While clearing out a box of old books that had been sitting in my garage for ages, I stumbled on a tiny gem that I thought I had lost, my copy of Carl Madsen's book “The Good Doctor”, containing a series of texts criticizing the legal system from a Marxist viewpoint.

Most of the texts are very specific to a Danish context and to the time in which they were written but I think this presentation on criminal justice in the German Democratic Republic has a more general interest and still has relevance as an inspiration on how to build a humane legal system.

If it has any interest I might also translate his article arguing why the Danish legal system is a system based on class justice.

Carl Madsen (1903-1978) was a defense counsel known as “the red lawyer”. For generations he was the go-to lawyer for the left and defended Spanish civil war volunteers, communist activists, Vietnam war protesters victimised by the police and squatters from the freetown Christiania. For most of his adult life he was an active member of DKP, the Danish Communist Party. His political understanding, legal career as well as the betrayal he experienced from the state during and after the war left him with no respect whatsoever for the legal profession or the bourgeois courts, in the words of poet Dan Turell “he radiated contempt of court”.

His style is a mixture of gnarly legalese, Marxist theory and vitriolic insults that I personally find very engaging. As a leftist inhabiting the bleak political reality following the disaster of the 1990’s, one can only envy his confident defiant optimism.

Criminal Justice In The German Democratic Republic

Talk given in the Legal Discussion Club in Copenhagen on March 22 1966 and in the Student Society in Aarhus on April 14 1966

Du hässlicher Vogel, wirst du einst mir in die Hände fallen, so rupfte ich dir die Federn aus und hacke dir ab die Krallen

(You foul bird, were you ever to fall into my hands, I would pluck out your feathers and hack off your claws)

• Heinrich Heine — on the German eagle

The starting point

I am not able, here and within the time available, to provide a comprehensive overview over the extensive complex of rules on criminal procedure that applies to the German Democratic Republic. That is also beyond my expertise.

It is not, and it cannot be, my task at an occasion like this. What I will attempt is to present some scattered pieces of information that I hope are able to give an impression, in glimpses a sense, of the democratic principles of the socialist administration of justice and its realisation in the German Democratic Republic.

When the German people were liberated from Nazism in the spring of 1945, when Hitler's thousand year Reich crumbled, the war the Nazis started had cast Germany into the deepest misery. Eight million dead, total economic ruin, hardship and chaos. This was the legacy of the Hitler regime for the German people.

The politics of the ruling classes had proven bankrupt. Among the broadest classes of the population, the deepest depression, demoralization, and mistrust prevailed that a German future was even possible. Millions and millions were infected with Nazi ideology.

The only popular force that could enter into the estate, save the nation, and steer development in a peaceful and democratic direction was the working class, whose best sons had been murdered in the tens of thousands by the Hitler fascists.

The starting point for later developments in the German Democratic Republic was the communist party's proclamation to the population of June 11 1945. The proclamation demands the establishment of an anti-fascist, democratic republic for the whole of Germany, and it is stated that it would be incorrect to impose a social system based on the Soviet model on Germany.

The communist party's proclamation confronted the people with the task of carrying out a bourgeois-democratic revolution, of destroying militarism and imperialism, and of implementing an anti-fascist democratic social order in Germany.

The goal of the proclamation is thus not socialist. It says:

Under the current circumstances it is in the interest of the German people to create an anti-fascist democratic regime, a parliamentary republic in which the people can enjoy all democratic rights and freedoms…

Based on this viewpoint, a long series of concrete demands for social measures were put forward.

Insofar as these have a connection to the administration of justice, it concerns primarily the following:

1. With the assistance of all honest Germans, to track down Nazi leaders, Gestapo agents, and SS bandits
2. To conduct thorough purges of active Nazis from all public offices
3. To bring before German courts for severe punishment all those Nazis who were not major war criminals, who were to be sentenced by the victorious powers' courts, but who were nevertheless guilty of criminal offenses and of participation in Hitler's treason against the German people.
4. To reorganize the administration of justice in accordance with the people’s new democratic way of life
5. To enact equality before the law for all citizens without regard to racial differences
6. To criminalise all expressions of racial hatred, and
7. To seize the assets of Nazis and war criminals and make them available for the municipal and provincial organs of self-government.

The communist party's proclamation was followed by a call from the social democratic central leadership on June 15. This call was in line with the communist one and it demanded similar measures regarding the administration of justice:

…the adaptation of the legal system to the anti-fascist democratic constitution. Freedom of expression in writing and speech under consideration of the interests of the state and individual citizens. Freedom of opinion and freedom of belief. Protection through criminal law against incitement of racial hatred…

A complete eradication of all traces of the Hitler regime from legislation and the administration of justice is demanded.

—

The converging principled objective, which was proclaimed to the population, paved the way for an action agreement between the leadership of the two workers' parties. This agreement was made already on June 19th 1945 and it was concerning with a narrow cooperation on solving the proclaimed objectives regarding the final liquidation of Nazism, national reconstruction and the creation of a parliamentary-democratic republic that was not plagued by the mistakes and weaknesses of the past, but which secured all democratic rights and freedoms for the working people. It was established that the two parties should strive for agreements with other democratic anti-fascist parties on the formation of a stable bloc, so that the most pressing tasks could be solved.

The trade unions, who had been banned during the Hitler era, re-emerged for the public with a call on June 15 1945. They agreed with the demands of the two workers’ parties.

The road had been cleared for a broad unity on objectives and measures and on July 14 the bloc of anti-fascist democratic parties was formed, consisting of the communist party, the social democrats, the Christian democratic union and Germany's liberal-democratic party. Other parties and organisations were added later. Justice and administration could begin to function.

—

In 1946 the communist and the social democratic parties were united in the socialist unity party and international developments led to the partition of Germany.

In September 1949 the separate west German state was proclaimed and on October 7 1949 this breach of the Potsdam agreement was answered by the creation of the German Democratic Republic, GDR.

As mentioned, the administration of justice began to resume its functions shortly after the liberation from Hitler fascism in 1945. However, getting a well-oiled anti-fascist justice system started was a complicated matter, as virtually every jurist had been a member of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP. It was immediately determined that no person who had been affiliated with this or affiliated organizations, or who had in the slightest way shown sympathy for Nazism, would be permitted to work within the judiciary or the educational system of the GDR.

Courts were then established in which the functions were carried out by people's judges who were elected in workplaces, in trade unions, and in a similar manner. Few of these judges had legal training, but simultaneously with assuming their functions, they began a basic schooling. This happened through short courses, remote studies and through personal instructions. Many of these people's judges are still serving today, but they have gradually received legal training equivalent to that undergone by other jurists in the GDR.

This goal was reached by 1957.

The west German federal republic was permeated by American capital and it kept its old Nazi jurists in important offices in and outside the administration of justice. It did so, like we here in Denmark kept compromised judges and other legal officials — except for the few who had to be thrown to the wolves. The GDR did not receive Marshall aid and had to pay reparations. But in that part of Germany the Nazis were 100% removed from the legal system.

The result, as we see it, is that the West German judiciary is dominated by Nazis and Nazi sympathizers. Therefore the construction of a democratic legal system in the federal republic has been impossible. By the hundreds, Hitler's top and leading Nazis hold decisive positions. In the GDR there isn't one person in the judiciary whose anti-nazi sentiment hasn't been examined and found satisfactory.

Thus it began, and thus was the prerequisite created for the establishment of a democratic administration of justice in the GDR, an administration of justice exercised by the people or kept under the people's close scrutiny.

The Development

Since the establishment of the GDR, the legislative authorities have frequently concerned themselves with criminal procedure. I will mention some of the most important stages of its development:

In 1950, the Provisional People's Chamber issued the Law on the Supreme Court of the GDR and on the Office of the Supreme Public Prosecutor. This law must be seen in connection with the establishment of the two German states. After a West German state had been established, all members of the old Reich Court in Leipzig left the GDR and moved to the Federal Republic. As is well known, the Reich Court had led a rather withdrawn existence under the Hitler dictatorship, but when the choice stood between the socialist state and the reactionary West German one, the choice naturally fell in favor of the Federal Republic. The current president of the GDR’s Berlin-based Supreme Court is named Toeplitz and he is a member of the CDU.

In 1952 came the Law on the Public Prosecutor's Offices and on the Youth Courts. In addition, laws on the constitution of the courts were adopted.

Around 1953, the Conflict Commissions began their activity. These are bodies that are elected in workplaces and which adjudicate a very large portion of minor criminal cases. I will later discuss this element of the administration of justice, which is something very important and very characteristic of criminal justice in a country that dares to place the administration of justice in the hands of the people. Up to that point, the legislation regarding the judiciary had been relatively sporadic. Individual reforms were introduced gradually as the need for them became clear, but in the following years, a comprehensive reform of the administration of justice was prepared.

In 1958, 'The German Academy for Political and Legal Science' held a congress in Potsdam, and here a broad principled discussion took place. The agenda was 'The Marxist-Leninist Theory of the State and its Application in Germany'. The discussions at this congress helped to accelerate a development that culminated in 1963 with the issuance of a so-called 'Rechtspflegeerlass' [Administration of Justice Decree], a proclamation that contains a codification of the principles of socialist administration of justice and which serves as a guideline for legislative work in the realm of the judiciary. On the basis of this Erlass [decree], a complex of procedural laws was developed. The decree is of decisive importance for the administration of justice as it is now practiced in the GDR.

Prior to the proclamation, the State Council had issued a program declaration in October 1961 on the tasks and working methods of the judicial organs, and this declaration was followed by a decision of January 30, 1961. Finally, on May 24, 1962, a State Council commission was established to draft proposals for the further development of the socialist administration of justice. This commission submitted a report, which was approved by the State Council as the basis for a people's discussion of the problems of the administration of justice.

To carry out this discussion, meetings and congresses were held throughout the country. In these events — amounting to some 80,000 — over 2 million citizens participated, and more than 300,000 took the floor in the discussions. More than 6,000 suggestions were submitted to the Secretariat of the State Council. Meetings on the matter were held at all workplaces, in all trade unions, and in all educational institutions. Such public discussions take place before particularly significant laws are drafted.

The fact is that in the GDR, there is a particular notion that a government by the people, a democracy, consists not only of the population's right to vote in elections, but namely in its direct participation in the functions of society. They don't really consider a democracy genuine if its citizens are not active in all public affairs.

Here with us, legislation and state administration have become alienated from the people, a matter for officials and professional politicians. In the GDR, no effort is spared to involve the population directly in the discussion and resolution of societal problems.

Therefore, a full-fledged democracy is growing in the GDR, while Western countries like Denmark are increasingly developing into technocracies, into the experts' latent fascist dictatorship over the people. It is not surprising that the GDR disturbs Danish officials, disturbs them to such an extent that they will not even see with their own eyes what is actually happening in this country located right beyond our borders.

After the people's debate on the administration of justice had been concluded, and after a new draft of the administration of justice decree had been prepared taking extensive consideration of its results, in April 1963 the People's Chamber adopted the laws currently in force on the organisation of the courts and on the public prosecutor's offices.

Socialism Is The Foundation

The German Democratic Republic is a socialist state, a socialist workers' and peasants' state. It is that, whether you, ladies and gentlemen, like it or not, and that is what it will continue to be.

This is the fundamental reality that we must keep in mind if we wish to understand anything of what is happening in this country, so near our doorstep.

The country's administration of justice — as well as other manifestations of society — is shaped in simple consequence of this. Socialism permeates the administration of justice in all its branches, and it is proclaimed in numerous legal provisions, proclaimed with German thoroughness and in a legal language that is not easily transformed into manageable Danish.

To give you an impression of the fundamental difference in the objective of the administration of justice in the GDR and here, I have not spared myself the effort of translating its purpose clause, §2 of the Law on the Constitution of the GDR's Courts. This law is dated April 17, 1963, and it was prepared on the basis of the State Council's Administration of Justice Decree, which was approved by the People's Chamber.

This purpose clause reads as follows in my translation:

The activity exercised by the courts in the GDR shall serve

to the resolution of the workers' and peasants' state's political, economic, and cultural tasks during the ongoing comprehensive construction of socialism, namely the planned development of the productive forces and the strengthening of the socialist relations of production,

to develop and shape the citizens' socialist relations to society, to their state, and to one another in their societal interactions,

to protect the socialist state and economic constitution, including in particular the vital interests of the people and socialist achievements, against crimes against peace, humanism, and socialist state power, as well as against other seriously punishable acts,

to safeguard and enforce the rights and legally protected interests of the citizens, the state and economic organizations, the enterprises, the collectives, and the social organizations and institutions.

The courts shall contribute to ensuring that all citizens, institutions, and organizations purposefully observe and realize socialist law, the law that expresses the will of the people and serves their peaceful life, their freedom, their productive labor, and justice for each and every person.

The fulfillment of these tasks requires

that the courts, in the course of their activities, comprehensively and thoroughly investigate the social context and causes of legal disputes and violations, and work to eliminate the basis and conducive preconditions for unlawful acts—with the assistance of the responsible state and economic organizations and with the participation of the working population and its social organizations

that the courts continually engage with the problems of societal development; with the tasks posed by the comprehensive construction of socialism, with the administration of justice and the development of criminality, and that they draw consequences from this for their legal decisions, and

that the courts, during the period in which the comprehensive construction of socialism is taking place, rely on the knowledge and experience of the responsible state and economic organizations and of the scientific institutions in their work addressing the problems of political, economic, and cultural development.

I shall immediately proceed to explain a little about how, from this lush socialist soil, a criminal justice system has grown that constitutes the working people's voluntary self-administered justice.

I will do this by telling a little about institutions that cannot be imitated and results that cannot be achieved here or in any capitalist country.

What I will describe presupposes socialist conditions, conditions where the people consider the state their own, and where they solidarize with the executive organs of this state.

Justice is a concern of the entire people

In the GDR, the fundamental problem of the judiciary consists in achieving a complete unity between the people and the judiciary. The administration of justice must be something that concerns the entire people. It must be a function that springs directly from the working people.

We are familiar with similar talk here in this country, we encounter it in the schools' social studies classes, and perhaps even here at the university. One might have suspected von Eyben [progressive legal scholar].

But the crucial difference between Denmark and the GDR is that what is a television show and empty phrases in this country — a deception against the people — is a living reality in the GDR. Not to be understood as if the process of merging the people and its judiciary has been completed, but rather that the goal is being pursued with energy and honesty. The honesty in societal matters is, on the whole, a predominant yet, for us, distracting feature in the portrayal of the GDR. It is, in a peculiar way, as if this honesty offends our Western way of life. It comes across as somewhat uncultured, so to speak. Profoundly alien, in any case.

Lay Judges

One of the means to promote this development is the participation of lay judges in the administration of justice, both criminal and civil.

Since also the professional judges are recruited from the working class and the working peasantry, one might ask whether lay judges are actually necessary. This question was already discussed at the first lay judges' congress in the GDR. However, it was pointed out that while judges do indeed come from the working people, from the lathe, so to speak, the lathe is not the same as it was 10 years ago, and the working people today live, work, and think differently than they did 10 years ago. The direct participation in the judiciary by workers from industry and agriculture is intended to ensure that the knowledge of workers and peasants about the pressing problems of the day gains entry into the judiciary.

The decree on the administration of justice states that lay judges in particular should contribute to creating the closest connection possible between the judiciary and social development in general. They are to assist the professional judges in drawing the necessary conclusions from the general political and social development, particularly in the economic sphere, and thus contribute to the courts working more expertly than they would otherwise be able to.

What is required of the lay judges in the GDR is that they should be the direct link between the millions of the working people and the courts, between material production and other spheres of life on the one hand, and the judiciary on the other.

It is evident that this function could not be fulfilled by the type of lay judges we know from criminal cases in this country. These menopausal housewives and well-heeled functionaries on the leeward side of 50 are, with rare exceptions, suited for nothing other than being yes-sayers.

In the GDR, both lay judges and professional judges are elected for a term of four years. The lay judges who serve in the lower courts, where the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are adjudicated, are elected by workers' assemblies at enterprises and in agriculture.

It is a precondition for being elected that you must be at least 25 years old.

It is presumed that only persons are elected about whom the voters feel convinced that they can solve the tasks imposed on them by law. It is required that they have a thorough knowledge of the most important sectors of societal life, and particularly of economic life, in the district where they are elected. It is prescribed that particularly citizens who harbor a faithful devotion to the workers' and peasants' state should be selected as lay judges.

The tasks assigned to the lay judges are not fulfilled merely by their participation as equal judges in all cases. They typically do so for 12 consecutive days each year during their term of office.

But outside the courtroom, it is their duty to contribute to expanding the population's knowledge of the law and justice of the workers' and peasants' state.

It is furthermore their duty to support the collective education of offenders and the resocialization of released convicts.

The demands placed on the lay judges are thus very significant, and their work presupposes thorough training. This training is carried out through participation in courses and conferences, partly on a national scale. In addition to deliberation on the adjudication of specific cases, mutual collaboration takes place between professional judges and lay judges, who occasionally gather for joint discussions of general legal problems. Furthermore, a professional journal for lay judges is published.

The connection between the lay judges and their voters is by no means severed after the election; rather, the lay judges have a duty to account for the manner in which they have fulfilled the obligations imposed upon them by the election. Thus, they are monitored by the voters and monitored carefully. If they fail to fulfill their duties, which also presuppose a proper conduct in private life, the voters can, upon the court's recommendation, revoke their mandate.

Incidentally, a corresponding duty to render accounts to the competent electoral assembly also applies to the professional judges, who are likewise elected.

The lay judges receive compensation that provides full reimbursement for lost earnings. Neither more nor less.

As you, ladies and gentlemen, will understand, the institution of lay judges in the GDR is fundamentally different in nature from that in Denmark. But this, like so much else one encounters there in the sphere of societal life, is a simple consequence of the fact that the GDR is a state of a different type than Denmark.

Our state belongs to the monopolies and the banks, the GDR belongs to the German people. That is the difference. Therefore, they can entrust the courts with other tasks than we can, principally the task of defending socialism against criminal assaults, from West Berlin for example.

The population of the GDR is, in its overwhelming majority, in solidarity with its state. Here with us, discord prevails, and the population is alienated from the state and its technocratic leadership.

This situation is naturally also reflected in the two countries' administration of justice.

When you, ladies and gentlemen, in due course have completed your studies and passed your examination, you will be well-trained in lackey skills for the masters. In the GDR, the masters do not exist. That is what is so remarkable about that country.

A Meeting At The Conflict Commission

The branch of the socialist administration of justice that most conspicuously manifests the unity between the people and their judiciary is the Conflict Commissions. These Conflict Commissions are elected in workplaces. They have many functions, but one of them is that they handle and adjudicate approximately one third of all criminal cases. In Politisk Revy, Søren Søltoft Madsen, LL. M, has described a meeting of a Conflict Commission at the massive Warnov Shipyard in Warnemünde.

The meeting was held in the company's cultural room. Present were, in addition to the young offender to whom the case pertained, four members of the Conflict Commission. Approximately 25 workers were present as spectators.

The case involved a young man — a 24-year-old unskilled laborer — who had stolen 50 marks from a colleague who was his neighbor in a collective workers' housing unit affiliated with the Warnov Shipyard. It was, in other words, a completely trivial case that would not have prompted much reflection in this country. It is one of those cases that the [Copenhagen] district court processes two in an hour of. But in the Conflict Commission, the case was not regarded as insignificant. On the contrary, they did not shrink from spending time and effort to uncover the real reasons why he had stolen the money.

The young man had to give a detailed account of his family and upbringing. It turned out that he was born out of wedlock, and that he had been raised by an elderly aunt after his mother's death. They inquired about his current relationship with this aunt, how often he visited her, and whether he supported her financially.

But the point that was most thoroughly investigated was his relationship at and to the workplace. He was examined on his own view of his work and his relationship with colleagues. Additionally, a foreman and three of his colleagues explained minor episodes that could shed light on his personality and attitude. It emerged from this that he had told several colleagues that his wish was to become a welder.

The case was resolved with a formal reprimand, but it was additionally decided that if he performed his work properly and behaved well for half a year, he would be trained as a welder at the company's expense. Such a commitment is binding on the company, but the offender is free to quit his job whenever he wishes.

During the conversations with the young man, it emerged that he was interested in a theater club at the company, and the Conflict Commission decided that it should contact the leadership of this theater club and have them integrate the offender into its activities.

Amid the discussion of these concrete circumstances, the young man was confronted with questions of a more abstract nature. They discussed with him how he thought it would fare if residents of a collective housing unit could not trust one another, and they debated with him whether he believed it was necessary for society to react to thefts, even if they were not substantial.

Minor criminal cases like the one mentioned are adjudicated by the thousands in the Conflict Commissions. The person who has their case resolved in this manner undoubtedly experiences intense discomfort in having to account for their offense before their fellow workers. It is often far more unpleasant than a formal sentence. The repressive effect is significant.

The crucial point, however, is that the Conflict Commission and the colleagues do everything they can to figure out what is actually wrong with the man, and everything to remove the conditions that are decisive for why he has offended.

There is more than a decade of experience with the Conflict Commissions, and these experiences have been such that their scope of activity is being expanded and developed. They have become a decisive component in crime prevention. Those who have had their case handled by a Conflict Commission seldom offend again.

The Tasks Of The Conflict Commissions

The Conflict Commissions do not only deal with criminal cases and the settlement of minor civil disputes. In all their activities, they must contribute to the development and strengthening of the workers' socialist morality and consciousness. They are to promote and protect the interpersonal relations that rests on comradely assistance in all aspects of life, on cooperation and mutual influence. They shall contribute to their best ability to educate the workers of the enterprise in conscious respect for the laws of the workers' and peasants' state and for the principles of socialist coexistence. Finally, the Administration of Justice Decree prescribes it as their task to mobilize the workers of the enterprise to eliminate all faults and conflicts that may hinder the enterprise in fulfilling the production plan.

Regarding their judicial function, the decree states that the Conflict Commissions shall deliberate and adjudicate in minor criminal cases and in smaller civil disputes. They shall exercise this function in such a way that, through comradely and critical discussions with offenders, they exert an educational influence on them, and they shall to the best of their ability seek to identify the reasons why the individuals in question offended. Once these causes have been identified, the Conflict Commission shall seek to eliminate the crime-inducing causes and conditions with the assistance of the work collective.

The Conflict Commissions operate in close cooperation with the 'Freier Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund' (FDGB), the trade union organization in the GDR, but they are not bound by specific instructions from any side.

The criminal cases handled by the Conflict Commissions generally involve first-time offenses, minor property crimes, simple assault, defamation, violations of worker protection regulations, vandalism, traffic offenses, and in general such minor violations committed for the first time, where the circumstances of the act and the personality of the offender suggest that the educational purpose of the sanction can be achieved in this manner.

The basis for the activity of the Conflict Commissions regarding minor criminal cases is a referral from investigating police authorities, from public prosecutors, or from the courts. The referral to the Conflict Commission is in writing. It must contain a thorough presentation of the fully investigated facts and of the evidence of the defendant’s guilt. Only cases in which a confession has been made are referred. Presentation of evidence never takes place in the Conflict Commissions with regard to the facts. The referral documents contain the referring authority's assessment of the act, a specification of the relevant criminal law provisions to be considered, and an account of the reason for deeming the case suitable for referral, as well as the circumstances deemed to be its background. The Conflict Commissions may protest the referral if they do not believe the case has been sufficiently investigated, that it is too severe, or that it is unsuitable for resolution by the Conflict Commission for other reasons. In the event of such an objection, the case must be reconsidered by the referring authority, but its second decision on the matter of referral is final.

To fulfill their tasks, the Conflict Commissions must collaborate with social organizations such as brigades and work groups, with the enterprise management, and with the collective of lay judges.

The Conflict Commissions cannot pass sentences, but they can order certain educational measures. They can issue a reprimand and require the guilty party to apologize to an offended person or a collective. They can order the payment of compensation for damages caused, and if the damage was inflicted upon the enterprise, restitution through unpaid work.

It is noteworthy that the Conflict Commission can confirm and approve the obligations that the work collective undertakes in order to exert an educational influence on the worker who has committed an offense. It can also direct recommendations to the enterprise management or to social or state organizations regarding the adoption of measures to eliminate identified concrete crime-inducing conditions. I have heard many complex recommendations being made to management or authorities. It may involve providing the opportunity for desirable education, a recommendation to the administration of residential properties regarding the establishment or expansion of hobby workshops, procurement of other lodging or a new apartment, and virtually any conceivable practical measure. But the recommendations can also concern administrative, technical, and supervisory measures.

The authorities or organizations to which a recommendation is directed must, within two weeks, provide a written and reasoned response to the Conflict Commission regarding whether the recommendation can be complied with. The collective of lay judges enters the picture by supporting the Conflict Commissions in their efforts to eliminate the causes of criminality.

If the offender is dissatisfied with the Conflict Commission's decision, they may bring the case before the lower court. The court may then either overturn the Conflict Commission's decision or dismiss the appeal if it finds it unfounded. If the court overturns the decision, the case is returned to the Conflict Commission with the court's recommendation for alternative measures, and the case is reheard by the commission. This second decision is final.

As mentioned, the Conflict Commissions have been operating for a number of years with excellent results. Until now, the scope of their adjudication of the countless minor violations that occur in a modern society has been limited to cases where the offender worked in an enterprise that had established Conflict Commissions.

This limitation is due, of course, to the fact that collectively working citizens are more mature in a socialist sense than citizens who operate under other conditions. However, the older generations of the population are diminishing, the old ideology is disappearing, and a new generation that has benefited from a socialist upbringing is emerging. It has therefore now been possible to extend a similar method of adjudicating minor offenses to other population groups, and at this time, analogous bodies with the same authority as the Conflict Commissions are emerging everywhere in residential areas and the countryside, in private businesses, and in the cooperatives of craftsmen, gardeners, and fishermen. They are called Schiedskommissionen or Arbitration Commissions.

The Conflict Commissions and other forms of the people's direct adjudication of minor cases have been an outstanding success, and they are not experiments or transitional phenomena. These institutions have come to stay, to be expanded, and to encompass larger and larger areas.

By the summer of 1963, there were 18,900 Conflict Commissions in the German Democratic Republic with approximately 200,000 members, and these numbers have since grown significantly. I do not have the latest figures. It should be emphasized that this institution also has the significant impact that approximately a quarter of a million people out of a population of 18 million are, by virtue of their membership in the Conflict Commissions, continuously and actively engaged in addressing the problems of crime prevention.

Together with the lay judges, they carry out work equivalent to that performed by the Danish Support Society in this country, but there are, of course, far more than 200,000 staff members. The Danish Support Society and its employees should not be blamed for the fact that their supervision and assistance cannot be as effective as that which can be provided in the unknown land south of Gedser.

It is evident that the work of the Conflict Commissions and Conciliation Commissions cannot be transferred to our country. Their operation presupposes a stabilized socialist social system and an acceptance of a social ethic that is opposite to the one bred by the social rat race in which we all participate here in this country.

A Case In The Rostock District Court

But of course, it is only one-third of criminal cases that are handled by the Conflict Commissions.

I will therefore describe a court hearing in the district court (lower court) of Rostock, on the basis of Søren Søltoft Madsen’s article.

If the case cannot be referred to a Conflict Commission due to the severity of the offense or because no confession has been made, the public prosecutor brings charges before the ordinary courts.

In Danish criminal cases, the presentation of evidence is carried out by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, provided, of course, that a defense counsel is involved who is familiar with the case and feels any responsibility for their work. They examine the party and the witnesses. They question expert witnesses and document the evidence that is invoked.

In principle, the role of our criminal judges is supplementary, but they may pose questions aimed at clarifying ambiguities. The judge can even order the presentation of evidence that neither the defense nor the prosecution had intended to introduce.

A criminal case in Denmark has the character of a duel between the prosecutor and the defense counsel, and the outcome of this determines the fate of the defendant.

This scenario is not encountered by an observer in a court case in the GDR, nor, for that matter, in West Germany. In these continental countries, the judge holds a different position than in our system. In principle it is the judge who conducts the examination with the purpose of eliciting the truth.

As a Danish defense counsel, I feel alienated by a legal system where the defense counsel merely presents the case and asks supplementary questions. The prosecutor's role is also far from prominent.

Incidentally, a reform of criminal procedure is being prepared, which will grant the defense counsel and the prosecutor a more active position in the criminal process than previously.

I will not express an opinion on whether an accusatorial or an inquisitorial criminal process is preferable, since what is decisive is not the manner in which the process is conducted, but whether the participating persons strive to uncover the material truth. Personally, I do believe it would be difficult for me to serve as a defense counsel under a process such as the one practiced on the Continent, and thus also in the GDR.

The case described by Søren Søltoft Madsen involves theft. A young man had broken into a former workplace and stolen a television set from a common room. That this case was not referred for hearing by a Conflict Commission was due to the fact that the perpetrator previously had two similar cases resolved in this manner, and both times he had left the workplace shortly afterward.

If one observes a comparable case in one of the Copenhagen district court's chambers, it will be resolved in 15-20 minutes. A confession has been made. In the district court, a few summary questions would be asked about the act and the perpetrator's personal circumstances. A conditional or unconditional sentence of a few months' imprisonment would then be made. In the interest of truth and objectivity, it should be noted that the district court judge in many cases will have a thorough personal investigation to rely on. These personal investigations are in many cases carried out by the conscientious investigators of the Danish Support Society.

The case in Rostock lasted a full 21 1⁄2 hours, and most of that time was spent conducting a meticulous mapping of the defendant's personal circumstances. One of the things the judge particularly sought to clarify was why he had changed workplaces so often. The defendant had apparently not given this much thought himself. He remarked that he was rather indifferent to what he earned, since most of his income was garnished to cover installment debt and child support payments for children from a previous marriage.

The interrogation also revealed that there was a certain degree of alcohol abuse involved, and to clarify this aspect, the innkeeper from the young man's regular drinking establishment had been summoned as a witness.

That wretched finances and alcohol abuse play a significant criminogenic role is certainly not something unfamiliar to us in this country. But in the case from Rostock, they did not merely acknowledge this; instead, they took an intense interest in examining what could be done to remedy the misery, to eliminate its underlying causes.

The young man received a suspended sentence, and as a stipulation, it was determined that he could not change workplaces without reason for one year. In connection with this, the work collective was tasked with helping him obtain further education so that he could earn more. At the same time, measures were to be taken to ensure that his wages would be garnished so much that he lost the incentive to work and earn more. If the condition regarding not changing jobs was violated, a new court hearing would be held to decide whether he should serve the sentence or whether he had reasonable grounds for leaving the workplace.

The defendant’s leisure activities were also thoroughly discussed, and to shed light on this, a witness from the housing collective to which the defendant belonged had been summoned, among others. It turned out that his hobby was building model ships. However, he had only built simple models and not the more complex mechanical ones he desired but could not afford. This was taken into account, as the judgement recommended that the relevant housing collective purchase tools and materials so that he could pursue his leisure interest. In return, the young man, and this was also stipulated in the judgement, was to commit himself to helping and teaching the children and youth in the collective who had an interest in model shipbuilding.

The recommendations put forward by the court in a judgment cannot simply be ignored by the collective in question. According to §9 of the Court Constitution Act, the court may criticize conditions that foster criminality, and such criticism must be addressed by the relevant collective within two weeks.

In the aforementioned case, which I also personally observed, no defense counsel was involved.

Continued below