 |
his attacks were not uttered subsequent to the act and not against
members of a defeated state.
Instinctively the question comes to mind
as to what actually the prosecution is driving at with its campaign against
prominent personalities of German industry.
A reply was given by the
numerous critical comments from the United States of America and Great Britain
and, conversely, the extremely friendly reaction from the U.S.S.R.
The
prosecution in the Krupp trial operates from beginning to end with the
completely vague and legally iridescent conception of “culpability”
or “responsibility.” The obvious intention of the prosecution is to
construct artificially a “responsibility” which does not exist in
life and cannot be fitted into any order based on true law. This is hardly the
proper place for advancing juridical arguments concerning the numerous
possibilities of interpreting the word “responsibility.” In view of
the fact, however, that the prosecution wants to employ a nebulous conception
of responsibility, not only as a means of joining their evidence together, but
also as a link to connect each of the defendants present, it is necessary to
clarify something from the beginning: A “responsibility” is logically
conceivable only as the consequence of an action, the consequence
of an act and, insofar as subjective premises are concerned, as the consequence
of personal guilt. If a juridical conclusion is to be reached in any respect,
the premises for responsibility must first be determined. The prosecution tries
to reverse this process. It attempts to fasten responsibility on the defendants
on the strength of purely external, chiefly organizational circumstances
without having to prove concrete external actions or personal guilt where a
criminal problem is concerned. The concept of “responsibility”
apparently, in the opinion of the prosecution, is to become an easily deducible
premise to their charges. This follows from their document books 1 to 2 and
from their “Basic Information.” It aims at converting regulations
concerning the legal liability of property according to German commercial law,
particularly joint stock law, juridical concept which can concern only the law
of property into a criminal offense. The judicial terms which play such an
important part in our case, can, however, only be guided by the broad
principles of justice and fair play which form the basis of every civilized
conception of laws and legal procedures.*
I have undertaken within the
scope of the distribution of subjects among the defense counsel, to clarify the
legal concept of interest to us here. Since crime is no longer regarded as
an |
__________
* United States vs.
Josef Altstoetter. et al., Case 3, vol. III, judgment, sec. VII.
167 |
. 
