Part I
Jackson
was the prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trail and was in support of the charter of
London. Jackson believed that if war making itself could abolish, that would
assuredly be the greatest honor man to pay human race. Jackson stated tat to
initiate a war of aggression it not only an international crime but also it is
a supreme international crime. He believed that the law must advance to meet
the needs of a changing society. He believes that the Nazi soldiers are living
representations of terrorism, hatred, violence, arrogance and cruelty of power.
He stated that it is our jobs, humanly as possible to draw the line between the
demands for just measured retribution. He supports the charter because he
believes that the acts of the Nazi soldiers cannot be justify, it was morally
and ethically wrong.
Wyzanski
in his statement did not justify the acts and actions of the Nazi soldiers, but
he justified their acts as part of their job. The reason he is against the
Charter of London is because he believed that the soldiers were doing as they
were told by their leaders, and were just following orders. What they did was
wrong and was not right but they cannot be blamed for doing their jobs.
Part II
I agree with the sentence
that Charles is receiving. He stated that he did not know that it was unlawful
at that time, which is not a reasonable statement to defend him. Humiliating others
and doing such disgracing acts just because a superior said so does not justify
his acts. Something can be recognized lawful or unlawful, how could he think
that was lawful at all? I understand that he did not want to go against his
superiors but he should have stood up for what is right or wrong. Being in the Army
are respectful jobs where you have to protect others not humiliating them. He should
have known better, and his acts cannot be justified.
Hello Kanchan,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, that no mater what Garner over all did commit the offence and he should have some sort of punishment. In the military they have strict rules to obey their superiors. i also agree with you that his defense is not a reasonable defense but don't you think that his superior should have some kind of responsibility? The point that Garner was trying to make was that if it wasn't for the direct order he received he wouldn't have done it. I disagree with this punishment because his superior should assume some responsibly. Is a 10 year sentence fair punishment for an act he was ordered to do ?
When we speak about lawful, what sense are we referring to? Us law? International law? Another countries law? This is easy to determine but which law should Garner be tried under?
ReplyDeleteWhile there is a notion or right and wrong, which level of it receives priority? By this i mean, there is an individual sense of right and wrong, group, family, country, planet, etc. When this is determined, does the reward associated with following what is "right" make it more profitable than the rewards associated with "wrong?"
We've been in situations where acting "wrong" brought us a larger reward than acting "right" (i.e. lying on tax forms, lying to maintain some status quo,etc). For Garner, acting "wrong" in this situation yields greater rewards than being "right."
While his actions are immoral, to the majority of us, it could have been right to him. This doesn't excuse his actions though. I just ask that you take into consideration, his possible points of view of his actions.
I agree that he should have stood up for what was right. People being afraid of the consequences of not conforming leads to encouragement of corruption and controversial cases. Someone in his position has the responsibility to make the right decisions. I did say that his punishment sentence was too harsh in my post, but I believe that as long as further investigation is conducted in these type of cases, people in the position of Garner should definitely get a harsh sentence. People being placed in certain situations have great responsibility at that moment.
ReplyDeleteAd Part I:
ReplyDeleteKanchan, you should note that the charter did not charge soldiers, but high ranking officials, these are the people who gave the orders.
Both Jackson and Wyzanski agree that the defendants’ actions were morally reprehensible, but by which laws can they be convicted? Wyzanski argues against the legal validity of the proceeding, and Jackson defends the legality of the charter.
Ad Part II:
Do you think Graner’s sentence was enough or too long? How about his superiors, should they also be punished? Your commentators ask good questions.