NOW WATCHING

JudasMyGuide said:
him actually swaying all the jurors does not really feel like "reasonable doubt" to me - but that might be just me -
Click to expand...
I disagree here. Perhaps we have (slightly) different morals.

The Judgement Trials were not more controversial for me than convicting an innocent kid. My moral (or judgement) does not feel doubt about these convicted. In fact, I find that many more should have been convicted (I sound like Widmark here). Montgomery Clift was also very memorable wasn't it?
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
I disagree here. Perhaps we have (slightly) different morals.
Click to expand...

I was talking from the purely legal point of view. From that, Juror 8 would have probably been accused of perjury, the whole thing would get a retrial and the kid would probably die. And I'm definitely not saying that's right, quite the opposite.

Forostar said:
The Judgement Trials were not more controversial for me than convicting an innocent kid. My moral (or judgement) does not feel doubt about these convicted. In fact, I find that many more should have been convicted.
Click to expand...

Again, we agree. I actually believe both movies show the flaws of law in general and that from time to time, you have to kind of twist and break the law, criminal and procedural, in order not to hand out injustice. The five years of law school in me try to disagree, but that's just because the law itself tries to get as dehumanised as possible nowadays and I'm not okay with that.


Also, worth mentioning, IMHO, is the very last line of dialogue in the movie, after Haywood (the judge) visits Janning's cell, and Janning (who already accepted and in fact asked for the punishment) tries to justify himself and practically begs Haywood for at least a measure of forgiveness.
Janning: Those people, those millions of people. I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it.
Haywood: (with sorrow) Herr Janning...it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death you knew to be innocent.

A very A Few Good Men moment, honestly, and awesome ;)
 
The controversy about the Nuremberg Trials is the following: People got convicted for crimes that were defined in the trial. The laws that the judgements were based on were made up as they went. So from a purely legalistic standpoint, some of the people convicted there did not commit crimes, because when they did their actions, laws forbidding them did not exist. It's called an ex post facto law, and that is something a democratic legal system does not actually allow.

I'm not for a minute saying the people on trial got something they didn't deserve. But I think it's necessary to keep in mind that the morally just judgement on these people was only achieved by bending and in some cases breaking the foundations of legal principles.
 
Which was perfectly fine and not controversial for me.

Morally just morals > that particular (crap) legal system at the times of the crimes, used as a damned excuse or other excuses such as "Befehl ist Befehl".

Now that sentence, this particular form of defense, that was controversial, way more controversial than the fact that they were punished for doing things in line with the law (at least that's how it is perceived in my country and allies of the time).
 
Last edited:
Except that the Allies weren't subject to the German legal system, but to their own. And that's the one they bent.
 
They identified with the victims of the German legal system.

By the way, was that system not changed by Hitler? Or at least, didn't an older German legal system look more like the one from the Allies? Just wondering.
 
The problem that was raised here is that if you are willing to bend your own legal system for whatever purpose, it puts the very idea of an institutionalised legal system into question. The Nuremberg Trials made it very clear that this was to be a unique situation, and thus I think that summa summarum, it was justified. But it is a historical precedent, and it may in future be subject to nefarious interpretations.
 
I meant to say that there may at some point be people who wish to end the rule of law, and could point to the Nuremberg Trials as a case of feelings of morality being superior over legality. And as "morality" is something subjective, it may not agree with your or mine idea of what is right.
 
bearfan said:
Watched parts 1 and 2 of "The Killing" , a new show on AMC. I think they have another winner here, the show really sucked me in. Basic story is a detective in Seattle is about to move and get married when an interesting/brutal case comes up.
Click to expand...
Watching season 1 now on Netflix . About to start ep 8. Hooked now!
 
Today I rewatched Hitchcock's Rope with my wife (and I actually liked it much more than before, considering it less of an film experiment and more of a... well, another morality tale) and then we saw The Help (which was a bit too much soap opera and a bit too long, but still good, IMHO - it pushed the right buttons, that's for sure) and Life of Pi (which was very... digital and weird, but still acceptable, I guess). I think I'd rate both movies the same, about 70-80%.
 
I saw a guy on Reddit who did a challenge last year where he watched 365 movies in one year. So I decided to start and see if it's possible for me to do it. I'm a little late so don't think I'll make it (maybe when I have time during the summer I can watch 3-4 movies per day but I doubt it), but I'll consider it a success if I go over 200. Currently at 19, 36 days into the year :p
Anyway, watched this today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_from_Earth

Good movie. Dialogue only so amateurish otherwise but pretty thought provoking. Kinda wish it was longer and focused on other stuff though. Ending was quite good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top