Movies and Films
This is the forum for Movie and Film discussions. Again, our topic is naval warfare in WWII for the most part.
Doenitz and Nuremburg
Posted by:
Clark
()
Date: February 02, 2001 07:37PM
<HTML>What do I think?
Well, in a minute, you\'ll regret you asked.
I think that we are being too hard on the Prosecution. Their intentions were pure and their tactics were noteworthy. But if you think about it Nuremburg as it applies to Doenitz acually tells us more about the Judicial system than the truth.
I think that the concept of the advisarial system has been out dated for about 200 years. I\'m sorry if this is a touchy statement for you lawyers and barasters out there. Most lawyers are brought up to believe that the advisarial system is THE system. But it has many flaws.
The system sounds fair on the surface. Both the Prosecution and the Defense present their cases to a jury(in the case of Nuremburg the Judges were also the jury) and the side that presents the best case wins either absolution or punishment. The Righteous rejoice.
But for a moment consider what these guys try to do. The Prosecution has one job and that is to convict who ever is the lost likely canidate for a crime. That is once a procesutor sets their sites on someone they have to go hell for leather to convict that person. That includes trumping up ambigous evidence to make it seem like a smoking gun. Then downplaying evidence that seems to go against the prosecution\'s case. That is exactly what the Prosecution in Doenitz\'s case tried to do. They tried to make the Laconia Order appear to be a thinly disguised order to shoot survivors. Then it brought in two submariners to confirm this accusation. Despite the fact that these two jerks had an axe to grind with Doenitz and were not credible or unbiased.
The Defense on the other hand has it set of flaws. Even though Doenitz\'s defense was very good and steared a course based on facts and not innuendo, that could not be said for the other Nazis on trial. A person\'s Defense councel has the job of twisting a case on itself. Their job is to confuse the jury, smokescreen issues and to trip up witness testimony. But if your smart you\'ll figure out ways to make your odds better.For example, you keep witnesses out of trial if you can with whatever excuse you can think of. It\'s like poker. You don\'t win with skill you win by keeping winners out of the game and play with the losers.
The Judges have the unenviable task of making sure proceedure is followed. That\'s it that it all that applies. But by making them Jurors, they have a equally painful problem. What happens is that these guys have to make a decision based on evidence presented by the two listed above. Can you imagine the headaches.
What it comes down to is: Who stands up for the truth? None of those people above have any stake in trying to find out what the truth is. All you get is circus were everyone involved with the process just see themselves as doing their job. The truth be damned.
Did the Nuremburg judges consult naval experts about submarine warfare? Did the people handing out indictments check to see if Doenitz had done anything wrong first? Does waging a effective war qualify as a prerequisite for a war criminal?
These were the questions that Doenitz\'s defense team had to educate the Judges/Jury in. The tribunial didn\'t do it beforehand because their attitude was lets try Doenitz and let the lawyers sort it out.
In closing, I do believe that some Justice came out of Nuremburg. Most people that are put on trial are there because they were caught with evidence in their hand. But the advisarial system does cause innocent people to be indicted because of prejudice and guilty people to go free because of confusion.
There! I said my peice.
CLark</HTML>
Well, in a minute, you\'ll regret you asked.
I think that we are being too hard on the Prosecution. Their intentions were pure and their tactics were noteworthy. But if you think about it Nuremburg as it applies to Doenitz acually tells us more about the Judicial system than the truth.
I think that the concept of the advisarial system has been out dated for about 200 years. I\'m sorry if this is a touchy statement for you lawyers and barasters out there. Most lawyers are brought up to believe that the advisarial system is THE system. But it has many flaws.
The system sounds fair on the surface. Both the Prosecution and the Defense present their cases to a jury(in the case of Nuremburg the Judges were also the jury) and the side that presents the best case wins either absolution or punishment. The Righteous rejoice.
But for a moment consider what these guys try to do. The Prosecution has one job and that is to convict who ever is the lost likely canidate for a crime. That is once a procesutor sets their sites on someone they have to go hell for leather to convict that person. That includes trumping up ambigous evidence to make it seem like a smoking gun. Then downplaying evidence that seems to go against the prosecution\'s case. That is exactly what the Prosecution in Doenitz\'s case tried to do. They tried to make the Laconia Order appear to be a thinly disguised order to shoot survivors. Then it brought in two submariners to confirm this accusation. Despite the fact that these two jerks had an axe to grind with Doenitz and were not credible or unbiased.
The Defense on the other hand has it set of flaws. Even though Doenitz\'s defense was very good and steared a course based on facts and not innuendo, that could not be said for the other Nazis on trial. A person\'s Defense councel has the job of twisting a case on itself. Their job is to confuse the jury, smokescreen issues and to trip up witness testimony. But if your smart you\'ll figure out ways to make your odds better.For example, you keep witnesses out of trial if you can with whatever excuse you can think of. It\'s like poker. You don\'t win with skill you win by keeping winners out of the game and play with the losers.
The Judges have the unenviable task of making sure proceedure is followed. That\'s it that it all that applies. But by making them Jurors, they have a equally painful problem. What happens is that these guys have to make a decision based on evidence presented by the two listed above. Can you imagine the headaches.
What it comes down to is: Who stands up for the truth? None of those people above have any stake in trying to find out what the truth is. All you get is circus were everyone involved with the process just see themselves as doing their job. The truth be damned.
Did the Nuremburg judges consult naval experts about submarine warfare? Did the people handing out indictments check to see if Doenitz had done anything wrong first? Does waging a effective war qualify as a prerequisite for a war criminal?
These were the questions that Doenitz\'s defense team had to educate the Judges/Jury in. The tribunial didn\'t do it beforehand because their attitude was lets try Doenitz and let the lawyers sort it out.
In closing, I do believe that some Justice came out of Nuremburg. Most people that are put on trial are there because they were caught with evidence in their hand. But the advisarial system does cause innocent people to be indicted because of prejudice and guilty people to go free because of confusion.
There! I said my peice.
CLark</HTML>
| Subject | Written By | Posted |
|---|---|---|
Was there a hitler order for taking prisoners
|
Kris | 02/01/2001 08:10PM |
|
Laconia Order?
|
Clark | 02/01/2001 09:02PM |
|
RE: Laconia Order?
|
Kris | 02/02/2001 02:20AM |
|
RE: Laconia Order?
|
Clark | 02/02/2001 03:54AM |
|
RE: Laconia Order?
|
Kris | 02/02/2001 04:24PM |
|
Doenitz and Nuremburg
|
Clark | 02/02/2001 07:37PM |
|
RE: Doenitz and Nuremburg
|
Rick Mann | 02/03/2001 02:32AM |
|
RE: Doenitz and Nuremburg
|
Kris | 02/03/2001 07:24PM |
|
RE: Doenitz, Nuremburg, and Versailles
|
Clark | 02/04/2001 03:00AM |
|
RE: Doenitz, Nuremburg, and Versailles
|
Micheal/Germany | 03/03/2001 11:22AM |
|
RE: Doenitz, Nuremburg, and Versailles
|
Kris | 03/03/2001 09:06PM |
|
RE: Was there a hitler order for taking prisoners
|
Phil | 02/02/2001 12:11AM |
|
RE: Was there a hitler order for taking prisoners
|
Kris | 02/02/2001 02:29AM |
|
RE: Was there a hitler order for taking prisoners
|
Tristan van Putten | 02/07/2001 02:18PM |
|
RE: Was there a hitler order for taking prisoners
|
Clark | 02/07/2001 04:14PM |