|Nick Duley:||NOT GUILTY|
|Lori Sparks:||NOT GUILTY|
|Beth Connell:||NOT GUILTY|
|E. J. Lopez:||NOT GUILTY|
The following are some of the things that we might learn from the trial in regards to class writing assignments:
After hearing all the facts and evidence that was brought up during the trial I have finally come up with a conclusion. I would have to say that Eichmann is guilty of crimes against humanity. In the first place what he did was obviously morally wrong. Second he obviously knew what was happen on those trains and where they were going and what was happening to the people in the trains because he rerouted a train that was to go to the gas chambers to a ghetto. He took the initiative to do something about one train because he knew what he was doing was wrong, but then stopped doing anything about the other trains because he got yelled at by his superiors, and for fear of getting in trouble, he stopped doing it. There are also numerous laws that he broke throughout his time with the Nazi party. So for the reasons listed above, I believe Eichmann is guilty. Verdict: GUILTY.
I'd like to congratulate the prosecution and defense teams on their outstanding arguments during the trial. I went in to this knowing that if one side didn't present their case well enough, I would rule for the other, more prepared side. Both teams showed their points excellently, however, and the decision before me isn't easy to make. After reviewing the case, and my notes on it, I've isolated these several main points which have pointed me to the decision I am making:
Eichmann knew that his trains were leading their passengers to their deaths.
He knew it was wrong and was physically ill because of it.
He knew that he could have quit at any time.
He simply would have been replaced, not executed.
After looking at these main points, I can't help but judge Eichmann guilty of crimes against humanity. True, Eichmann didn't order any deaths himself, but he was an accomplice, or facilitator, of the genocide. In much the same way that the driver is implicated in the crime of robbery, Eichmann is partially responsible for the killings. He could've backed out at any time, penalty-free, and he chose not to. That's the bottom line. Verdict: GUILTY.
After carefully examining all the evidence presented during the trial, I believe Mr. Eichmann to be guilty. During the trial, Mr. Eichmann stated that those that were part of the German army were "all freely deciding to follow the laws of the German State". The German people were not "forced" to follow orders, but instead followed orders out of the loyalty that people felt that they had to the state. In other words, they had a choice--to follow or not to follow. Mr. Eichmann also stated during the trial that he had no control over who was placed in the trains or where they went. However, as revealed later in the trial Eichmann was able to reroute several trains from going directly to a concentration camp. These rerouted trains instead went to a ghetto, extending slightly the lives of those on board the train. Eichmann received only a slight reprimand because of this rerouting. This example shows that Eichmann knew what was going on and that he was not just following orders; he was making his own decisions to perform the actions to the extent that he performed them. He may have been following orders, but he was also taking it a step further than ordered on several occasions. It is for this reason that I decided that Eichmann is guilty. Verdict: GUILTY.
In my opinion, the defendant Adolf Eichman, is not guilty of crimes against humanity. If we punish this man for simply obeying orders, where do we draw the line? If Eichman would have refused to do his duty he may have been simply fired or even killed by the Nazis. (Although there is no evidence that SS officers were courtmartialed for refusing to follow orders, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) Eichman is certainly guilty of being duped by the Nazi Party and of misplaced loyalty but not of crimes against humanity. Verdict: NOT GUILTY.
Is Eichmann guilty or not guilty? That question has been contested many times; however, I believe that I have the right answer to this question. I believe that Eichmann should be voted as not guilty after participating as a juror in our mock trial. The first reason that I believe Eichmann should not be voted guilty is due to the ex-post facto law. This law states that no person can be tried for a crime that was not in effect at the time they supposedly committed the crime. First, Eichmann was not charged with deporting the Jews to the concentration camps. Secondly, even if Eichmann would be found guilty, the major point is that there was no laws at that time that pertained to the deportation of people to camps to be killed. Another reason that Eichmann should not be found guilty is because he did not kill anyone himself. He was in charge of the train schedules that went to camps; however, he was not in charge of who went and who did not. Eichmann testified that he did not know that people could die before starting his job of deportation. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the actual killing of Jews. The final reason that Eichmann should not be guilty is because he merely followed his orders from the State. It was his job to organize the train schedules. He said that he was following his orders from the State, just as anyone would in a time of war. It was a time of war for his State, and therefore, he followed his orders. He did say that he visited the camps a few times, and did not like what he saw. After seeing the camps, he shipped some Jews to the Loetz ghetto to prevent them from being killed. This shipping was still in the boundaries of Eichmann's orders because he was told to ship the Jews out of their current location. Even though he helped some Jews, he still followed most of his orders because there was nothing he could do to stop the killings all by himself and he did not want to be punished by the State. Also, he made a good point that most anyone would follow their orders from authority in a time of war because the existence of their state is endangered. I agree with Eichmann's statement because when the U.S. has been in wars in the past, people kill the enemy because that is their order from the authority, and they want to protect our country. Even though killing is wrong, people consider killing the right thing to do when they are in war with another country, or state in this case. I am sure that Americans have hated to see other people killed during wars. However, it is like the saying, "It is either kill or be killed." Eichmann said that the State did not like the Jews because they did not believe in the same things as the Germans. Therefore, the Jews were considered a threat to the State, so the authority told Eichmann that they were the enemies. Therefore, Eichmann was following his orders by sending the Jews (the enemy) to the concentration camps to prevent his State from being overtaken by the enemies. I vote not guilty for Eichmann because of the ex-post facto law: he did not kill anyone himself, and he was only following his orders in a time of war. VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.
I find Mr. Eichmann not guilty. Both the Prosecution and the Defense brought about some very interesting and important points. I feel that as the defense stated, "If there is no law, there can be no crime." As shown in the trial there were no laws in effect for this crime. Eichmann was following orders given to him by a higher power. He was responsible for the trains. I think that he did his work to the best of his ability. Mr. Eichhman said that if his orders were to kill himself, he would indeed do this. I think in this time of war many were brainwashed and were in fact just following orders. Many people act different in a time of war; acting under the color of authorities while being given orders to do something and if they are not followed through with, the cost is death. I find Mr. Eichmann not guilty. VERDICT: NOT GUILTY.
E. J. LOPEZ
I give a verdict of NOT GUILTY. The details of circumstance given in the trial show that although he is guilty in the eyes of humanity, he is not guilty in the eyes of the law.
WHY HE COULD BE GUILTY:
He did, in fact, give orders.
At times, he exceeded orders given from superiors
He showed remorse and a moral consciousness of the acts being committed (i.e.: he was repulsed at the first-hand sight of dead Jewish bodies; he re-routed several train routes destined for the immediate execution of its passengers;)
Given his moral position, he could have easily backed out of his post, without any severe repercussions from the state.
WHY HE IS NOT GUILTY:
He was serving his duty to the state, and following orders.
Law at the time stated that the STATE is responsible and accountable for private acts committed, such as this, and not the individual. Based on this sole statement revealed in courtthat Law at the time stated that the STATE is responsible and accountable for private acts committed, such as thisI have given a personal vote of NOT GUILTY.
BACK TO COURSE SYLLABUS