2. Case Prueger
On 6.3.1934 the Kreisleiter of the German Labor Front for the food industry, member of the Nazi Party, was brought in for offending the Kreisleiter and two other persons. When being brought in, Turke beat his face with his fist and subsequently, in a small room, he was heavily beaten with sticks, whips and other instruments. * * *
* * * 2. The methods as well as the detailed circumstances of mistreatment show that lust for torture was the only motivation in a great number of cases. The following case illustrates that fact especially well.
The defendant Schupp frequently had to supervise the drill of inmates. On 5 or 6 March 1935 he called the inmate Lindner out of formation without any apparent reason and asked him for his name and domicile. Then he pressed, without any cause, his burning cigarette upon the end of Lindner's nose with the result that the latter received a burn for which he later required medical treatment. The court in this case, as in several others, expressly maintains that Schupp only acted out of sheer lust of torture. * * *
* * * Furthermore, may I state as far as the question of further mitigation of sentences are concerned that the court in pronouncing sentence has already weighed to the fullest extent all possible mitigating circumstances, the awful consequences of cruel mistreatment of human beings should otherwise result in a far more severe judicial expiation. Also it must not be over-looked that altogether only those members of the concentration camp staff were brought into court who took an especially active and cruel part in the mistreatments. Furthermore, the sentence was not aggravated by the fact that the Court affirmed, for purely judicial reasons, that the defendants were officials and sentenced them for committing bodily harm while carrying out a public office. The sentence expressly states that the court did not stress the fact that the accused SA men were officials in determining the punishment because they had not received proper training as officials and they probably do not wish to be referred to as such. (Compare page 144 of the Sentence). In these circumstances the mitigation of sentences already granted in the decree of 31 October 1935 seem an extensive favor. If, nevertheless, I suggest subsequently a further reduction of sentence, based upon new evidence of some of the defendants, I can only justify my action because I believe that, according to circumstances, the defendants in one or the other case of mistreatment may have partly acted out of revolutionary motives.
As to what parts the individual defendants played in these criminal acts I refer to the last two columns in the table handed over with the report of 28 August 1935. The following statements as to the individual defendants may be made.
1. Jaehnichen:
Sentence: 6 years imprisonment.
Reduction of Sentence: to be released on probation after 4 years 6 months.
Jaehnichen is an old member of the S.A. who through his bad example has fostered the increase of excesses, but at first he was motivated undoubtedly by a certain revolutionary anger and by the fact that he wanted to maintain exemplary discipline amongst the inmates. A further mitigating fact is that his participation in the unusually serious mistreatment of the Jew Ambross, who later committed suicide, was inspired by the belief that he was dealing in this case with a despoiler of German girls. With these facts, being what they are, a further reduction in sentence, amounting to one year, seems justifiable.