Debate
There is an on-going debate whether the World War II Polish Special Courts were lawful and obeyed the elementary laws. According to the historians working for the Institute of National Remembrance the courts fulfilled the five basic conditions:
- The courts operated in the name of the Polish State and were subject to both pre-war Polish law and the wartime legislation.
- The courts penalized mostly the misdeeds included in the pre-war Polish law. Most of the trials were related either to high treason or collaboration.
- There are no sources that would claim that the Special Courts sentenced anyone without sufficient evidence of guilt.
- The Special Courts were always trying to reach the lawful verdict. 40% of all the judicial procedures ended up with the defendants found not guilty. 25% of the verdicts were capital punishment, while the rest included lash, infamy, banishment or fines. In many cases, the prosecution was suspended until the final liberation.
- All of the procedures of the Polish law were obeyed. The only exception to that rule was the case of the so-called preemptive liquidation, when a person known for being a German spy or collaborator had to be executed before he could denunciate the resistance net.
However, some German historians claim that after 1939 Poland did not exist, and the execution of Polish law on German-held territory was therefore against international law. These claims remain controversial, since the annexation of Poland in 1939 was unilateral and acknowledged only by the Axis Powers and the USSR (which later declared its pact with Germany null and void).
Read more about this topic: Special Courts
Famous quotes containing the word debate:
“Like man and wife who nightly keep
Inconsequent debate in sleep
As they dream side by side.”
—Robert Graves (1895–1985)
“Abject flattery and indiscriminate assentation degrade, as much as indiscriminate contradiction and noisy debate disgust. But a modest assertion of one’s own opinion, and a complaisant acquiescence in other people’s, preserve dignity.”
—Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773)
“A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)