A series of trials after the Second World War has almost become a proposition in the field of law, including many classic controversies in the field of law, and the director is obviously aspiring to include these valuable content. The three-hour film focuses most of the time in court, but it does not make people feel dull. Every sentence in the film and every confrontation between the prosecution and the defense conveys a lot of information. The defense is sometimes a neutral judge, and sometimes pulls out to examine everyone. With the change of perspective, I continue to think and reflect on the thinking just now. I sorted out my complicated thoughts, which can be summarized as the following points:
1. "Bad law is also law" or "bad law is illegal"
"Is the evil law the law?" is one of the most classic topics in the field of law. Linking this question to this case is "Is the Nazi law the law?" "Should the German people abide by the Nazi law?" "Is it wrong for the defendant's judge to try the Nazi law?"
This actually involves the issue of the source of law's effectiveness. The positive law school and the natural law school are diametrically opposed on this issue. The positive law school believes that the effectiveness of law comes from the order of the sovereign, so no matter good law or evil law, as long as the people enacted by the sovereign should abide by it. The natural law school believes that the effectiveness of the law comes from the law itself being a good law, so an evil law is not a law, and the people are not obliged to abide by the evil law.
The two schools have their own prosperous periods in history. World War II was the period when the positive law school thrived and the natural law school declined. But it was precisely the series of trials after World War II and the famous "raise the muzzle by one centimeter" thesis that reaffirmed the importance of conscience and promoted the revival of the school of natural law.
In fact, the views of the two schools have their own reasons, but there will be problems if the views of the two schools are deduced to the extreme. Therefore, after the war, the development of new positivism and new naturalism absorbed each other's viewpoints to make up for the shortcomings of their own schools.
Second, the law does not blame the public & mediocre evil
The notion that the law does not blame the public has existed since ancient times. It is not only a fluke mentality, but also a helplessness in the reality of the law. "Mediocre Evil" is a philosophical concept put forward by Hannah Arendt after participating in and studying the trial of Nazi Germany's senior official Adolf Eichmann. It refers to crimes without thought and responsibility under the ideological machine. As the defendant judges, they just perform the duties of a judge in their posts. Why are they now criminals? If the judge in this case can still be regarded as the "powerful" and "person with status" in the national judicial and political system, what about some more mediocre people? Soldiers on the battlefield, gatekeepers in concentration camps, messengers, drivers, cleaners... Thousands of "civilians" under Nazi rule have already been involved in the vortex. They may be just a humble screw. Performing their duties in their posts, but when they are connected to form a network, who dares to say that they are truly innocent?
This is why when Judge Haywood asked his servants and his wife what he thought of Hitler, they were very emotional but said in a frantic manner, "We don't know" and "We don't participate in politics." Yes, "we don't know." Everyone is a small person, in his own place, without seeing the whole picture, not knowing the Nazis' evil deeds against the Jews, and not knowing the brutal and inhuman crimes in the concentration camps. But Janning pointed out sharply, "If we don't know, it's because we don't want to know." Because "don't know" is our last peace of mind.
But from another perspective, can the law require people to reflect, resist, see, and know? Putting aside the technical operability and only qualitatively (that is, convicting these people), can the law try to judge the evil of mediocrity?
I'm afraid it will be difficult.
The law stipulates the bottom line, and the law does not stipulate a noble conscience and morality. In other words, the law is not overwhelming. The whole country is in a Nazi environment, and the law can hardly impose strict demands on the people to think about their own behaviors and the obligations of society, and there is no expectation of people's awakening and resistance.
"Mediocre evil" is a part of human nature. When we realize this, we should ask ourselves to come out and examine ourselves from time to time. This is also one of the values conveyed by this movie.
3. National interests vs human rights justice
What the former judge and the defendant do is for the benefit of the country. They faithfully fulfill the obligations of the country and serve the country. This is also a major defense of the defendant. National interests and human rights justice are two different values, and value ranking is something that cannot be calculated and measured like science. Each judge has his own value preference. Judge Haywood's decision held that the values of justice, truth, and human rights are higher than national interests. But the same dissenting opinion of another judge held the opposite opinion.
The order of value varies not only from person to person, but also from case to case. In individual cases, the value ranking is not always the same. The proportion of each value in a case and the degree of interest involved need to be weighed by the judge in light of the case, and which interest is more worthy of protection.
4. Professional ethics of judges
Haywood, the protagonist in the film, is an image of an upright and ethical judge. He used his conscience to make the trial he thought was correct and was respected by the defendant Janning. In court, he tried to understand Germany and read Janning's jurisprudence works to better understand Janning, but he did not let his subjective emotions interfere with his judgment. In court, he finally made a guilty verdict under the pressure of public opinion. On the one hand, the U.S. military wanted to win the support of the German people because of the confrontation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, so it hoped that Haywood could make a verdict of not guilty. On the other hand, he is in Germany, and his guilty verdict is bound to attract the hatred of the Germans. But he still did not give in, and insisted on the professional ethics of the judge.
5. Is there any problem with Haywood's judgment?
It can be answered clearly that Haywood's judgment is problematic.
First of all, he did not explain what crime the defendant committed and what crime the court convicted. If this flaw is due to a part of the rigorous loss of the artistic treatment of film, which cannot be delved into, the problems pointed out below are indeed indisputable.
Judge Dan's final judgment mainly has two points, which responded to the focus of the previous controversy. The above-mentioned value judgment of national interests and human rights justice (which cannot be judged by right or wrong) is the second point, so what did he say about the first point? He first affirmed that "such crimes are the responsibility of the overall situation" and "everyone will commit crimes under such a legal environment", because he believes that anyone in any part of the criminal link is a crime, so far there is no problem, we It is also analyzed above. The problem is that "the person responsible for the mastermind is more responsible", and the legislators, judges, and law enforcers belong to the "person responsible for the mastermind." However, the identification of the "responsible mastermind" is quite subjective and ambiguous. If the person responsible for the mastermind is the "extreme evil" and the non-mastermind is the "banal evil", the boundary between the two is quite blurred. Even among legislators, judges, and law enforcement teams, there are differences in official positions and power levels.
Such an argument is not sufficient. It cannot solve the question of whether Russia, the Vatican, Churchill, and the American arms manufacturers are guilty of Russia, the Vatican, Churchill, and the United States in his defense, whether the whole of Germany and the whole world are guilty (who have seen the movie should know what I am talking about). Such an approach may violate the law's principle of equal treatment.
6. Procedural justice before substantive justice
Procedural justice and substantive justice are not the focus of the discussion in this case. Despite this, the fair judicial procedures demonstrated in the trial process are remarkable: the prosecution and defense fully debate, the judge is objective and neutral, the defendant can receive adequate relief, and the witnesses testify before they testify. The oath, the last defendant’s statement, etc. But before all of this, there is something that I initially overlooked, that is, the convening of this trial itself is a victory of procedural justice and a victory of law.
I went to check the relevant information about the Nuremberg trial and found that on how to deal with the Nazis after World War II, there was a voice at that time that they were buried alive or executed without trial, but the US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson insisted that it must be held. An open, fair, and impartial trial view won the victory, and the justice of the law was maintained through due process.
However, this trial has a fatal and criticized point in the procedure, that is, it is a trial of a victorious country against a defeated country, and the strong against the weak. Then, comparing the direct punishment without trial and the flawed trial procedure, which one is better? Personally, I am more in favor of this method of trial. There are two reasons. First, under the circumstances at the time, there was no better choice, and it was difficult for us to find an independent third party to try. Second, for both the victorious and the defeated, a formal trial is needed to mentally end World War II and liquidate all these crimes before rebuilding the post-war order. The legal trial procedure is obviously the best choice, and for both parties, the results obtained in this way are more convincing.
The movie is so good that most of the content of the afterthought is around the content of the movie, but in the end, I still have to praise the actors' acting skills. I even think that using the word "acting skills" is an insult to these. Actors, because everyone is so lively and real, they reveal their own temperament, it seems that all this is not a scene, but a real and heavy Nuremberg trial!
View more about Judgment at Nuremberg reviews
