Q In such cases, did you have to appoint a defense counsel if the prosecution had not made an application?
A Naturally. That is evident from my statements. I have already pointed out that I was under an official obligation to appoint a defense counsel. By appointing a defense counsel, it is obvious for anybody who is connected with the case that in my view it is possible that the death sentence may be considered. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason for secrecy. I did not issue such and order, and that means that that question had not yet been so clear to me as to make it seem necessary to me at that moment to appoint a defense counsel; for in effect, the case had not yet been properly prepared, and that is obvious from the further order issued. Together with that order of the 27th of August 1942, the files were returned to the prosecution. They were received there at the 28th of August 1942. On the 28th of August 1942, Dorfmueller decided that the files should be resubmitted on the 21st of September. That is important because we are now getting close to the date where apparently the decision was altered.
Q Witness, I now want to interpolate something. Dorfmueller says, "During the interval between the filing of the indictment and my application, the circumstances demanded that the files had been sent to the presiding judge Rothaug." When was the indictment filed? At what time?
A On the 24th of August 1942 when the files were received by me. But I should like to say that the Senior Public Prosecutor signed the indictment on the 18th of August 1942, and it took six days for the files to reach me--or rather they must have been laying around with the prosecution for six days.
Q That is to say, the indictment had not yet been filed when the files were sent to you as Dorfmueller wants to make it appear on his account. Dorfmueller says, "During the interval between the filing of the indictment and my application, the circumstances demanded that the files had been passed on to the presiding judge Rothaug." Therefore the indictment was only concluded when the files were sent off.
A The filing of the indictment was concluded at the moment when the indictment was submitted to me together with the files. That means that the indictment has been filed.
During the interval, that is to say, from 24 August 1942 until the 27 August 1942, the indictment was in my possession and, as Dorfmueller says, I was able to examine it so that, as he assumes quite rightly, I was informed about the case.
Now, I want to say if I had been of the opinion at that time that the death sentence might be passed I, in the order of 27 August 1942, as would have been my duty, without the prosecutor having made an application, would have appointed a defense counsel.
Q You had mentioned Dorfmueller's order of the first of September. What is the significance of that order?
AAs for an order of the first of September, 1942, I never said any such thing. I mentioned an order of the 28 of August. That meant that the files were to be put aside until the 21 of September.
Q You said just now that the files had been put aside. What constitutes the importance of the fact that the files were put aside, from our point of view?
A Not on the 21 of September, but on the first of September, 1942 Dorfmueller had asked for the files to be returned to him and he ordered that photographs were to be taken of the defendant. That is the definite proof that between the 28 of August and the first of September, 1942, it was decided to consider the case where possibly the death sentence might have to be passed and it was the prosecution that had come to that conclusion.
Q Would you please read Number 6 of Dorfmueller's Order dated 12 September 1942?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in evidence or will it be in evidence? I want you to understand our position that we do not require the reading of a transcript in which we are interested and which we will study. It should not be necessary to repeat it every time.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did you comply with Dorfmueller's application?
A On the 12 September, 1942, I appointed a defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you gaining that information by examining the file there?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We are able to read it. You are simply encumbering the record when you do that. We have instructed you not to do it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The prosecution asked the witness Paulus whether it wasn't possible that Dorfmueller made the change in the sentence for which he was going to ask during the session. Please tell us why that account concerning the change of the penalty to be asked for was not possible?
A We, after all, merely concerned with the problem as to whether I suggested to the prosecution that it was to deal with the case in such a way as if the death sentence might have to be passed and I deny that and it is quite clearly evident from the files that that was not so. The files themselves show that quite clearly.
Q What probability, according to your knowledge, is there in favor of the statement as to why the death sentence might have to be pronounced?
A That is a perfectly staple solution of a perfectly simple question. The prosecution had written out the indictment for me and had to pass on a copy of the indictment to its superior, -- that was the general public prosecutor -- and finally, to the Reich Ministry of Justice. I received the indictment about a week later but for about six days it had been lying around with the prosecution until all the routine work that had to be done on it had been finished. But in the meantime the superiors of the senior public prosecutor had been informed about the case. I received the indictment. I studied the files and evidently I did not yet think that the matter was critical, but other people apparently thought it was critical and some quarters or other had rung up the senior public prosecutor of had issued instructions to him in some way or other. And we can prove from a number of files that between the 28 of August and the first of September the senior public prosecutor received instructions to regard the case as a particularly serious case and to deal with it by application of the law against public enemies in case those facts were to be proved.
On the first of September the files were asked for and the public prosecutor applied to me because I had not yet appointed an official defense counsel. So now he asked me to appoint one. That was how the whole case was dealt with at Neumarkt in the Upper Palatinate. I should like to know what the part is supposed to have been that I played in the Lopata case and that was how that case was dealt with at Neumarkt.
Q The witness, Wilhelm Hoffman, says Zimmermann, a nonentity, had been appointed to be defense counsel or Kucher. Now, who really was defense counsel for Lopata? Who was appointed?
A I have been charged with having influenced the defense counsel who was neither Zimmermann nor Kuehn. The statement by the witness Hoffmann in this point is wrong. It was Loma who was the defense counsel, Loma from Neumarkt.
Q In its opening statement the prosecution quoted the following sentence from the judgment: "The inferiority of the defendant lies in his character and the reason for it evidently is that he belongs to the subhuman race of the Poles." Is that quotation correct?
A Well, there is a typing error here which rather distorts matters because actually it says in the judgment -- it doesn't say "the subhuman race," but it means the subhumanity of, and that is something essentially different. We have subhumanity in Germany and we have developed our own laws against that and when we speak of Polish subhumanity we do not mean the Polish people as such; that is what we would have meant if we had spoken of the subhuman Polish race, and for that idea and opinion there is a concrete reason.
In many cases we had found that among the Poles who had been brought to Germany there was a considerable number of highly criminal types from Poland. The agencies which dealt with getting labor from Poland did not select properly and thereby did create a great danger. We had discovered people who had been previously convicted for murder and had been sentenced to penitentiary for life, but who, on account of the outbreak of war, had been set free and who had now come to Germany. That point of view played a part in considering all these questions. That is to say, we did not speak of the subhuman Polish race but we spoke of the subhumanity in Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt, please? The question of translation has arisen. The Tribunal would be glad to have a check made by the Prosecution as to the original document and the proper translation of it. That will dispose of this entire natter.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
DR. KOESSL: The originals of the files here -- I don't know -probably the Prosecution has the copy and perhaps that copy also has the mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a question of what the document says and it should be able to be ascertained with definiteness. The suggestion that the document may have used the wrong word is not satisfactory to us. We want to know what word was used in the original document. Go ahead to something else and straighten that out afterwards.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, at the trial before the Special Court at Nurnberg, were any facts brought to light which were not mentioned by the judgment passed at Neumarkt?
A That is clearly evident from the judgment. In addition to the facts which had originally been established, a further fact had been established, according to which the defendant had attacked the old people, who were living on a lonely farm, with a dung fork and had exerted so much pressure on them that the only way for them to save themselves was to unleash the dog.
When evaluating the character as a whole of the defendant, as the judgment shows, that fact was taken into account. That fact, in the last analysis, was decisive.
Q Can you show that that point in particular was very decisive? Can you show us that by quoting a passage from the original file?
A That is shown by our attitude to the clemency question. In our opinion on the clemency question we, without exception, repeated those facts which had been decisive for us in deciding on the sentence. We did not state other general points of view concerning the clemency plea because we didn't know them and, secondly, because we were of the view that they didn't affect us in any way. That brief opinion on the clemency question says:
"The character of the defendant has been clearly described at the trial, in particular also the fact that the defendant, apart from the offense which in its execution was very grave, has also made himself guilty of violent behavior towards his employer."
In other words, it is made perfectly clear here that the last point of view was decisive for us.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question to which the answer, I think, could be brief? My notes show that the defendant was sentenced to death for violation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the law or decree concerning Poles and Jews. Is there such a provision in your judgment?
Court No, III, Case No. 3.
You needn't read it. Just tell me if that is in there:
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The witness Doebig said that the offense in his view was not designed to prove that the offender was a public enemy. Would you, therefore, please briefly summarize the points which lead you to assume that a very serious offense had been committed?
A The justification for our sentence can be seen from the opinion given by the court and that is before this Tribunal. I cannot say any more. All I can add is that specifically for this case, that is to say, for the original case that had to be dealt with, that is to say, for molesting the woman in a sexual way, there was a decision from the Supreme Reich Court which stated an opinion specifically in regard to this question and discussed it from its basic angles, and that decision evidently was the cause for considering the death sentence at all.
With us a further point of view was added and it was that decision that was made available to the court.
THE PRESIDENT: You have said that the reasons which you had are the reasons which you stated in the opinion. You just stated that. I think that is a sufficient answer.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The Supreme Reich Court decision I don't think is referred to in the judgment. Had Lopata come to Germany voluntarily or had he been forced to come?
AAccording to his own statements both before the police and during the trial, he was a man who had come voluntarily to Germany and that is pointed out in the judgment, although at the time naturally we didn't know that that fact might gain importance later, for it says here -
THE PRESIDENT: When you have answered the question stop talking.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The place which the judgment describes as having been the place where the offense was committed, is that within the borders of the Reich territory, the Reich such as it was in 1939?
A Yes, naturally; yes, it was quite close to Nurnberg.
Q What do the reports about the clemency plea by the prosecution say concerning the question of executing the sentence?
THF PRESIDENT: Are the reports in the document there?
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, in the document of the Prosecution, there is only one of those reports on the clemency question. I can answer that in one sentence.
THF PRESIDENT: All right. Take the one sentence. If the document is not in evidence and is not to be put into evidence you may take your one sentence and state what the clemency orders were, or pleas.
A The prosecution was against asking for clemency and the general public prosecutor, after he had found that there was no legal criticism of the judgment, also said that he was against asking for clemency; he made particular reference to the additional fact that had been brought out at Neumarkt.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What happened at the trial and at the conference of the judges?
A The trial was quite uneventful. I remember the case very well and one must bear in mind, above all, that I do not know Polish and even if anybody should have aroused my anger, it would have been quite useless to tell the Pole so because he wouldn't have understood me.
The conference itself, too, was quite uneventful and I do not believe that any doubts arose which might have caused the debate to go on for any length of time. But one thing I still know for certain today is that the fact that that additional circumstance had been discovered which, as the decision by the Reich Supreme Court shows, was Court No. III, Case No. 3.considered very grave and was decisive.
Q Was the judgment written down and signed?
AAs in all other cases -
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q In connection with the presentation of the Lopata case and the treatment of all Polish cases, you have been charged with never having believed anything the Poles said and with having attributed less weight to the statements made by four Poles than to the statement made by one single German.
So as to refute that charge I will hand you the criminal files in the Zudchick case which has been mentioned before.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Koessl, is the case the files of which you have just handed to the witness one of the cases which the Prosecution has claimed involved improper conduct by the defendant?
DR. KOESSL: No, that is not a case with which the defendant has been charged; but during the cross-examination, without the name being mentioned, that case was mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
DR. KOESSL: At that time the files were not at our disposal and we couldn't say for certain what case was being referred to.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Well , what is your purpose in going into the files of that case? Let me ask you, for example, is it to show that, in that case, proper weight was given to the testimony of Poles? I'm just guessing at that.
DR. KOESSL: I want to show that the same importance was, attributed to the testimony of Poles as was attributed to the testimony of Germans and that, therefore, the charge which has been leveled against the defendant is wrong. Furthermore, this case shows that the Poles were allowed to submit the same evidence and that the conduct of the trial of Poles was conducted on the same basis on which Reich Germans were tried. Also, that the procedure was the same, that they were allowed to call all witnesses they had asked for and that, even beyond that, the court itself produced witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: This is another case of a general charge which you propose to answer by showing that in a particular case there was no impropriety. The witness is permitted to state, in a general way, in answer to the general charge, whether he gave equal weight and fair trial to Poles, but we have ruled in a case, identical to this, that it is improper for you to put in a separate isolated case, not involved in any charge against the defendant, merely for the purpose of showing that, in that isolated case, proper procedure was followed. You will not be permitted to put it in or to testify concerning it.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the court, may I say something about the evidence in the Zudchik Case?
THE PRESIDENT: We don't care to hear it at all. It's not offered for a proper purpose. It has no probative value upon the charge made. The prosecution hasn't charged that in every case the defendant Rothaug tried he wag guilty of violation of Control Council 10, and to show that he tried some page in a proper manner is not of probative value in this cage.
Go on with something else.
DR. KOESSL: I beg your pardon, Your Honor. In the Polish cases Court No. III, Case No. 3.the prosecution has, to a far extent, charged the defendant Rothaug and has pointed out that, quite apart from individual cases which have been mentioned - there were also cases which have not been mentioned - and the prosecution said that, generally speaking, Rothaug had tried Poles in a different manner than he tried Germans and, therefore, I would ask you to permit me that I refute that general charge of the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: You may refute it in the manner in which we have indicated. You've heard our ruling and you'll have to abide by it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, in Polish cases did you proceed in the same way in which you proceeded in the case of trying Germans, and did you admit all evidence for which the Poles had asked to clear them?
A Polish cases were tried on the same basis and while adhering to the same ruling of procedure. If they made motions for evidence, such motions were examined from the same objective points of view from which one examined such motions if they had been made by Germans. There was no difference. During the trial they were asked, just as the Germans were asked, whether, for example, they wished to ask the witnesses any questions. Beyond that - and that is what is to be proved by the Zudchik case which concerned the destruction of live stock which has been of such importance here; I am charged with having sentenced people to death just for cruelty to animals, and I would like to say that I called experts from far away when I had doubts whether the charge leveled against the Pole that he was guilty of having destroyed that flock of sheep, was justified. I conducted that trial, and the outcome was that the Pole was acquitted. I was bound to return him to the Gestapo because that was where he had come from, and, by finding an employer for him at the session, I saw to it that that man started work instead of being returned to the police. But I am not saying all this to prove anything very much. All I am saying is, if he did right, he did not come to any harm. The proof which I wanted to produce goes no further.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you, whenever you tried a person on a charge involving violation of the law against Poles and Jews, I presume that you followed that law, did you not?
THE WITNESS: Naturally, that was my duty.
THE PRESIDENT: And such provisions as Article 7 which provides that Poles and Jews cannot challenge a German judge on account of partiality? You would have enforced that rule too, wouldn't you?
THE WITNESS: In the individual case, that man was only indicted with me from the general provisions. It was only later on that the specific provision was issued. During the whole of my twenty-five years, nobody rejected me. I don't think it would have occurred to anybody to reject me, but naturally, if I had been rejected by a Pole, I would have acted in accordance with that legal provision because that was my duty. What else could I have done?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the same apply to the other legal provisions of the law of 4 December 1941, with reference to procedure?
THE WITNESS: That is not correct. I have to correct that. Those provisions from the decree against Poles and Jews from the year 1941 as such would have afforded us the opportunity, in the case of a Pole, to be more liberal in the way we conducted the trial, but I did not make use of that opportunity in one single case; I tried all Poles according to the German Code of Procedure, just as I tried Germans. And Oeschey and Ferber did exactly the same as I did. I know that because we discussed the matter and told each other that, from the purely technical point of view, we considered that that provision was nonsense because, after all, it is much less difficult for a judge to conduct his sessions in a way to which he has become used to over a great number of years than to find a new form from case to case which, on the other hand, could not be so free as to violate the most primitive legal principles.
THE PRESIDENT: I was simply interested in knowing whether, in applying the law against Poles and Jews, you complied with these special Court No. III, Case No. 3.provisions as to procedure which are contained in that law.
THE WITNESS: No, I applied the German provisions, nor did the law compel us to conduct the trials according to new forms and I don't think that was done anywhere in the Reich.
THE PRESIDENT: The law against Poles end Jews provides that the judge and the prosecutor may dispense with the provisions of the German law. If you dispensed with those provisions, you would still be complying with the law against Poles end Jews, wouldn't you, because it provides for such dispensing?
THE WITNESS: Only with reference to the provisions concerning procedure, it was left at the discretion of the judge to deviate from the German law and to conduct the procedure in whichever way he considered advisable, but in regard to the substantive provisions concerning the procedure, we were bound. We had no liberty in that respect.
THE PRESIDENT: I am referring to the procedural matters. Thank you. That covers it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q In proceedings against Poles, did you reject German prosecution witnesses if you were of the conviction that the incriminating points were not sufficiently founded?
A In my view, by introduction of the question of the so-called incredibility of Poles, the whole problem is shifted onto another plane. It is a matter of course that a nation, which has been subjected by another nation, and which is in a state of stress - that a citizen of such a country which has been subjected to another, vis-a-vis the victorious nation, finds himself in quite a different moral-ethical relationship. It is useless to shut your eyes against reality. Of course, he finds himself in a different moral relationship from the relationship in which a German citizen would find himself. It is so natural, there is no point in ignoring it. There is no need to lie.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you a question. You followed the rule I presume, which provides that Poles and Jews should not be sworn in Court No. III, Case No. 3.criminal cases?
Article 9. Paragraph 9, perhaps. "Poles and Jews are not sworn as witnesses in criminal proceedings." That which provided that they may be punished for perjury anyhow. Did you follow that rule?
THE WITNESS: At my time, when I was a judge, I believe no Pole was ever examined as a witness at a trial. I can't remember it.
THE PRESIDENT: They were tried, weren't they? You don't mean there weren't any Poles tried?
THE WITNESS: With us in Germany, not even the German defendant can be sworn.
THE PRESIDENT: But you mean that, although Poles were tried, no Polish witness was ever called?
THE WITNESS: Well, there never were any Polish witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: That's what I suspected.
THE WITNESS: Unless, and perhaps I may add, that there was a case among Poles. I mean if it were a case that was pending between various Poles, like that murder case. In that case, I had Polish witnesses and they were taken under oath.
THE PRESIDENT: Time for our recess of fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, in answer to the Tribunal's question concerning the translation matter discussed before the recess, I ask the Court's indulgence for a very brief expert witness on the matter, which will take no more than two or three minuses.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Will you please call the witness Arnold Buchthal?
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Rothaug may leave the stand for a few moments.
ARNOLD BUCHTHAL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The witness will testify in German.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be sworn by the German oath or the English oath?
THE WITNESS: The English oath.
JUDGE HARDING: Will you repeat after me the following oath?
I swear that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
THE WITNESS: I do.
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Will you please state your name and the date and place of your birth?
A. Arnold Buchtahal, B-U-C-H-T-H-A-L, born on the 28th of November, 1900.
Q. Mr. Buchthal, in what countries did you -- I beg your pardon, did you state where you were born, Mr. Buchthal?
A. No; at Dortmund
Q. Now, in what countries did you live from the date of your birth until 1933?
A. Until 1933 I lived in Germany.
Q. And from 1933 until 1939 where did you live?
A. First I lived in Austria, and then after the Anschluss, the annexation of Austira, for a while in Germany, then in Switzerland, and then in England.
Q. I assume, then, that German is your native language; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have before you the original opinion of the Nurnberg Special Court in the Lopata case?
A. Yes.
Q. In that opinion do you find a reference to Poles, in German, as "Untermenschen"?
A. I find here the designation "Polnisches Untermenschentum", which is used here with reference to the defendant Lopata.
Q. Mr. Buchthal, what is the literal translation in English of that German phrase you have just read?
A. The literal translation is "Polish subhumanity".
Q. Did you ever see or hear the word "subhumanity" or "Untermenschen" in Germany before the year 1933?
A. I cannot remember any such thing. As far as I know, I never heard that word before 1933.
Q. If you ever heard or saw that word used in Germany or Austira after 1933, in what context did you see or hear it?
A. The context in which I read that expression or heard it after 1933 was always a political one. As a rule, the word was used in connection with the adjective "Jewish", later "Polish", occasionally, I believe, also "Czech", and then very frequently with the adjective "Communist."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder, for our convenience, if you would give us your translation of the entire sentence that that phrase is in. It begins, "The defendant gives the impression of definitely degenerate personality," I think. Do you find the place?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The entire sentence, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: "Thus the defendant gives the impression of a thoroughly degenerate personality, which is marked by excitability and a definite trend to mendacity, or to lying. The whole inferiority of the defendant is, I would say, lies in the sphere of character and is obviously based on his being a part of Polish subhumanity, or in his belonging to Polish subhumanity."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No further Questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination?
DR. KOESSL: I ask to be permitted to put a few questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, what education did you have in the field of languages?
A. From 1942 until 1945 I was senior interpreter in a German and Italian prisoner of war hospital.
Q. You said also that you had not heard the word "Untermenschentum", "subhumanity", before 1933 in Germany. Did I understand you correctly?
A. Yes, that is correct. I had only heard the word "Superman" or "Super-humanity", which, as you probably know, comes from the writings of Nietzsche, and from which, apparently after 1933, by way of contrast, the word "Untermenschentum" had been created.
Q. Of course at the moment I cannot submit a book to you because I did not expect this, otherwise I would show you books from the year 1912 where that word "Untermenschentum" was used, Do you mean to assert that the word "Untermenschentum" was only cheated or invented after 1933?
A. No; I only said that according to my recollection I never read or heard that word before 1933, and that only after 1933 it became part and parcel of the language, particularly the language of Nazi propaganda.
Q. You have never worked in the field of criminology?
A. Yes; I am a jurist.
Q. Then I want to ask you, didn't you find the word "Untermenschentum" in the technical language of the criminologist?
A. It is possible that occasionally I might have found it there, but certainly not frequently.
Q. Thank you. May I ask you briefly where you are employed?
A. I am employed with the prosecution.
Q. The prosecution. Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused).
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Rothaug may resume the witness stand.
OSWALD ROTHAUG (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, the general charge has been raised against you that particularly in cases against Poles you were fanatically severe and the main insitgator for the application of severe penalties. Do you have any definite recollections that the other offices, particularly the General Public Prosecutor, or in some cases even the Ministry, gave directions to the prosecution in cases against Poles which went beyond your opinion and evaluation of offenses committed by Poles?
A. First of all, I object to the assertion that the severity of decisions in our courts was based on the fact that we had tired to act against the Pole for being a Pole. Against that charge I want to state that in spite of all the severity which may have been applied in one case or another, only viewpoints of penal law were decisive, which, of course, were greatly influenced by the conditions of danger that existed and by the descriptions which were generally given about the danger that existed and by the descriptions which were generally given about the danger. "I remember one case, for instance, where we, at our level, did not even intend to made this a big case. It was a matter of cruelty to animals in that case; in fact, it was of course more than that, of course, but since we were still inexperienced we thought that as he was a young man, a prison term of several years would be sufficient. That was the way the report was made. However, we soon received different instructions. We were told that even if the offender is a young person, it is not right to give him a moderate penitentiary term. If one cannot sentence him to death, then at least it should be a considerable penitentiary term.
That case was brought before the court of the third instance, which said that a penitentiary term does not suffice under any circumstances. If the facts are proven by all means, one has to try to pronounce the death sentence. The fact that the offender was young could only make it possible to sentence him based on the law concerning juvenile heavy criminals. The result in that case, in the case before us, was acquittal.