The film tells the story of a legal worker who was arraigned in Nuremberg after World War II for the German Nazi project. The three defendants were arraigned for sterilizing Jews and illegally sentenced to death a Jewish businessman who had an affair with a girl. The presiding judge was American Heywood, and the prosecutor was Colonel Rosen. He fiercely accused the defendant, but one of the defendants, German Minister of Justice Jenning, kept silent on the matter, so the three had a heated debate.
In the first case, when the prosecutor invited the litigant to share his unfortunate experience, which made people feel embarrassed, and the prosecution also took advantage of the victory to tit for tat and proposed that it was cruel to impose the Racial Purity Law on a Jew. The trial judge should be responsible for this matter. However, the lawyer representing the defendant did not directly refute the matter. The lawyer who was good at logical thinking instead questioned the client, constantly hinting to the jury and the judges that the client had intellectual problems, and then he proposed to sterilize the mentally retarded. There is also a precedent for surgery in the United States, which left the prosecution speechless.
And in the second case—a case concerning a Jewish businessman and an underage girl who had an affair and was sentenced to death, at the beginning, the prosecutor major thought that as long as the girl of the year was found, let her state in court that she did not have a relationship with the victim. The Jewish businessman sentenced to death has had improper sexual acts to prove the guilt of the trial judge, but when the prosecution finally found and persuaded the client to testify in court after going through hardships, the client was hit by the other party's defense lawyer during the trial. Weakness, collapse on the spot. The defendants once had the upper hand.
The trial continued, but as the Cold War began to unfold, the United States desperately needed German support in Nuremberg, the frontier of the American-Soviet hegemony, so senior American officials hoped to be held accountable for the crimes committed by Germany. Well-proven, and so put a lot of pressure on the trial, but Judge Haywood, who stood by the justice of the law, gave the fairest verdict. In announcing the verdict, only Jane Ning praised Judge Heywood's attitude.
In my opinion, the main legal issues presented in the film are: whether judges of other countries have the right to try cases that have been pronounced by judges of another country, and whether judges should be charged with guilt for making and implementing wrong laws according to the will of the country.
The defense lawyer's logical thinking in these two cases is admirable, but in addition to refuting the content of the prosecution's allegations, the defense lawyer wants to emphasize that the defendant's judge is only executing legal responsibilities according to the will of the country. , they have no guilt at all. He asked the American judges present whether they would betray their own country, and the answer, of course, was no. Therefore, he believes that the reason why Jianning, who he is defending, makes the above sentence is just out of loyalty to the country. If the case is not judged in this way, it is a betrayal of the country. As a German judge, Jenning has no ability to oppose the entire country.
The people just hope that the whole country can become prosperous and strong, and Hitler is the person who can bring such hope to the German people. If found guilty, then all Germans should be guilty. The defendant's lawyer cleverly bound the defendant and all Germans together.
But from a jurisprudential point of view, I don't agree with the defendant's lawyer's view. Because as Judge Haywood said, as a person who is proficient in the law, Jane Ning should know what the law is better than ordinary people. The law should be just and independent, and should not be reduced to a tool of the Nazis. When he clearly knows what justice is and breaks the law to destroy justice, he should certainly be considered guilty compared to the general public.
When sterilizing a Jewish mentally handicapped person, Jian Ning should have known that a physically handicapped person, as a member of the human race, should also have the basic right to reproduce, which is a basic human right. In the second case, based on the principle of unclear facts and insufficient evidence, he should not deprive the Jewish businessman of his right to life. While he tried to argue that he didn't know that so many killings would have been caused when he delivered these sentences, but as Judge Haywood said - when you sentence the first person to death, you should understand that .
In Germany under Nazi rule, as the supreme justice, Jane Ning did not fight against the Nazis for the most simple fairness and justice of mankind, nor did he choose to withdraw from this place of right and wrong like his teacher. What he chose was to paralyze himself for the sake of Find a reasonable explanation for what you are doing, thinking that you are just performing the duties that the people have given you.
But, wrong is wrong, and when the killings he made were shown to him, he knew how pale the claims he used to numb his heart were in front of the blood, and he collapsed. So when Judge Haywood handed down their guilty verdict, he was relieved.
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
