The Path to Public Service at SEAS
Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits? That ‘Would Be Fine,’ Breyer Says at Harvard IOP Forum
Harvard Right to Life Hosts Anti-Abortion Event With Students For Life President
Harvard Researchers Debunk Popular Sleep Myths in New Study
Journalists Discuss Trump’s Effect on the GOP at Harvard IOP Forum
To the Editors of the Crimson:
I have always believed, perhaps naively, that the purpose of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, not to add a legalizing rubber stamp of approval to whatever happens to be the prevailing public opinion on the case.
The Nuremberg Court was created for the express purpose of trying the men on whom it has just passed judgment. The Court presumably of men who were considered eminently qualified to serve on it. These men have devoted ten months of palustaking, conscientious work to their task. They have heard hundreds of witnesses and examined thousands of documents. Their conclusions certainly cannot be said to be hasty.
I do not know the author of your editorial "Crime of Omission," but, whoever he is, I do not believe that he is as familiar with the evidence presented at Nuremberg as the judges. In viw of this I fail to see by what reason he took it upon himself to decide that the three defendants who were acquited by the Court should have been convicted, and that others should have received heavier sentences than the Court saw fit to give them. We appointed the Court to decide these very questions, and we must now respect its judgment even if we do not like it. Let us not forget that it was the Nazis who did not hesitate to overrule a judge when his decision did not please them! Frank H. David '49.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.