1665 Shares

Is the Nuremberg Defense, a Good Defense?

Is the Nuremberg Defense, a Good Defense? Topic: Bibles by the case spanish
July 17, 2019 / By Autumn
Question: I'm Not Asking if it is an Effective Defense. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense Thanks Prospero, Could One Claim, "The Devil Made me Do It". Thanks Prospero. Unfortunately Today, Logic is Not Always the Deciding Factor. "The Benality of Evil". Could One Just as Easily Claim, "God Made me Do it"?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Is the Nuremberg Defense, a Good Defense?

Abbygale Abbygale | 6 days ago
Nuremberg stands for the establishment of new rules of law that have never been applied before. Taking into account that the defendants swore an oath to follow the fuehrer's orders regardless of their contents, and that similar structures still exist nowadays in other parts of the world, the Nuremberg defense IS a defense- even if not a good one when it comes to the participation in genocide. ***UPDATE*** Could one claim "The devil made me do it?" That's a good question regarding the Nuremberg trials. Making this claim in a regular criminal prosecution probably always leads to being labeled as "mentally ill". But there are cases in which someone believes so strongly not in his own actions as such but in the person commanding that his own will is practically non-existent. Many Germans were "spellbound" and acted in blind faith. The extermination of the Jews was something like a "holy war" with Hitler's "Mein Kampf" as a new German Bible. If it had been universally accepted that Hitler was devil-ridden, the German people should have been acquitted as a whole. Consequentially however the same would apply today to islamic terrorists who follow orders of "devil-ridden" mullahs (or the like). But the logic of the Western legal systems as well as public international law and the new international criminal law don't accept such a "supernatural" idea. This has its pros and cons. Look at the witch trials of the past and the Holy Inquisition: judges, attorneys and lawyers had to believe in the existence of the devil lest being prosecuted and burnt at the stake themselves for heresy. Nowadays logic dominates both common law and codified legal systems. Either an individual is to be held responsible for a particular deed, or he/she is ill and is sent to a mental institution (or was perhaps used a mere tool in someone else's actions, having had no other choice than to act "at gunpoint"). In Nuremberg however the new rule of law was accepted that a mentally healthy human being knows that orders relating to genocide as a "crime against humanity" are void and must not follow them. Extending this rule to torture in concentration camps in modern U.S. practice, quite a few members of the former government, the military, and the FBI and CIA would not be aquitted in a new Nuremberg trial, and their defense of having been "Bush-ridden" would most probably not be accepted by the judges. *** In this instance, there would not be much difference between God and the devil I'm afraid. The defense of people who commited such things as genocide and torture "in the name of God" in the middle ages (Spanish conquista/inquisition for example) would not be accepted before a contemporary panel of Western judges. It's the same here. Such a notion of God would not be accepted by the majority of any "civilized" (Christian) nation and its judicial bodies. Again, it would either be a "mental illness" or "religious fanaticism" which isn't treated much differently from "political fanaticism" in our modern Western societies.
👍 140 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? Is the Nuremberg Defense, a Good Defense? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Bibles by the case spanish


Abbygale Originally Answered: What is the name of the song played in NBA Matchs,Where people chant Defense,Defense & where can I download?
Mate...he's clearly joking.... It's not really a song, just a chant that has developed over time.

Stef Stef
Nuremberg defense had no precedent. Nothing like it succeeded it. It must be good because the entire world accepted it. An Indian Colonel who was on one of the benches told me that a Japanese accused soldier stood in stiff attention for hours together explaining his loyalty to the king. He was acquitted
👍 50 | 👎 0

Ozzy Ozzy
They hung a bunch of them didn't they? Someone did not buy the defense. It was after the fact, but the guideline was , I think, that a soldier has a responsibility to refuse an illegal order. In the case of Yamashito, his troops faced a choice- follow orders or be shot by your own officers. Not sure about the Germans. They hung Yamashito. I have the sword he carried to his execution. MacArthur stripped him of all rank, buttons, etc, before hanging him. He passed off the sword, ( one of his aide's) to an American officer, who later gave it to me.
👍 45 | 👎 -6

Ozzy Originally Answered: What do you think about the insanity defense?
It's unfortunate that most people only know of "insanity" from movies or the tabloids. First, let's consider what will happen if you have a "successful insanity plea." Well, you'd get admitted into a psych-ward; let's say that you were pleading to escape a murder charge... well, WHAT DOCTOR would release you? It's worse because they are under no obligation to ever release you! Consider: Even if you convince a jury of "people who want to go home" that you went mad. The doctor you'd be admitted to will do his OWN evaluation; and "faking insanity" is no where near as easy as people believe it is... in short, that doctor will KNOW you're a killer; she will KNOW you're trying to escape judgment... and though you may be "sane", the doctor will simply say "you are unfit to rejoin society." Vet's Daughter and Steve make me sick. "Insanity" is too broad a category to accurately describe ANY "insane person." But they are NOT junkies, they are NOT criminals, and they are NOT a *threat* to society. "The voices in their head" is only ONE TYPE of Schizophrenia. Take a gander at "A Beautiful Mind," this is a REAL person who not only was "insane" but he made SIGNIFICANT contributions to Mathematics ( Game Theory ). Hell, Nash even REFUSED to be on medication to treat his Schizophrenia; but you'd rather he have been put in a state of stupor and lose all contributions he made to society? People may not be aware of their actions, but it does not mean that society would be better off without them. With Autism affecting a greater proportion of the population each passing year, you have people who "have mental illness" yet are STILL capable of contributing to society. If they act in a way that society does not agree with, yet they are unable to "comply with", should they be _punished_ for it? Let's elaborate here, "touch" is a big deal on the autistic spectrum as well as "not understanding a situation". Let's borrow from "The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time"; an autistic person encountered a dead dog, yet being unappreciative of "the norm" he HUGGED the dog; the owner saw this, freaked out and called the police. The police "touched" the autistic person and due to extreme sensitivity to touch; he hit the police officer. Not understanding the autistic spectrum makes you more likely to see this action as "warranting punishment;" but from his perspective a light touch is akin to someone punching him... it causes him "extreme pain" in a very real sense... making his actions more akin to self-defense. The problem is, how would you ever convince a jury of this? Just take a gander at the above remarks. Demanding we execute people, to FORCE people to be in "the norm"... people would rather believe that the "differences" are all an act than admit they exist. They'd rather make stereotypes against them, to "put them in a bad light" so that 'hating them' would be all right. A judge would be more lenient, but you STILL have to realize that you have a very strong opposition against a "temporary insanity" plea. The aforementioned autistic person has a well documented history, it is known that he is "insane"... but the "crimes" he may be accused of are from "laws" that non-autistic people wrote. In fact, many "non-autistic people" are breaking all sorts of rules that Autistics have... yet THEY (the non-autistics) aren't punished for their rule-breaking. But again, I ask: Why would a judge believe a person with no history of mental illness suddenly has an "episode" after which all signs of mental illness just vanish? The autistic has a greater chance of getting off with assaulting a police officer due to a standing medical condition. Society cannot DEMAND that the Autistic Person "STOP" being AUTISTIC... forcing medication and experimental treatments is akin to saying that white people are more likely to get skin cancer and should either face execution or undergo race change surgery. Mandating such surgery could be beneficial to society, but are you willing to get chopped up just to be in "the norm"? The "Insanity Plea" is there for those who are LEGITIMATELY "insane" and will ONLY adjust the court's leniency in the "nature of the crime".

If you have your own answer to the question bibles by the case spanish, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.