Assignment #7

May 19, 2013

Part 1

What are Jackson’s arguments in support of the charter of London?

The Charter of London granted the defendants the ability to defend their actions in light of any evidence found in the presence of a tribunal featuring representatives from the four victor nations. Rather than having a jury or singular judge, this tribunal grants the defendants an impartial trial, at least according to Jackson’s argument.  The defendants are viewed as innocent until proven guilty. This Charter would not solely govern the acts of common men but the actions of rulers and those who possess a significant amount of power. Even though it wasn’t formally written that genocide and torture are crimes, it should be no surprise that they should be. Overall, it would grant governments the ability to structure laws proactively instead of reactively since laws tend to “lag behind moral(s).”

What are Wyzanki’s arguments against the legality of the charter?

He doesn’t condone Nazi actions. Wyzanki claims that the Charter of London is an example of ex post facto law (No crime, no penalty without an existing law). The charges brought against the men on trial were in violation of law recognized after their crimes were apparently committed. Charges like those would have not been brought up in the US since it was unconstitutional.

Furthermore, their guilt was decided before trial since the tribunal they were being tried by presenting themselves as victims rather than neutral parties. The question was not of innocence and guilt but rather of how severe the punishment handed out was going to be. There was no opportunity given for the defendants to be innocent despite Jackson’s notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” This notion of trial and justice would be carried over to other instances where the winning side in a war placed captured “war criminals” on trial.

In addition, the defendants on trial were being charged for the actions of other individuals in their group. These charges violated traditional judicial law: How could people be tried for a crime they could not be liable for? If there was some liability on their part, then yes they could be tried but there wasn’t apparently. The defendants were being charged for crimes committed by the entirety of the Nazi army.

All of this greatly challenged the legality of the charter but as stated earlier; the fates of the defendant were already decided long before this charter was drafted.

  

Part 2

I don’t agree with the sentence, but I don’t know much time a person should serve for crimes like these.

There is merit to Grainer’s defense in this context. While working at a civilian job, the penalty for dissent is relatively low compared to the penalties in the military. Any person who objects to a task assigned to them on moral or ethical grounds is free to make their pleas in court if penalties are placed on said person. While in the military, it is common for problems and dissent to be handled internally.  From my time in the U.S. Navy, this is more than true. Since Granier was in the military during the time of the alleged crimes, any dissent against orders that would have advanced the military’s agenda towards “victory” would have most likely been met with some form of punishment. Due to his contractual obligations, he would have to do anything he was ordered to or face possible imprisonment, loss of benefits and pay, among other penalties. Overall, he was forced to obey orders of his superiors or lose the benefit he has worked for during his time in the service. Whether he knew of legality of his actions or not is irrelevant under these circumstances. 

We can’t exactly determine if Grainer enjoyed the acts he is being accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. The grin he displayed in the photo could have just been him attempting to hide any dissent.  Much of his apparent enjoyment is heresy; it once again can’t be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.