What Is Judgement At Nuremberg A Fair Trial?

The central storyline of “Judgement at Nuremberg” was the injustice in Nazi courts. The primary Judge of focus in the film was Judge Ernest Janning. When considering his guilt or innocence, I am very torn. The biggest argument in this case is can “I was only following orders” be justified and supported to prove innocence. The laws of Germany as discussed in The Nuremberg: A fair trial reading, state that following orders is not allowed defense. With this mind, the defendants are completely left without a defense. The prosecutor opening statements discusses the complacency with Nazi rule shown by the judges and the blatant disregard for moral values. Although I completely agree with everything stated by the prosecutor, I do not agree that broke
Thomas More is challenged to compromise his beliefs and when unwilling to do so is killed. His daughter notifies him of the new oath being presented and that charges of treason are being threatened if you do not accept. After learning the Oath would name the King as head of the church, Sir Thomas refuses to take the oath. Sir Thomas knows that he cannot be charged if he refuses to express his objections. At Sir Thomas’ trial, Rich details an exchange he had with him during his lock up in Tower of London. Due to Rich’s false testimony, Sir Thomas is sentenced to death by beheading. Even with the knowledge of the false testimony by Rich, I believe Sir Thomas is guilty of disobeying the state (King Henry). He was blatantly showing disloyalty to the King. However, I do not believe he should have been found guilty. The legal technicality of the false testimony would guarantee he would not have been killed. Without the testimony of Rich, there is no stated reason and therefore he could not be convicted. Sir Thomas stood behind his beliefs at the sacrifice of his
The mother believes that a dingo ate her. From the beginning, no one believed it to be true and thought it she was murdered by the parents. In this particular case, because no evidence could prove this outlandish story of the parents, I would say it would be the defenses job to comprise the audience. Before this case, no incidents of a dingo eating a baby had been heard of. Although, it should be the attorneys capturing the audience or jury, this trial was tried by the media. The parents were drug through the mud and slandered. Because of Lindy’s demeanor, she was not relatable. The outcome of this case was ultimately affected the heavy media presence and coverage. This was perfect story for the media to run with. With no body found, the thousands of theories given and suspected were endless. The media also exploited the rare religion of the Chamberlain’s to feed into the media frenzy creating the theory of a sacrifice. This was a trial by media and opinions, not just a jury of your peers in the court of law. Because the media presence was so strong and the no single piece of evidence could prove to the Chamberlains story, Lindy was found