scholarly journals Niemiecka doktryna i judykatura wobec problemu odpowiedzialności karnej „sprawców zza biurek” — uwagi na tle koncepcji „Organisationsherrschaft”

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 313-327
Author(s):  
Dagmara Gruszecka

The aim of the paper is to present the concept of Claus Roxin’s Organisationsherrschaft as an alternative to attributing criminal responsibility for crimes committed by Nazi “desk murderers.” This concept arose against the background of criticism, after the trials of Adolf Eichmann and Bohdan Stashynsky, of the particularly low number of convictions in similar cases and the numerous omissions of the entire German justice system. Under West German criminal law, a distinction made between those who order murder and those who commit murder on their own initiative meant that the above-mentioned perpetrators who passed on orders from above could only be found guilty of accessory to murder. The novelty of Roxin’s views, however, consisted in an attempt to combine the previous only individualistic perspective of criminal law with the idea of mass, bureaucratic murders. The traditional system of individual attribution of responsibility, as applied for ordinary criminality characterized by the individual commission of single crimes, must be adapted to the needs of collective responsibility, in which the organization (for example, an administrative structure) as a whole serves as the entity upon which attribution of criminal responsibility is based. The first part of the text discusses the main lines of argumentation presented by the West German jurisprudence in cases concerning high-ranking members of the state power apparatus of the Third Reich. At the same time, efforts were made to emphasize the lack of homogeneity of legal solutions presented in national criminal jurisdiction in West Germany and their unacceptable consequences. The second part is devoted to the basic theoretical assumptions of the doctrine of Organisationsherrschaft and its significance for the perception of the boundary between perpetration and participation in German criminal law. The third part briefly presents the contemporary reception of Roxin’s thought, as well as the main points of his criticism, indicating, however, how important it was to effectively prosecute decision-makers from the power apparatus of the Third Reich.

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-278
Author(s):  
Witold Kulesza

German lawyers jointly supported the National Socialist authorities, assuming that the law was Hitler’s will, resulting from the new criminal law being introduced, which violated the principles of nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege. Judges of special courts (Sondergerichte) in the Third Reich applied criminal law according to a “healthy national sense” (das gesunde Volksempfinden), which usually meant heavy penalties, contrary to the elementary sense of justice. It was adopted as a rule that a crime is not only what is forbidden by regulations, but also everything that the authorities have not consented to. For any behaviour, even if not prohibited by law, the judges could sentence defendants to draconian punishments, at their “national discretion.” Law professors justified the lawlessness created in the Third Reich by claiming that it was a rule of law (Rechtsstaat). The criminal law for Poles and Jews of 1941 provided for the death penalty for all manifestations of “hostile attitude” towards the German occupier. Polish forced labourers in the Reich were punished with death for violations of discipline and disobedience to the German oppressors. Poles displaced from occupied Poland were assigned to work in enterprises and farms in the Reich. The special court in Breslau sentenced to death a Pole who defended his pregnant beloved woman, forced to work beyond her strength and abused by the German housewife, as well as the unfortunate woman herself. The same court sentenced a Pole to death for trying to protect his 13-year-old son from a German farmer, who was forcing the child to perform work he was physically unable to carry out. Special-court judges continued their professional careers in West Germany after the war and did not bear any responsibility for their crimes.


Author(s):  
Laura Heins

This concluding chapter reflects on the development of German melodrama in the aftermath of World War II. It traces a sense of disillusionment with the Nazi “deployment of sexuality” in films and how it had prepared the ground for the renewed postwar cultivation of domesticity and feminine nurturance in West Germany. The return to private life and to puritanical mores in the postwar era was partly a response to the attack on “bourgeois” sexual morality that had been carried out by the mass culture of the Third Reich. Turning against nudity and licentiousness in the early 1950s could be represented and understood as a turn against Nazism. Thus, this “reprivatization” and newly conservative culture left its mark on West German melodramas of the 1950s.


2007 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-415
Author(s):  
Reinhard Markner

AbstractAmong the many publishing ventures of the “Reichsinstitut für die Geschichte des neuen Deutschlands,” the journal Forschungen zur Judenfrage (1936–1944) has gained most notoriety. In its nine volumes, various aspects of the “Jewish question,” ranging from the Jews in antiquity to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, were dealt with from a strictly National Socialist point of view. The ambitious project proved to be a failure even before the Third Reich collapsed. While some of the journal's contributors managed to pursue their academic careers in post-war West Germany, its founder, Walter Frank, committed suicide in 1945.


DÍKÉ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-80
Author(s):  
Veronika Lehotay

The aim of the study is to demonstrate the arguments and debates of jurists and the experts of the criminology about equality, liberties in the Horthy era when these issues were challenged by the restrictions of rights, such as the Anti-Jewish laws and the racial policies. In this period the criminal law focused on the personality and the social background of the perpetrator as an influence of anthropological criminology which combines the study of human races and their personal characteristics with the criminal propensity instincts. In the literature of criminal law new issues appeared such as the restriction of rights, deprivation of rights and racial policies as the influences of the Nurnberg Laws in the Third Reich. The jurists in Hungary paid close attention to the jurisdiction in the Third Reich, but they did not set an example for Hungary.  According to their arguments, the German way of the racial law in the Hungarian context is not adaptable because its society is too multi-ethnic. This resonates with the opinion of Pál Angyal, who was the leading figure of the criminal law in Hungary. According to his view, criminal law cannot be a tool for racism, but it can be useful in the field of civil law and the state administration. Despite the jurist’s cautious argument, the racial policies appeared in legislation after 1938.


Author(s):  
Stephen J. Plant

This chapter begins by describing some of the influences that shaped Bonhoeffer’s political views, narrowly construed, and the central role of Martin Luther’s thought in guiding the direction of those parts of his theology that connect with political life. The chapter continues by exploring how Bonhoeffer attempted to think with and through these sources about the duties and responsibilities of governments and citizens, of the Church, and of the individual Christian in response to the Church struggle and the policies of the Third Reich. What evolved was a reworking of the orders of creation and preservation, a subtle ecology of temporal and spiritual authority under God, and an understanding of reality understood through the incarnation of Christ. This theology funded a steadfast conviction that the Church can and must speak God’s Word to the world, even to the point of standing in the place of the victims of political oppression.


2002 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 185
Author(s):  
Wulf Kansteiner ◽  
John Teschke

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document