The film leads the trial to the lawmakers of Nazi Germany, a story of a judge trying to judge a judge, a film that rethinks the priorities of law, ethics and human nature from the perspective of lawmaking, triggered by misguided policies.
Law and ethics, which is the most fundamental? Law comes from ethics, ethics have good and evil, and the standard of good and evil is not constant, so the law also has good and evil and always changes.
The law should have a bottom line. From my common sense, the most basic principle of the law should be respect for life and human rights, and to ensure that personal life is not violated by the state and others. The characteristics of the law should be fairness and justice, and legal representation. The enactment of laws is a victory for the masses, but when the will of the state does not respect the will of individual life, even in the name of the state and under the pretext of public interest, it is against humanity to infringe upon the basic right to life of the minority. Laws made in this context are bad laws, not to mention that laws are manipulated by a few people to achieve the interests of the manipulators. Looking at the legal situation in China, looking back at the unjust death of tens of millions of people in the 30 years after 1949, in fact, all those in power at that time should be tried.
A sentence in the film is impressive: "A country is not a stone, but an extension of man - justice, truth, and personal value are the basic values of the country."
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
