Post-War Punishments of Nazi Judges: A Complex Legal Landscape
Since judges in Nazi Germany served as functionaries of the state and exercised the law of the land, the question of whether they should be punished for handing down death sentences after the war has been complex and ambiguous. This article explores the legal and moral dimensions of this issue, examining the treatment of Nazi judges both during and after the war. It also delves into the nuances of the legal system and the role of the Volksgerichtshof (VGH) in the Nazi regime.
Prosecution and Legal Abscondment
After the war, the complexity of prosecuting judges was significant. They had served as functionaries of the state and had excelled in their roles, making it challenging to hold them personally accountable. Highly pro-Nazi lawyers were swiftly dismissed, while others received what was called a Persilschein, essentially a clean bill of health, and were quickly reemployed as lawyers due to the necessity of sustaining the legal system.
An interesting perspective on this situation involves the executioner of the Nazi regime who carried out the guillotinings. He too faced severe consequences, being treated as a pariah. He was not directly prosecuted, but his son committed suicide out of shame. This highlights the personal and societal stigma that followed such roles in the Nazi regime.
Jewish Civil Rights and Legal Boundaries
The concept of "law" changing like the wind is evident in the stripping of civil rights of Jews, which was legally sanctioned. If one did not follow the law, they would be punished, underscoring the elastic nature of legal systems under authoritarian regimes. The film "Judgement at Nuremberg" provides a compelling exploration of this theme, showing that many judges who were part of Nazi kangaroo courts, handing down death sentences, faced varying fates post-war.
Supplementary Observations: The Role of the Volksgerichtshof
Post-war, many of the judges who served in the Volkgerichtshof (VGH) were exposed to the justice system, and some were rightfully punished. For instance, Hermann H?cker-Aschoff, the first president of the Constitutional Court from 1951, had taken part in a tribunal that reclassified property looted from Eastern Europe. Despite being a prominent dissident before the war, H?cker-Aschoff's role in this tribunal likely disrupted his reputation.
Another key aspect is the design of the VGH. Established to sidestep the non-Nazi judiciary rather than replace it, the VGH played a significant role in the legal framework of the Nazi regime. Notably, its most notorious functionary, Roland Freisler, was killed in a bombing raid early in the war, and his successor, Harry Haffner, adopted a pseudonym and went into hiding until 1953, further complicating the possibility of prosecution.
Conclusion
The question of whether Nazi judges should have been punished post-war is a complex one, reflecting the intricate nature of legal and moral accountability in times of extreme legal abuse. This article has provided insight into the challenges faced by the post-war legal system in punishing judges who had served under a regime that engage in war crimes and other atrocities.
Further investigation into the judicial system of post-war Germany and the role of the Volksgerichtshof has showed that while there were judges heavily involved in Nazi crimes, the mechanism of prosecution and retribution was far from straightforward.
Key takeaways include the Persilschein, the stigma faced by individuals post-war, and the mixed fates of judges from the VGH. Films like "Judgement at Nuremberg" offer a more comprehensive and nuanced exploration of these challenges.