THE SPECIAL COURTS

FROM: Ingo Müller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich, trans. Deborah Lucas Schneider (Cambridge/MA, 1991), 152-159.

Nazi “justice” represented an abrupt departure from the legal system of the Weimar Republic despite some seeming continuity of institutions. The basic principles of a liberal constitutional state—authorities were subject to the rule of law as defined by a constitution and the protection of individual rights—were abandoned. Müller’s description of the Special Courts, which were established after the Reichstag Fire Decree, captures the essence of the Nazi legal system.

“Irregular” courts of special jurisdiction were not invented by the National Socialists. It had been common practice in Germany in the politically

turbulent years after the First World War to establish such courts, but they were shut down again after a short time. On March 21, 1933, when the new regime issued its decree on the formation of Special Courts, it was in fact authorized to do so by an ordinance dating from the republican era, granting the government powers to determine the courts’ personnel, procedures, and jurisdiction.

To start with, a Special Court was created in each of the twenty-six Court of Appeals districts, with jurisdiction over violations of the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Decree to Protect the Government of the National Socialist Revolution from Treacherous Attacks, passed after the Reichstag fire. Three professional judges were assigned to each court, usually transferred from the County Courts, and the procedures established satisfied the wishes of most conservatives for a drastic reduction in the rights of defendants and a stronger position for the prosecution. The court was required neither to conduct a pretrial investigation nor to open the trial with a determination that the charges brought by the prosecution were in fact justified. Judges were required to sign all orders for arrest presented by prosecutors; defense attorneys had no right to demand proof of charges, and the court could determine the extent of evidence to be considered entirely as it saw fit. Defendants had no right to appeal verdicts, which became enforceable at once. The speedy trials made possible by these regulations met the wishes that had often been voiced for “eliminating formalism” in criminal proceedings. They also corresponded to the ideal of the “good criminal trial,” which, in the words of Supreme Court judge Otto Schwarz, “fulfills the aim of punishing a crime … by letting the penalty follow upon the criminal act with the greatest possible thoroughness and speed, and at the lowest cost.” The aims of the Nazi leadership with regard to the legal system were in large measure realized when the Special Courts were created. The presence of three judges on the bench ensured that they would keep an eye on each other, and at the same time circumvented

the inconvenient participation of laymen. ThTo prepare for class, please read:
THE “EVACUATION” OF GERMAN JEWS (1942), 136A-137B
VICTOR KLEMPERER BEARS WITNESS (1942), 137B-139A
SAM MUSTAFA, THE NAZI CAMP SYSTEM, 139-140A
RUDOLF HOESS ON AUSCHWITZ (1946), 140A-141A
PUBLIC OPINION DURING THE THIRD REICH, 141B-144A
MILTON MAYER, THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE (1955), 144B-156A
TL; DR – Read Course Reader 136A-156A
Please answer the following question in the form of a solid paragraph (AT LEAST 4-5 sentences each),
What were the Jewish experiences during evacuations? How did the reality of their experiences differ from public opinion?