Judgement At Nuremberg Essay

It was interesting to see the large differences in each juror’s lives. Every jury is eclectic because it is made up of very different people with very different family lives. For example, Juror #3 seems to be a well educated and well off man as he was wearing suspenders and a dress shirt. However, Juror #7 was a young man who seemed fairly uneducated and fairly poor because he dressed in a sweatsuit and used improper language. It was very interesting to see these different personalities clash. In the beginning when the men are all on the same page that the defendant is guilty except one, the men generally more relaxed (except for Juror #3).However, as more of the men start to explain their reasonings for seeing reasonable doubt, tension is prevalent in the room. The men who vote guilty are rallying up against the people who voted not guilty. The feeling of the room switches again as most jurors decide the defendant is guilty. That being said, Juror #3 creates a lot of tension in the room throughout the film due to the the fact that he yells at anyone who disagrees with him because he is unwilling to hear their opinions. For example, while one man is explaining why he thinks there is reasonable doubt, juror #3 decides to start a game of tic tac toe. This is very interesting because he is ready to send the defendant to his deathbed

Justice Robert Jackson was faced with a number of difficulties when he was tasked with the job as the US justice at Nuremberg. He faced the daunting task of trying to bring justice to over a decade’s worth of crimes and wars, which spanned and entire continent, in one tribunal. Before the proceedings began he knew many of the challenges he would have to overcome and that he would have a difficult road ahead of him. He had to create a workable procedure for the trail as well as define the laws, rules, and procedures that would be used when conducting the Nuremberg trials.

Through my observations of all three courts, it was plain that all players present in the courtroom were there to administer justice and maintain the equity of our society. By providing a competent and impartial governing body to conduct the trial, but also by doing so: in a timely and thorough manner, while protecting the accused’s inherent rights, and by educating those partaking in the process as well as making educated decisions themselves.

| |There are two types of juries used in the United |The competence of a jury is very important to the outcome|

Several pairs of eyes trail the prosecutor as he puts forth his reasons as to why the defendant should be guilty. Several pairs of ears listen intently in a trance like mode, also cautious of every detail. The prosecutor presents the facts with great gusto, painting a picture of the defendant in a bad light. Once he is done, the defendant’s lawyer takes the stage and he too, with great effort, puts forth reasons as to why his client is innocent. In the end, when everything is said and done and it time for the verdict, only one voice answers to the court clerk out of the 12 men and women. These 12 people are the jurymen and they play an equally important role as the lawyers and judges of a court trial. In fact, a jury is the sole decider, based

Between this time and November 3rd 1994 the jury of 12 was selected out of a venire of 304 perspective jurors. All 304 perspective juror’s had a seventy five page questionnaire to complete to determine eligibility for the trial. Both the prosecuting and defending teams set out to present their case. The trial lasted 134 days in 1995 and is renowned for the media coverage from inside

The room in which the men are sitting and debating the case has a table with each of the men sitting around it. Jury member number one, who sits at the head of the

Juror 4 was able to communicate his ideas and thought like a professional and did so in an organised fashion. He analysed each piece of evidence with care and used logic and his skills of deduction to guide his vote. Rose intended for the audience to realise that the not guilty vote was the right choice and used Juror 4 as a catalyst for the final vote change.

The Nuremberg Doctor’s trial of 1946 involves human experimentation performed by the Nazi doctors. These physicians were accused of conducting torturous “experiments” with concentration camp inmates. During these studies, physicians conducted treatments that were not permitted and caused severe injuries to the participants, and in some cases, participants died as a result of this. Prisoners were left to freeze to study more on hypothermia. Later, during December 9th, 1946 to August 20th, 1947 representatives establish a Nuremberg trial to prosecuted these doctors for the atrocities that they committed and 23 out 15 were found guilty. As a result, the Nuremberg code was created to

The Nuremberg Doctors Trial of 1946 is the preeminent case recognizing the importance of medical ethics and human rights specifically about human research subjects. The defendants in the trials include Nazi leadership, physicians, and investigators prosecuted for conducting unethical and inhumane medical experiments on civilians and prisoners of war resulting in extreme pain, suffering, permanent injury and often death. The Nuremberg Code, borne of these trials, establishes ethical guidelines for human experimentation to ensure the rights of subjects in medical research. Herein, this writer will first identify and discuss ethical dilemmas presented in the Nuremberg case followed by three

On 8th August, 1945, shortly after the end of World War II in May of 1945, the Allied governments entered into a joint agreement establishing the International Military Tribunal for the purpose of trying those responsible for the war atrocities. Whereas some 5,000 Nazi’s were charged with war crimes, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to prosecute high ranking Nazi officials with whom the authority for the commission of heinous atrocities rested.

More than half a century has passed since the end of World War Two and to this day it is still difficult to fully understand the severity of what was by far the most destructive war in human history. More than sixty million people were killed during World War Two and more than half of those were innocent town’s people. Among the dead were over six million Jews, which was two thirds of the total living race in Europe at the time. Beyond these general statistics were thousands of stories of crimes committed against soldiers and civilians. These crimes against humanity included cases of prisoners of war being murdered, sent to concentration camps and abuse as well as harmless civilians being rounded up and

The Nuremberg Trials were a critical point in the history of international law because it established the fact that humanity has the need of an international shield to shelter and protect. This event was responsible for contributing in the ongoing process of developing rules that are binding between states and nations also known as international laws. The judgment of the trials may be one of the most important events in the history of international law due to the fact that it assisted in establishing laws against war crimes. One of the biggest questions raised was whether causing a war was an international crime that would be punishable or not. Many believed there was no

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) consisted of a large variety of different persons representing different countries. The Tribunal's sheer size and complexity is an example of an un-needed redundancy that among today’s standards is unfathomable. When compared to its counterpart at Nuremberg, one can determine the seemingly comprehensive and complete proceedings as oddly overbearing. The Tokyo Trials "lasted three times longer than the Trial of the Major German War Criminals. It involved at least 230 translators and 237 Prosecution and Defense lawyers." The hypocritical aspects involve the methods and procedures in which the IMTFE operated. It was established in order to prosecute war criminals, allowing for the justice system to take on its role. Yet the IMTFE has set its own rules and standards, decided what evidence , however crucial, may or may not be entered as exhibits. The lack of a complete and fair trial existed not only in the admittance or the one sided

“If we bear all this suffering and if there are still Jews left, when it is over, then Jews, instead of being doomed, will be held up as an example.” Anne Frank, a holocaust survivor had once said that. The Nuremberg Trials had many Nazi’s killed during the process. The Jews had been suffering during the Holocaust and then it was the Nazi’s turn. The Nuremberg Trials had either left the Nazi’ alive but in prison or completely dead. The Nuremberg Trials had many impacts on the world and also the future. Firstly, the Nuremberg Trials were held during 1945 to 1946. Secondly, the trials had devastated their reputation. Lastly, there is Nazi’s still alive today but most of them are dead.