Ferdinand von Schirach: Terror

DefendantYes.

State ProsecutorYou know – this is something else you would have learnt in your training – that you may only contravene an order if that order is against the law.

DefendantI am aware of that.

State ProsecutorAnd you knew that as part of the powers of the state you are bound by the rulings of the Federal Constitutional Court.

DefendantBasically yes.

State ProsecutorBasically?

DefendantI think the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling is wrong.

State ProsecutorCan you explain that to us?

DefendantYes. The question is whether the killing of non-participants is permissible in an extreme case.

State ProsecutorThe Federal Constitutional Court ruled against that…

DefendantBut the point is that there are 164 passengers on one side and 70,000 spectators in the stadium on the other. When the figures are so disproportionate, it’s impossble not to weigh one side against the other.

State ProsecutorIf I understand you correctly, you believe that the larger number of spectators in the stadium justifies killing the passengers.

DefendantYes.

State ProsecutorSo you do weigh one life against another?

DefendantNo, not one individual life against another individual life. I just believe that it was right to kill a few people in order to save a great many.

State ProsecutorFine. Do you fundamentally believe that every human life is of equal value?

DefendantOf course.

State ProsecutorHowever, protecting an individual life may be abandoned if this will save several other lives?

DefendantYes.

State ProsecutorWould you imagine please a man who is admitted to hospital because he has broken his arm. Apart from this, he is in excellent health. In this hospital there is a whole series of patients urgently awaiting transplants. It is their only hope. According to your argument they would be entitled to kill the man with the broken arm on the spot in order to harvest his organs.

DefendantNo, of course not.

State ProsecutorWhy not?

DefendantExceptions can only be made for large numbers of people.

State ProsecutorSo four to one’s not enough as far as you’re concerned?

DefendantNo, definitely not.

State ProsecutorI see. Is a hundred to one better? Or a thousand to one? Ten thousand to one, maybe? Where exactly do you draw the line?

DefendantI can’t say. One would have to decide case by case.

State ProsecutorNot ‘one’. You mean you would have to decide case by case.

DefendantMe?

State ProsecutorYes, you. Isn’t it true that with your decision you’re putting yourself in what is – to put it pathetically – a God-like position? You alone are now allowed to decide the proportion which is required for someone to carry on living. You dictate who lives and who dies.

DefendantI…

State ProsecutorYou see, if every human life is of equal value – as you yourself believe – isn’t it impossible to weigh lives against each other by number? Wouldn’t that go against this principle?

DefendantThe passengers on the civilian plane only had a few minutes to live anyway.

State ProsecutorThat is an entirely different argument, though.

DefendantThe situation is that the plane would have exploded in the stadium. The passengers only had a very short time to live. Even if I had not fired, they would all have been killed.

State ProsecutorLet me ask again: is the length of the life remaining the sole determining factor now?

DefendantYes.

State ProsecutorIn that case you alone are setting the time frame. Your notion is that people with low life-expectancy are no longer worth protecting. How long are you willing to give those people? Five minutes?

DefendantI don’t know…

State ProsecutorLess?

DefendantI…

State ProsecutorOr more? Can those people phone their relatives and say goodbye? A lot of passengers in the New York attacks did that.

DefendantYou… You’ve got to see this in practical terms.

State ProsecutorIn practical terms?

DefendantI only shot that plane down at the last moment. I couldn’t have waited any longer.

State ProsecutorBut that doesn’t change anything, does it? Think of our example: if the man in hospital hasn’t just broken his arm but is mortally ill and only has a few hours to live, then according to your argument, you don’t wait for him to die. You can kill him straight away to harvest his organs.

DefendantNo, of course not.

State ProsecutorWhy not?

DefendantA few hours are very different from a few minutes. And what’s more, the mortally ill patient in your example is innocent.

State ProsecutorInnocent? But weren’t the passengers just as innocent?

DefendantNot entirely, no.

State ProsecutorYou’re going to have to explain that.

DefendantThe passengers placed themselves in danger by boarding the aircraft.

State ProsecutorAh.

DefendantNowadays it is clear to everyone that there’s always a risk of being hijacked. Every airline passenger today knows they could become the victim of a terrorist attack. They can see it everywhere – just think of all the security checks you have to go through at the airport. The threat is obvious to everyone.

State ProsecutorSo it’s your belief then that by buying a ticket, the passengers are consenting to be killed?

DefendantPotentially killed.

State ProsecutorYou don’t think that’s lost all touch with reality? That it’s entirely unrealistic?

DefendantIt’s the way we live now.

State ProsecutorWhat about the children on the plane?

DefendantChildren?

State ProsecutorThere were children on the aeroplane. Did they consent to being killed too?

DefendantI…

Yes, their parents did on their behalf.

State ProsecutorInteresting. But – if I were to follow your reasoning – weren’t the people in the stadium also taking such a risk?

DefendantI don’t understand.

State ProsecutorIn the world as you see it everyone is aware of the dangers of being in a place where crowds congregate. On an underground train, for example, or at a rock concert, a fan zone, or in a football stadium. You could go even further and say that anybody who goes to a cinema or a nightclub or a department store is placing themselves in danger and thereby consenting to being killed.

DefendantThat’s not what I meant.

State ProsecutorSo what did you mean?

DefendantPassengers on aeroplanes are in particular danger.

State ProsecutorWell…

DefendantYou know, you spend the whole time talking about emotions.

State ProsecutorWhat do you mean by that?