Ferdinand von Schirach: Terror

Presiding JudgeYou went to the police again later?

MeiserNo.

Presiding JudgeFor the court: page 96, Volume 14 in the files. According to the files you were there once more on 4th September?

MeiserOh, that’s what you mean.

Presiding JudgeDo you remember now?

MeiserYes, I got a letter from the police. All the relatives went to Garching. We were taken to a big hall that belonged to the Air Force.

Presiding JudgeIndeed. And what was there?

MeiserThat’s where all their things were, the personal effects from the wreckage. They’d laid them all out on tables, these long metal tables.

Presiding JudgeWas anything returned to you there?

MeiserJust his left shoe. It’s not that important.

Presiding JudgePerhaps it is. Please, tell us about the shoe.

MeiserI looked at everything in the hall carefully, along with the other people. There were so many things there, suitcases, watches, briefcases and so forth. But nothing of my husband’s. Then, right at the end, at the very back in the last row, I found it, his left shoe. It was in good condition, no scratches, no blood, nothing.

You see, my husband had always really looked after his shoes. He always bought expensive shoes, his favourites were horse leather. He said they might be more expensive but they’d last longer. I took his left shoe off the table. I had to sign a form for it. Then they wanted to wrap it up in a bag but I took it just as it was. It sat next to me on the passenger seat all the way home, that shoe.

My daughter’s seven, Your Honour. At the funeral she asked me what was in the coffin if Daddy wasn’t there.

I didn’t know what to say. She’s right, we buried an empty coffin. My daughter thought that was really stupid, praying beside an empty coffin. I couldn’t pray at all. Later I went and buried the shoe in the woods, on my own. I don’t know if that was right, burying the shoe.

I’m sorry, that probably doesn’t make much sense to you. I just don’t understand.

Presiding JudgeYes, Mrs Meiser.

MeiserIt’s hard for my daughter. You know, you just can’t explain it. She told me she’s already forgotten what Daddy used to smell like. His smell.

Presiding JudgeThank you, Mrs Meiser.

MeiserCan I have my phone back? I’d like to have that text, can you understand that?

Presiding JudgeYes, I do understand. Your telephone will be returned to you as soon as the trial has been concluded. We still require it as evidence. I’m very sorry.

MeiserThat’s what everyone said.

Presiding JudgeWhat?

Meiser‘I’m sorry.’ It doesn’t mean anything, when people say that.

Presiding JudgeI can’t give it to you.

MeiserYes.

Presiding JudgeAre there any further questions for the joint plaintiff and witness?

The Prosecutor and Defence Counsel shake their heads.

Mrs Meiser, thank you, you are now discharged as a witness. If you wish, you are welcome to follow the remainder of the trial.

Meiser leaves the room.

Presiding JudgeI will now inform you of the defendant’s criminal record: there are no entries, Mr Koch has no previous convictions.

If there are no further questions, motions or proposals –

The State Prosecutor and Defence Counsel shake their heads.

– then that completes the evidence. Prosecutor, do you require any time to prepare your closing statement?

State ProsecutorYes, I will need a short break.

Presiding JudgeFine. Then let’s adjourn for twenty minutes. ( Turns to the Guard once again .) Call everyone again in twenty minutes.

The Presiding Judge stands and leaves the courtroom. At the same time all other members of the court stand.

Interval .

The entire court except the Presiding Judge is seated or standing in their places. The Guard walks to the front of the stage.

GuardAll those attending the trial please return to the courtroom, the proceedings are about to continue. All those attending the trial please return to the courtroom, the proceedings are about to continue.

The Presiding Judge enters the courtroom, everyone stands up.

Presiding JudgePlease be seated.

All sit.

Prosecutor, we will now hear your closing statement.

State Prosecutor( stands ) Your Honour, ladies and gentlemen judges – I will say right away: the defendant is not a criminal. His actions are far removed from those we usually investigate in this courtroom. He has killed neither his wife nor her lover, he has not robbed, not committed fraud, and not stolen. On the contrary: by the standards of our society Lars Koch has up until now led an impeccable life, he has done absolutely nothing wrong. One cannot find the slightest fault with him. And I can say that I have been impressed by the integrity and seriousness of his thinking. Lars Koch is not a defendant who attempts to explain away what he has done with tales of childhood trauma, psychic disturbance or some other excuse. He is highly intelligent, level-headed, a man who is in a position to distinguish between right and wrong. Indeed he can probably do so better than most people. Everything that Lars Koch did, he did with full awareness, in absolute clarity. He was convinced that it was the right thing to do and he remains so.

Ladies and gentlemen, yes, the Defence Counsel is right. This case does indeed revolve around one single question: are we allowed to kill innocent people in order to save other innocent people? And is it a question of numbers? Can lives be weighed against each other at a point when for the death of one person four hundred others can be saved?

On the spur of the moment we would all probably do just that. It seems the right thing to do. Perhaps we might not be quite sure and it would take some effort to overcome these doubts. But we would weigh things up, just like we do in other areas of our lives. We would consult our consciences. And we would believe we were acting reasonably and fairly, according to the best of our know ledge and our consciences. We would agree with Lars Koch. And so we could end this trial and find him not guilty.

But, as you have already heard, the constitution demands something different from us. The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court have put it in these words: one life must not be weighed against another. Never, not even in great numbers. This makes us pause. And we owe it to the defendant and to the victims to think about this more carefully.

What are the criteria by which we will decide whether the defendant was allowed to kill or not? We are actually deciding according to our consciences, according to our morals, according to our common sense. And there are other words to express this: the former Minister of Defence referred to an ‘extra-legal state of emergency’. Some lawyers call it ‘natural law’.

However, ladies and gentlemen, the terminology is irrelevant. The meaning is always the same: that we should decide on the basis of ideas which stand above the law, which are greater than the law, ideas therefore, which replace the law. One has to ask: is this wise? I know that each and every one of you believes that you can rely on your own morals and your own conscience. But that is not true.