than ever for bringing the judges much closer to the problems of State leadership and of State necessities as they arise newly all the time due to the war.

In the opinion of others, the former heads of the Reich Ministry of Justice likewise failed to fully realize their intent of remedying the lack of judgment of some judges in the case of decisions on penal cases with political aspects by controlling the administration of justice. It was said that in meetings held in the Ministry, the presidents of the district courts of appeal had been instructed to explain in official meetings to the judges under their jurisdiction how serious the situation is which is now encountered in the administration of justice, and in that connection to discuss examples for faulty verdicts, among other things also dealing with such which the Fuehrer himself has criticized. Some of the presidents of the district courts of appeal and of the district courts had discharged this task in such a manner that they manifestly refrained from expressing an opinion of their own, thereby making known that they themselves held a different opinion. This led to increased insecurity on the part of many judges.

An extension of report requirements yielded in some districts results along similar lines. It was partly made compulsory for judges at local courts, for example, to report every case of even moderate import to the president of the district court who on his part passed it on to the president of the district court of appeal and he to the Ministry. In some districts every judge at the local court was held to make a report each session on all cases which had come up. According to another report all judges of a district court of appeal had met to consult on a verdict which a judge of the local court was about to pronounce.

Going by the Fuehrer’s criticism of some individual verdicts, the Ministry occasionally makes reference as to the Fuehrer’s opinion in principle--so it is reported--in regard to certain delinquencies, urging upon the presidents of the district courts of appeal to acquaint their judges with the Fuehrer’s attitude as it more or less was assumed to be. This, too, resulted, in part, in completely confusing the concepts of the judges. To cite an example, a verdict was discussed at a meeting of the presidents of the district courts of appeal held in the Reich Ministry of Justice, according to which a woman, whose child had fallen into a vessel of hot water while playing and scalded itself fatally, had been sentenced to 6 weeks of imprisonment. The Fuehrer criticized that case because the loss of the child was hard enough a punishment for the mother and that, therefore, court proceedings reflected the concept of justice in form but were not in harmony with the natural concept of justice. When this case was passed on by the presidents of the district courts of appeal and of the district courts to the court judges, it was, in part, understood to mean that _in principle_ it was the Fuehrer’s intent that women should be punished very mildly only.

The following case is cited as an illustration of the practical result of an interpretation of the Fuehrer’s will along such lines.--A woman had planned to give to the judge, who was considering a civil complaint made by her, a parcel with foodstuffs, a few days before the case came up in court for a hearing. Thereupon, the judge initiated court action against her because of an active attempt to bribe a judge. Bearing in mind the purported will of the Fuehrer that mild sentences should be imposed upon women and using such will as justification, the instruction was given that the woman was not to be punished at all. Only at a later date was this instruction modified in that it was ruled that a small fine was to be paid.

In connection with these and similar cases it is reported that it is a very doubtful principle to bring to the knowledge of the judges what is merely the purported or assumed will of the Fuehrer. Naturally this is bound to lead to constant conflicts for the judge. Considering things from all angles it is evident from the numerous reports which have come to hand that the so-called _directing of the administration of justice_ met with but a _limited amount of the success_ at which it had aimed. Aside from the numerous doubts which arise as a matter of principle, _the amount of work involved to make this directing practically possible is not commensurate with results so far achieved_. Compulsory reporting, which met with a considerable amount of criticism by the public prosecution even before introduction of the directing policy, has been considerably increased after the introduction of the directing policy and now extends even to the presidents of the district courts of appeal and of the district courts. This is said to have brought about a very considerable delay and burden in work which can neither be reconciled with the simplification and acceleration nor with the number of personnel at this time still available to the judiciary. Over and above this, the duty to submit reports has considerably paralyzed the power of decision and readiness to assume responsibility on the part of the judges, in as much as in many instances they are relieved of responsibility by other instances, as a result of which they feel to have been deprived of their essential task as judges.

EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF
DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER[256]

_DIRECT EXAMINATION_

* * * * * * *

DR. KUBUSCHOK (counsel for defendant Schlegelberger): I am now starting on a new group of questions. Do you wish me to start on it before the recess?

The prosecution charges you with directing the administration of penal law through the Reich Ministry of Justice. Please state your views.

DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER: Concerning these questions, we must differentiate between the position of the public prosecutor and that of the judge. The public prosecutor is an administrative agency dependent upon the instructions from his superior agencies. The judge is responsible merely to the law and his own conscience and judgment. The question to what extent and under what prerequisites the prosecutor has to report to his superior agency has been laid down in administrative regulations. The more important the individual question, the higher the agency the opinion of which is requested. It has therefore always been a matter of course that the importance of penal cases according to the case itself, or according to the punishment which is to be expected, has to be reported to the higher authority. I notice the suggestion was approved and an instruction was issued, an instruction which as far as it concerned a matter which was being dealt with at the trial always had to be interpreted in such a way that in the last analysis the public prosecutor had to make his decision dependent on the course of the trial. In 1939 Guertner--I myself had no part in these matters at the time and I don’t know what part Freisler played--pointed out to the public prosecutor that they should see to it that a great difference between the demand for a sentence of the prosecution and the actual sentence pronounced by the judge be avoided.

[Recess]

Q. Witness, we were discussing the guidance of the administration of criminal justice. Please continue with your explanation.

A. Before the recess I had referred to a decree by Guertner which required a constant connection with the courts in order to avoid a discrepancy between the plea of the prosecution and the final verdict. May I continue on this point?

I should like to assume that this decree or this order finds its definite reason in the fact that at that time a large number of new laws had been promulgated for which precedence in sentences did not exist and could not exist. Only gradually it was possible, with regard to these laws, to form a firm foundation based upon sentences and opinions of the supreme judicial authority. Frequently, therefore, surprises occurred if the prosecution in applying the law had a definitely different position from the opinion of the Tribunal. The purpose of that decree was to avoid this ambiguity as far as possible, and to reduce these differences to the least possible measure, also concerning the extent of punishment, which depended on the findings of the court. That quite apparently, as a matter of course, could only be achieved by a conference before the trial. The reports submitted by the prosecution, by the president of the Kammergericht on 3 January 1942, and from the same year by the president of the district court of appeals at Hamm, revealed that some misuse had taken place. It is stated there that the prosecutor after the presentation of evidence--that is to say, during the proceedings--had pointed out to the court what sentence with the approval of the Ministry he would demand, and in so doing created the opinion in the court that he expected that sentence and that penalty.

From this report can be seen that the presidents of the district courts of appeal quite rightly considered this behavior a misuse. The report by the president of the Kammergericht I had not seen until now. I do not know what steps were taken after that report was received by Freisler. Maybe this is a case again, one of these cases, where important matters had been neglected by him.

The report from the president of the district court of appeal at Hamm I remember very clearly. I had made up my mind to put this matter on the agenda of the next meeting of the presidents of the district courts of appeal. These meetings had the express purpose to discuss such questions which had been raised in the reports. Owing to the fact that I left my office soon thereafter, there was no longer any opportunity for me to carry out these intentions.

Q. The two reports you mentioned were submitted by the prosecution as Document NG-445, Prosecution Exhibit 73 and Document NG-395, Prosecution Exhibit 74 with the Documents NG-505 and 508, Exhibits 71 and 72.[257] The prosecution also charges you with having influenced the jurisdiction of the judges. I ask you to state your position with regard to these documents.