Report, Statements Regarding John J. McCloy's Final Decisions on Requests for Clemency for War Criminals Convicted at Nuremberg

January 31, 1951 STATEMENTS REGARDING JOHN J. MC CLOY'S FINAL DECISIONS ON REQUESTS FOR CLEMENCY FOR WAR CRIMINALS CONVICTED AT NUREMBERG Mr. John J. McCloy, U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, today announced his final decisions regarding requests for clemency for war criminals convicted at Nuremberg, In releasing these decisions which cover all the cases over which he, as U.S. High Commissioner, has jurisdiction, Mr. McCloy made the following statement: "Since my arrival in Germany I have received many letters and petitions asking clemency for war crimes prisoners convicted at Nuremberg and confined in Landsberg Prison. "It is a fundamental principle of American justice that accused persons shall be given every opportunity to maintain their inno- cence. If found guilty, it is recognized that they should be permitted to establish mitigating circumstances. In conformity with this latter principle I decided to appoint an impartial board to review these petitions, to examine each case and to consider whether any basis existed for clemency. 'Such a board was appointed in March, 1950, and was composed of three well-qualified, distinguished and impartial Americans who had not previously been identified in any way with the Nuremberg trials. Its members were: the Hon. David W. Peck, Presiding Justice, Appellate Division, First Department, New York Supreme Court, chairman; Commissioner Frederick: A. Moran, Chairman, New York Board of Parole; and Brig. General Conrad E. Snow, Assistant Legal Adviser, Department of State. The Board commenced its deliberations in Washington and, in July of 1950, established itself in Munich, Germany, where it conducted proceedings during the course of the summer. AND "The Board submitted its recommendations to me at the end of the summer. In a statement which is being released at this time, the Board has described the general basis on which it proceeded. After reviewing the Nazi criminal programs which were the basis of the Nuremberg trials, this considered statement disposes of certain general arguments commonly made on behalf of a number of the defendants. These arguments include the following: (1) the excuse of 1superior orders'; (2) claims that the offenders are being punished under ex post facto laws; (3) the allegation that the delay in carrying out the death sentences should itself be sufficient grounds for commuting them. I urge everyone to read the Board's statement. I call attention to the comments of the Board on condi- tions in Landsberg Prison. "With the assistance of the Board's recommendations, I have considered each individual request for clemency and in every case I have made the final decision. "Sentences have been reduced in a very large number of cases. They have been reduced wherever there appeared a legitimate basis for clemency. Such reductions have been granted where the sentence was out of line with sentences for crimes of similar gravity in other cases; where the reduction appeared justified on the ground of the relatively subordinate authority and responsibility of the defendants; where new evidence, not available to the court, support- ed such clemency. Where I was convinced that a defendant on some occasion had the courage to resist criminal orders at personal risk, I took such facts into consideration. It is notable that several of the defendants did have the courage to resist or repud- iate such orders without suffering any serious consequences. In certain cases my decision to grant clemency has been influenced by the acute illness of the prisoner or other special circumstances of similar nature. "Fifteen