The Nuremberg Trials: Necessary Or Unfair?

In the case of the Nuremberg Trials, defendants were put on trial for actions that technically were not illegal at the time they were committed. The charges set against these high ranking members of the Nazi party turned them into test subjects in an unprecedented trial. The Allies had justified the prosecution of the leaders of the Axis powers “on the basis of unique warfare because of its totality and barbarity.” However they tried to justify the trial, it was still unfair and not compatible with the rule of law to prosecute a person for criminal conduct when the person could not have known that his act was illegal due to the fact that the law was not passed or created yet.

Another issue questioning the legitimacy of the Nuremberg Trials is the application of due process. Due process, according to Tessa McKeown and the Magna Carta, “emphasizes the right to equality of arms between the parties, the right to cross-examination, and the right to counsel.” Equality of arms is the concept that requires both the prosecution and the defense to have a reasonable opportunity to present their case at no disadvantage vis-à-vis the other side. Civil Law procedure (as used in Continental Europe) is inquisitorial. In planning the trial, parties agreed that a “combination of both systems allowed for and protected the defendants ' rights under both.”

When Rudolf Hess stated that he was actually prepared to do so, this right was ignored (McKeown 34). When Hess stated that he was prepared to act as his own counsel, this right was ignored. In denying Hess this right, the court argued they were doing him a favor. Hess was exhibiting signs of amnesia and insanity, and any effort made to argue his own case would likely have been compromised and unproductive. However, the opportunity to argue one 's own case is inherent in the right to counsel. Even when taking into consideration Hess 's unusual personal circumstances, this denial was a direct breach of the defendants ' due