War is usually associated with pain, loss, and destruction. There is no doubt that the issues World War II brought were devastating for many citizens of the world. However, there are times when the results of war have paved the road for moral beginnings in order to remake society. After World War II, the world was stricken with shock from the atrocious crimes German officials had committed. The Nuremberg Trials changed how war crimes would be approached for decades to come. These trials helped establish an international system of justice for dealing with crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Trials also shed a positive light on the United States, as the universal enforcer of justice. Finally, the trials set the precedent, and influenced how
…show more content…
When the Nuremberg Trials were held, the United States government had to ensure that all Nazi officials were tried fairly, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting immediate death row. The International Military Tribunal held fair trials for each of the German officials, and offered evidence to substantiate convictions. Karsten and Mathias describe this expression of morality when they conclude that, “...the court...conducted a judicial proceeding to determine whether the defendants and the organizations alleged to be criminal were guilty as charged on the evidence presented,” rather than directly punishing them for the crimes the Nazi regime as a whole committed (184). By demonstrating this respect for a fair trial, the United States showed moral authority over the situation without displaying mercy for the convicted men. Furthermore, after the major hearings were concluded, subsequent trials for crimes of German officials were judged by American judiciaries (famous-trials.com). Chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson, described the necessity of fair trials as, “That it can be ‘better’ or less offensive to notions of justice to kill men without a trial rather than with a trial is a proposition hardly defensible to my mind.” Of course, there were also underlying intentions to the United States display of morality. Not only were fair …show more content…
Although the Nuremberg Trials may not currently affect Americans’ day-to-day lives, they have significantly influenced how other international organizations and trials have been handled. For example, following the conclusion of the trials, the United Nations Genocide Convention was created in 1948. This document created by world leaders defined what events could be classified as genocide and their punishments. In Article IV of the Convention it is stated that, “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” This is a direct reference toward the Nuremberg Trials since the International Military Tribunal strove to eliminate any sort of bias when convicting the high-ranked German officials. No matter how high up in society a person may be, crimes against humanity hold all humans leveled and equal before the law. Additionally, the Nuremberg Trials served as a precedent for Japanese war criminals in Tokyo, 1961. Unlike the Nuremberg Trials, the Tokyo Trials had only one chief prosecutor—Joseph Keenan of the United States. Formerly the assistant to the U.S. attorney general, Keenan used the Nuremberg Trials as an example of how to hold fair trials for the convicted men despite the
When the Nuremberg Trials were held, the United States government had to ensure that all Nazi officials were tried fairly, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting immediate death row. The International Military Tribunal held fair trials for each of the German officials, and offered evidence to substantiate convictions. Karsten and Mathias describe this expression of morality when they conclude that, “...the court...conducted a judicial proceeding to determine whether the defendants and the organizations alleged to be criminal were guilty as charged on the evidence presented,” rather than directly punishing them for the crimes the Nazi regime as a whole committed (184). By demonstrating this respect for a fair trial, the United States showed moral authority over the situation without displaying mercy for the convicted men. Furthermore, after the major hearings were concluded, subsequent trials for crimes of German officials were judged by American judiciaries (famous-trials.com). Chief prosecutor, Robert Jackson, described the necessity of fair trials as, “That it can be ‘better’ or less offensive to notions of justice to kill men without a trial rather than with a trial is a proposition hardly defensible to my mind.” Of course, there were also underlying intentions to the United States display of morality. Not only were fair …show more content…
Although the Nuremberg Trials may not currently affect Americans’ day-to-day lives, they have significantly influenced how other international organizations and trials have been handled. For example, following the conclusion of the trials, the United Nations Genocide Convention was created in 1948. This document created by world leaders defined what events could be classified as genocide and their punishments. In Article IV of the Convention it is stated that, “Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” This is a direct reference toward the Nuremberg Trials since the International Military Tribunal strove to eliminate any sort of bias when convicting the high-ranked German officials. No matter how high up in society a person may be, crimes against humanity hold all humans leveled and equal before the law. Additionally, the Nuremberg Trials served as a precedent for Japanese war criminals in Tokyo, 1961. Unlike the Nuremberg Trials, the Tokyo Trials had only one chief prosecutor—Joseph Keenan of the United States. Formerly the assistant to the U.S. attorney general, Keenan used the Nuremberg Trials as an example of how to hold fair trials for the convicted men despite the