Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Legality vs morality essays
Discuss the relationship between morality and legal rule
Research paper of the nuremberg trials
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Legality vs morality essays
Autonomy versus Responsibility: A critique of Nuremberg
"This case is unusual in that the defendants are charged with crimes committed in the name of the law…." ( United States 31) So began Brigadier General Taylor in his opening statement against a selection of German jurists after the Second World War. This trial, United States of America against Josef Altstoetter et al., commonly referred to as the "Justice Case" because all of the defendants were somehow attached to the Nazi judicial system, was unusual, for as Taylor continued:
These men, together with their deceased or fugitive colleagues, were the embodiment of justice in the Third Reich.
Most of the defendants have served, at various times, as judges, as state prosecutors, and as officials and as officials in the Reich Ministry of Justice. All but one are professional jurists; they are all well accustomed to courts and courtrooms., though their present role may be new to them.
But a court is far more than a courtroom; it is a process and a spirit. It is a house of law. This the defendants know, or must have known in times past. I doubt that they ever forgot it. Indeed the root of the accusation here is that those men, leaders of the German judicial consciously and deliberately surpressed the lawengaged in a brutish tyranny disguised as justice, and conveted the German judicial system to an engine of despotism, conquest, pillage and slaughter.
The methods by which these crimes were committed may be novel in some respects, but the crimes themselves are not. They are as old as mankind, and their names are murder, torture, plunder and others equally familiar. The victims of these crimes are countless, and they include nationals of practically eve...
... middle of paper ...
... is analyzed: that judges are responsible for the laws they enforce, and therefore must act with complete autonomy while they sit on the bench, recognizing not only written law, but also the unwritten moral law of man. Secondly, no nation is autonomous, they are all bound to accept responsibility before mankind as a whole. Finally, even the law itself is responsible to a higher, moral law that is universal. With this one case, America forever stepped away from the philosophical tenets of autonomous isolationism.
Works Cited:
- Bosh, William J. Judgment on Nuremberg. Chapel Hill NC: University of North
Carolina Press, 1970
- United States. Nuernberg Military Tribunals. Trial of War Criminals Before the
Nuerenberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10 Nuerenberg October
1946-April 1949 Volume III. Washington: GPO, 1951
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
In America’s time there have been many great men who have spent their lives creating this great country. Men such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson fit these roles. They are deemed America’s “founding fathers” and laid the support for the most powerful country in history. However, one more man deserves his name to be etched into this list. His name was John Marshall, who decided case after case during his role as Chief Justice that has left an everlasting mark on today’s judiciary, and even society itself. Through Cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) he established the Judicial Branch as an independent power. One case in particular, named Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), displayed his intuitive ability to maintain a balance of power, suppress rising sectionalism, and unite the states under the Federal Government.
When Frank was interrogated the trial had touched its one hundredth and eleventh day. The media was getting tired of all of this talk about concentration camps and war crimes; the bench it also seemed was also fed up. On numerous occasions the Tribunal judges pressed the prosecution to simplify the specifics on concentration camps as they believed the particulars were already adequately known: “(…) It is not in the interest of the Trial, which the Charter directs should be an expeditious one, that further evidence should be presented at this stage on the question of concentration camps.” The Prosecution at least were not supported by the bench to present another story of what would have seemed to be just another concentration camp.
In this case the precident was set for the American criminal justice system. The supreme court had clearly defined that how important was it was the
...e job consists of looking at old files and records to find enough information to find someone guilty, even though now all you had to do was work at a camp to be guilty (Johnston). “Whoever worked in a concentration camp knew that he was part of the machinery of death,” Mr. Sander told the German news agency DPA. “No one could close their eyes on that.” (Eddy). People will say that just because they were following orders doesn’t mean they should be put on trial, but I will disagree. First off, they were probably beating the prisoners, and laughing at them, and innocently watching. Guilty? I think so.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Chief Justice John Marshall affected the American Judicial System. The reader will therefore first find a brief biography of John Marshall. Then the paper will explain in detail the origins of the Judicial Power to subsequently...
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Linder, Douglas. “The Trial of Bruno Hauptmann.” Jurist Law. Jurist, 2002. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. Oxford, Edward. "The Other Trial Of The Century." American History 30.3 (1995):
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
“The four chief prosecutors of the International Military Tribunal (IMT)—Robert H. Jackson (United States), Francois de Menthon (France), Roman A. Rudenko (Soviet Union), and Sir Hartley Shawcross (Great Britain)—hand down indictments against 24 leading Nazi officials,” (“The Nuremberg Trials”). Alongside the judges stood A prosecutorial staff of over 600 Americans plus additional hundreds from the other three powers assembled and began interviewing potential witnesses and identifying documents from among the 100,000 captured for the prosecution case,” (Doug Linder). This was a time in history that really brought together the great nations and made them what they are
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
Robert N. Clinton, ‘Judges Must Make Law: A Realistic Appraisal of the Judicial Function in a Democratic Society’ [1981-1982] 67 Iowa L. Rev. 711 http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ilr67&div=38&g_sent=1&collection=journals accessed 12 February 2012
“Reasonable Doubt: The Case against the Proposed International Criminal Court.” Gary T. Dempsey. 16 July. 1998. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-311.html