Special Jurisdiction from the Bavarian Soviet Republic to the Hitler-Trial. Bavarian People´s Courts (1919-1924)

在政治动荡时期，刑事司法是法治的标尺。“不民主”、“右眼失明”、“政治”，这些都是最常被用来描述魏玛时期司法实践的术语。然而，目前还没有法律-历史著作能够根据史料来证明或反驳这些评价。因此，该项目的目的是使用巴伐利亚军事鼓手法庭(Standgerichte)和人民S法庭(Volksgerichte)的例子来检查这些评估。从1918年到1924年，巴伐利亚州的大多数刑事诉讼都是在这些法庭上进行的。这也包括对巴伐利亚苏维埃共和国成员(RätereRepublic ikaner)(1919年)或所谓的希特勒盲动派(1923/24)的诉讼。将在分析审判卷宗的基础上审查司法实践。这包括那些可以得出结论的资料来源，说明哪些程序因赦免或送达令而没有进行。该项目将程序历史的兴趣与教条历史和社会历史的兴趣结合起来。这样，对司法实践的评价才能有广泛的科学依据。为了澄清“政治正义”的概念，将指出司法设计中的法律弱点，并收集有关参与审判的人的社会背景的全面资料，以及可能涉及的量刑实践。在对巴伐利亚州的档案进行了最初的随机检查后，我们可以肯定的是：对巴伐利亚州的司法实践需要比目前更具差异化的评估。这反过来又可以让我们有理由检查和区分关于司法机构在魏玛共和国运作或失败中所起作用的常见理论。在这种情况下，不仅如此，现有的知识必须重新分类。一方面，希特勒-鲁登多夫案可能是人民S法院(Volksgericht)研究得最好的审判。另一方面，缺乏对其法律历史和社会历史背景的了解；然而，只有在这种背景下，才有可能将这一审判全面置于魏玛的司法实践中。我们希望完成这一重新定位，以及对审判模式和程序规则的历时重新评估，这些模式和规则将德国特别法院(Sondergerichte)描述为一个司法机构--例如，在程序创新方面，如非法律参与刑事诉讼。

Criminal justice is the yardstick for the rule of law in times of political up-heaval. "Undemocratic", "blind in the right eye", "political", these are the terms most often used to characterise the judicial practice of the Weimar period. However, there are no legal-historical works that could prove or disprove these evaluations on the basis of historical sources. The aim of the project is therefore to examine these evaluations using the example of the Bavarian drumhead courts martial (Standgerichte) and people´s court (Volksgerichte). The majority of criminal proceedings in Bavaria took place before these courts from 1918 to 1924. This also includes the proceedings against members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic (Räterepublikaner) (1919) or the so-called Hitler putschists (1923/24). The judicial practice will be examined on the basis of an analysis of the trial files. This includes those sources that allow conclusions to be drawn about which procee-dings were not carried out due to amnesties or service orders. The project combines the interests of procedural history with those of dogmatic history and social history. In this way, the evaluation of judicial practice can be placed on a broad scientific basis. The concept of „political justice“ will be clarified by pointing out the legal weaknesses in the design of the administration of justice and by gathering comprehensive information on the social backgrounds of those involved in the trials and the possib-le references to sentencing practice. After an initial random examination of the Bavarian file holdings, we cansurmise: A more differentiated evaluation of Bavarian judicial practice is required than has been the case so far. This, in turn, can give us reason to examine and differentiate common theories about the role of the judiciary in the functioning or failure of the Weimar Republic. In this context, moreo-ver, existing knowledge must be reclassified. On the one hand, the Hitler-Ludendorff trial is probably the best researched trial of a people´s court (Volksgericht). On the other hand, there is a lack of knowledge about its legal-historical and socio-historical context; only this context, however, makes it possible to comprehensively situate this trial in Weimar judicial practice. We want to accomplish this re-location as well as a diachronic re-evaluation of trial models and regulations on the rules of procedure that characterise the German special courts (Sondergerichte) as a juridical in-stitution – for example, with regard to proceduaral innovations such as lay participation in criminal proceedings.