Judgment at Nuremberg
I saw a movie this past weekend which required me to question assumptions I have about life, the legal system, and the legitimacy of law. The movie was "Judgment at Nuremberg", the classic 1961 film which depicts the trial of four judges who enforced Nazi law during World War II. This film contrasts individual liability with the liability of the State. Judges are held in such high regard in society and to see many of the atrocities that these men authorized really effected me. However, I also could relate to one of the characters who was a world renowned legal mind before World War II. He was clearly tortured by the decisions he made and was recognized for preventing further atrocities from being committed based on his position on the bench.
Judges must enforce the law. However, when a law is unjust and deprives citizens of their rights, a judge must remain independent and balance the rights of the individual and the rights of the State. In Germany's case, many of these judges would have been killed or at the very least imprisoned if they failed to execute the laws of the Nazi regime. But, as officers of the court, they should have refused to execute the agenda of Adolf Hitler. A law which is unjust or, in Germany's case, criminal should not be enforced and is illegitimate. Therefore, the German judges were responsible for their decisions and the actions which they authorized.
This was a great movie and is considered one of the top ten trial movies of all time. As a criminal defense lawyer, I thoroughly enjoyed the battle between the prosecutor and the defense attorney as well as the independent thinking and analysis of the chief judge of the military tribunal. If you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend renting it.
Thanks, I'll check it out. And welcome to the LexBlogosphere! I have a keen interest in US criminal law, and look forward to watching the blog develop.