Fair Trial Vs Nuremberg Trial

As World War II progressively came to an end, the Allies, who were the proclaimed victors of this massive war, were concerned with one particular thing: What was to happen to the senior Nazi officials who were largely responsible for the various war crimes that were committed throughout the war? The British, led by Winston Churchill, were in favor of executing these officers without granting them a full or fair trial, which was also called summary justice. On the contrary, the United States proposed military tribunal. In the end, military commission won. A series of trials, called the Nuremberg Trials, were then held where various Nazi officials were tried for their war crimes. These trials were treated carefully and diplomatically as they
served as a blueprint for the trials in which future war crimes were determined, including those involving people who were held accountable for organizing terror attacks. The Nuremberg Trials were compared to the 9/11 Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, where alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tried in military commission for his role in the devastating September 11 attacks. It has become evident that the Nuremberg Trials did in fact play a role in the way certain war-crime trials are carried out today. Despite this, there were several arguments made that undermined the process in which the Nuremberg Trials were carried out, ultimately showing how much the trial system have progressed throughout the years. One of the more significant concepts that the Nuremberg Trials touched upon was the notion of granting certain rights to the defendant.
During the Nuremberg Trials, Nazi officers who were being tried were stripped of various rights that are commonly found in today’s court system. One of these privileges is the right to appeal to a higher court, such as the Supreme Court, when you do not agree with the overall outcome of your case. During the Nuremberg Trials, the ruling was final, leaving no room for authoritative question. In addition, Nazi officials did not have access to profound human rights lawyers. Rather, they were given Nazi lawyers who were “seconded by the occupying authorities,” which means that they were provided with lawyers who were approved by higher authorities but were also disregarded by the British, the Americans, the Russians, and the French. This inherently meant that those who were tried were subjected to a rather unfair and biased trial. This completely contrasts today’s court system in which criminals have the right to lawyers who are more diligent and better suited in defending their clients, granting them a better chance at a lighter
sentence. Another fundamental concept that resulted from the Nuremberg Trials is the idea of innocent until proven guilty.
Shawcross mentioned that, “You must never put a man in trial unless you are prepared to see him walk free.” Despite the insurmountable evidence that is clearly present showcasing the crimes committed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, everyone has the right to enjoy a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty. Also, humanitarian concerns, which were applied during the Nuremberg Trials, have been taken into consideration in trials today. Any information, regardless of importance, would not be allowed in the case. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was subjected to enhanced interrogation and possibly torture, revealed many al-Qaeda plots and shared explicit information which later helped in the capture of Osama bin-Laden. Though this information proved critical in the fight against al-Qaeda, none of what he said would be used during his trial. This just shows how far today’s courts would go to grant anyone, including an accused terrorist, the right to a fair trial, revealing how much the trial system has improved over the
years. This podcast truly shows the impact the Nuremberg Trials had on court cases today. It has constituted several guidelines that ultimately ensures that everyone has access to a fair, just, and effective trial. Without such improvements, effective means of justice would be nonexistent, and everyone, including war criminals, are granted equal rights that you and I inherently deserve.