The principle of ‘Nullum Crimen Sine Lege’ is synonymous of the principle of legality. This principle is both considered both sacrosanct. It is seen as an essential defense in criminal law prosecution as it lays down that no individual can be held guilty for an act that was legal at the time of perpetration. It acts as means of protection of against state abuse or arbitrariness and ensures due process as well judicial authority. The principle in general is associated with states, governments, judicial or other types of bodies and constrains these bodies from enacting retrospective laws. The origins of the principle go back to ancient time but it first came to the international forefront during the Nuremberg trials in the post Nuremberg trials. …show more content…
On a prima facie view it would have been simple to follow what Winston Churchill said “line them up and shoot them all” yet here is where the question ‘Nullum Crimen Sine lege’ comes, crimes committed by the Nazi’s at that point were all seen as legal as per the existing German law of the time of perpetration. Crimes like forced sexual sterilization where in fact legitimate acts authorized by the state and very few at that time even questioned the power of the fuhrer led government. Crimes like genocide were nowhere prescribed in international law nor under German law. The principle of Nullum crimen clearly states that if the crime is not prescribed by statute at the time of commission it cannot be given retrospective effect by criminalization in future. This brings us to the central conundrum of transitional justice both today and in 1945, can an individual be tried and punished for the commission of a heinous act even if the act itself is justified in legal sense during the time is perpetration. Eg. Was it right to discriminate based on race (Africans) and religion (Jew’s) or punish them for belonging to certain groups merely because the law prescribed by the 3rd Reich allowed it. Lon Fuller in his criticism of the Nazi laws stated “the law cannot be so hollow so as …show more content…
Its application in matters concerning international armed conflicts has indeed left a lot to be desired but the central premise of the principle to protect individuals from unfettered abuse and misuse of the law when a state turns tyrannical and in that respect it has been an effective means of protection. Its criticism on the international arena has been on the grounds that it acts as a needless shield to those who commit war crime and crimes against humanity and has prevented prosecution of individuals but this argument would only hold any weight at all if the concept was a tool of prosection. Which is why it is essential that when we consider the validity of such a principle it is important do so in the true essence or teleological reason why it was initially synthesized, ‘Nulllum Crimen Sine Lege’ was created to prevent individuals from getting discriminated and to check the states power to incarcerate indivduals and most of all to uphold the rule of law in any civilized society. Thus it may be wise to conclude that despite its short comings it continues to be one of the most pertinent principles of criminal
The Nuremberg Trials is considered being both a step forward in for society as it brought the birth of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. However, the tribunal was a step back for society, this is because the Allies implicitly designed it to be a show of ‘Victor’s Justice’.
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
Or they asserted that they were just being directed (Rensmann 170). This is actually unethical, he said. It is obvious that the responsibility is not able to rest completely on Nazi heads, as it remains apparent that the ordinary German resident was as well among the attempted genocide put in force by the individuals who provided Hitler’s cause. Most people appreciate the Holocaust’s nature, other than they fail to hold the whole country accountable. It remains impracticable to believe that the crime committed could have been focused entirely on one meticulous force movement.
I realize the German people’s complicity. was required in order to enact an efficient system of genocide, but I cannot not. agree with the notion that the Nazis simply provided an outlet by which ordinary Germans were allowed to act on their evil desires. The vast majority of the German people were not willing executioners. However, these people were guilty for failing to protest Hitler’s murderous intentions and policies while there. was still time, and for this, they should be ashamed.
' The notion that punishment is needed as an example asserts that the punishment for murder, or the punishment any crime for that matter, should be employed as a deterrent and to inspire fear that will prevent others from fulfilling the said crime in the future. This illustrates a depressing and gloomy view of human nature, as being corrupt at its core and that fear remains the only thing that prevents us from committing evil acts. Rather, I believe that laws and the punishments associated with the infringement of laws are an agreement between a citizen and the society they live in about what is appropriate and agreeable behavior that protects the basic rights of all citizens and holds all citizens as equal in front of the law. Thus, if someone kills another person and the circumstances of the crime are not within the previously established laws, then the person should be held responsible regardless of whether one would kill that person if they could help it or
The Nuremburg trials were well thought out and fair. While many of the Nazis were in fact punished, few received harsh punishments at all. Mos...
It was in December 1948, when it was approved unanimous the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide at France which became the 260th resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations. What made the leaders of the 41 States create and sign this document in which the term Genocide was legally defined? This document serves as a permanent reminder of the actions made by the Nazis and their leader Adolf Hitler during the Holocaust where more than five million of European Jews were killed. In summary I will explain what were the events that leaded the ordinary Germans kill more than six million Jews in less than five years. To achieve this goal, I will base my arguments on the Double Spiral Degeneration Model provided by Doctor Olson during the spring semester of the Comparative Genocide class.
It is no surprise as to why the case Riggs v Palmer is such a renowned case, for this case tests the importance of many of the philosophers’ theories, especially on the validity of certain laws and the conflict between law and morality. This hard case has been used as a reference for many court decisions over the years and will be most likely used in the future as well. An inference can be made based on this case and the legal conflicts and issues that the judges faced when reaching their verdict. Those who commit the crime should not be rewarded by attaining what motivated them in the first place as the fruit of their crime, and in the event that such a crime occurs, judges must interpret the law in the same manner that the law makers intended
“Holocaust, 1933-1945, The” World Without Genocide. William Mitchell College of Law, 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. .
This essay considers that the violation of human rights can indeed be address by extraterritorial jurisdiction throw the human rights legal framework, mainly throw treaties as showed jurisprudence.
Nevertheless, the appreciation of legalization of victimless crimes would be a violation of the state law, and such enactment would only stir controversies than help reduce the cases out there in the society (Fattah, 2013). The victimless crimes are a concern of morality and solely liaise with the socialization impacts on shaping bad characters or even influencing bad practices. Moreover, the society should work towards the rectification and uprooting of immorality rather than seek legal redress of rather fewer facts based crimes (Allen, 2014). The victimless crimes also do not fall within the jurisdictive definition of crimes or torts and should eventually be dissociated with involvement or being tied up with criminal conduct or torturous engagement (Lynch & Pridemore, 2011). It is thus more logical if the society could take on the victimless crimes as a challenge to alter the community’s take on such moral
Prior to WWII any concept of international human rights would not have been able to be Kept. State sovereignty was still the norm leaders around the globe followed when it came to international relations. Of course that all changed after the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust were exposed to the global community. After what had happen to the Jewish population in Europe at the hands of Hitler's army was reviled to the world, the international community realized that there was something to the whole idea of human rights that could quite possibly go beyond the recognizable sovereignty of independent states(Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.4). December 17, 1942 was the date that leaders of the allied forces of WWII that included the US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union came together and issued the first declaration that officially noted and acknowledged the mass murder of European Jews and settled to find a solution to prosecute those responsible for violence against civilians. Because of the type of acts that were committed some political leaders advocated for summary executions instead of trials (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007). If you really think about it by doing this the allied forces would have been defeating the purpose of what they were trying to accomplish which was to make those responsible for the acts to pay but by giving them a f...
The tribunal charged and tried Nazi officials for “crimes against humanity,” which included oppression on racial, religious or political grounds as well as cruel acts committed against non-combatants. After the Nuremburg hearingsexposed the terribledegree of Nazi crimes, the U.N. General Assembly approved a resolution in 1946 making the crime of genocide indictable under international law. In 1948, the U.N. accepted its Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG), where genocide is defined as any acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” This encompassedmurdering or causing grave bodily or mental harm to members of the group, imposingcircumstances of life anticipated to bring about the group’s death, imposing actions intended to avert births or by forceeliminating the group’s children. Genocide’s “intent to destroy” isolates it from other crimes of humanity such as ethnic cleansing, which targets to forcibly expel a group from an
Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law since by doing so; it discourages him from committing crime again while making him or her pay for their crimes. Retribution does not mean inflicting physical punishment by incarceration only, but it also may include things like rehabilitation and financial retribution among other things. The last purpose of criminal law is to protect the community from criminals. Criminal law acts as the means through which the society protects itself from those who are harmful or dangerous to it. This is achieved through sentences meant to act as a way of deterring the offender from repeating the same crime in the future.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.