MovieChat Forums > Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Discussion > Justice Ives dissenting

Justice Ives dissenting

posted 9 years ago by hobnob53
3 replies | jump to latest

Ives is the one judge who dissents from the tribunal's majority decision regarding the defendants. He believes they were only doing their jobs, acting in what they considered to be the best interests of their country, and that the true nature of their guilt or innocence can only be determined with the passage of time. He also states -- and is challenged by -- Judge Haywood over his belief that the men are not responsible for their actions.

One has to wonder how a judge with such a myopic view of the law in general and this case in particular could be deemed qualified to sit on the bench. Based on what we hear in the film he's clearly an arch-conservative, the type who'd have been called a "strict constructionist" by those who decry "judicial activism" except when it's in favor of something they agree with. But his adherence to the classic "Nuremberg defense", that the men were only following orders and bear no legal guilt for doing so, is almost criminal. Ives's political agenda is made evident when during their deliberations he asks Haywood "What good is it going to do to pursue this policy?" This policy? As judges, they're not supposed to be acting based on any policy, but on the law. Put another way, he has no trouble making his decision in line with the "new" policy of going easy on the defendants in order not to alienate the Germans at the onset of the Cold War.

Within the dramatic context of the film, Ives may serve a purpose by showing a contrasting viewpoint, but it's really appalling to think that such a limited man, who on his statements would free almost every prisoner on trial based on his own biases, would be sitting in judgment on such critical cases. Maybe Antonin Scalia would be impressed.

[–] Eric-62-2 9 years ago

As judges, they're not supposed to be acting based on any policy, but on the law.

My own take Hob, is that Anthony Kennedy and four other people are totally unfamiliar with that concept.

(We're even now on current events so no need to bring that up further).

Frankly, I think Kramer was setting up Ives as a straw-man for a rather simplistic argument (that Cold War concerns were making us "forget" about Nazi atrocities) that totally ignored the fact that many respected legal minds had serious reservations about the propriety of Nuremberg or such international tribunals in general. No less than US Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone (appointed by FDR) called Nuremberg "a high-grade lynching party". He added, "I don't mind what he [Chief Judge Robert Jackson] does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law. This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas."

And there was this comment from another US Supreme Court Justice. "I thought at the time and still think that the Nuremberg trials were unprincipled. Law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time."

Guess who said that? Not some "strict constructionist" but Justice William O. Douglas, of whom it could be said was most of the time something of a darling to liberals like Stanley Kramer and touted frequently as a would-be Democratic presidential candidate. Yet interestingly, Kramer decides to put these kind of defenses condemning the trial process itself as something the defendants can not be held accountable for in the mouth of someone who indeed does come off as an "arch-conservative" to thus falsely imply that those of a conservative judicial bent must have within them some heartless disregard for Nazi atrocities.

I'm not saying I agree with Stone and Douglas. My point is that it demonstrates that the real flaw with this movie is that Stanley Kramer uses it to serve up a straw man argument about Cold War concerns making us forget all about the Holocaust (in fact some people noted the absurdity of how in other parts of Nuremberg, you had Soviet judges hypocritically passing judgment on matters that took place when they were full partners of Hitler during the 1939-41 pact) and his inaccurate statement at the end of the film that no one convicted at Nuremberg was still serving in prison at the time (you have to do a cartwheel dance to leave Rudolf Hess out) was the ultimate capper to that.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

Last things first,

his inaccurate statement at the end of the film that no one convicted at Nuremberg was still serving in prison at the time (you have to do a cartwheel dance to leave Rudolf Hess out) was the ultimate capper to that.

Actually, that's not what the film says. It reads, "The trials in the American Zone ended" on whatever date it was (July 14, 1949, I believe). This does not refer to the "classic" Nuremberg trials (Goering, Hess et al). The film itself repeatedly and explicitly states that the trials with which it's concerned are the later ones dealing with the lower-level Nazis who worked for the regime. In its correct context, therefore, the statement at the end of the film is accurate.

The argument that Nuremberg was an example of ex-post-facto law imposed by the victors has been a question that has divided many people down the years. Both liberals and conservatives (such as Robert Taft) raised it as a concern. On the one hand there was some precedent for such trials, and many of the accused were prosecuted for specific violations of established German or international law or treaties (not on charges formulated by the Allies during or after the war). Yet there is some merit in the belief that the bases for many of the charges levied against the defendants were at least of debatable legality, at least in a narrow construction.

Achieving justice has always been and will no doubt forever be a problem for man. What constitutes a crime, the rules of evidence, the independence of the judiciary, the permanency and supremacy of the law, and myriad other concerns will always confront us. Ultimately law is the creation of man and its fairness and just application is dependent on the good (or ill) will of men. Even the most benevolent administration of justice is inconsistent and marred by man's own imperfections and the differing notions of right and justice in each state, political philosophy or religion.

As to the Nazi war crimes trials, justice was I believe done. Even those who questioned the fairness or propriety of the Nuremberg trials don't dispute the ultimate righteousness of the results, though many may disagree about specific sentences. Was this result attained in the purest, or strictest, legal manner possible? Possibly not. But that's a far cry from calling the trials a "lynching party" and other such over-the-top pronouncements.

However, all this is beside the point concerning Judgment at Nuremberg. Justice Ives's problem is not the legality or authority of the trials or the right of the victors to try the accused; he never questions the authority of the court on which he sits. His argument is that what the four defendants did is beyond judicial sanction, because he believes that the men's claims that they were acting in their sincere beliefs justify their acts, as long as those actions were permitted under Nazi law. He votes to acquit them not because of some principled opposition to the imposition of allegedly ex-post-facto laws, but because he believes that given their circumstances they didn't do anything wrong, at least nothing that rises to a crime -- and this belief seems grounded not in law but in his political opinions.

One last comment on our unrelated topic. People can and will agree or disagree with a particular Supreme Court ruling. Everyone can cite decisions they like or dislike. That's not the issue. What's amusing -- but also alarming, not to mention hypocritical -- about some of the outbursts this past week over some of the Court's decisions is how so many conservatives, especially the GOP presidential hopefuls, who so often loudly proclaim themselves strict adherents to the Constitution, have attacked the very foundations of the judicial system established by that document. On gay marriage in particular, Ted Cruz rails against five "unelected judges"; Bobby Jindal says the Court should be eliminated; Mike Huckabee advocates ignoring the decision; and others echo these extreme, undemocratic and anti-American ravings. And all because of a decision they disagree with. Of course, when the Court rules 5-4 in a way they like -- in Citizens United for example, or better yet, Bush v. Gore -- oh, well, in that case, the Court is acting responsibly and opponents have to respect the decision as the law of the land. Liberals didn't like those or some other 5-4 or 6-3 decisions but none of them ever said we had to get rid of the Court, rage against the judges being unelected or say the decisions needn't be followed or respected. These hypocritical clowns need to get a grip and act like responsible adults. Meantime they have yet again shown themselves unqualified to lead a country whose institutions and Constitution they claim to revere...as long as they agree with the decisions being made, of course.

[–] Eric-62-2 9 years ago

I think it's fair to point out that Kramer was covering the letter of things regarding the "American Zone" etc. in the closing card but for the most part, I think the average viewer was not going to come away with that fine point given the magnitude of the film's subject matter and was still going to draw a conclusion on the order of no one was still serving time period regarding the Nazi era. Of course it does make one wonder if such men had been tried by Germans and not an International Tribunal with the questions raised by legal scholars, maybe some of those men would have served longer sentences? Not saying that would have been so but its certainly food for thought as they say.

I think it could be argued that Ives is to one level invoking the ex post facto defense if he is saying that if they did not violate German laws of the time then they must be acquitted. I'll grant it may not come off as his entire point but the element is there. That would again beg the question of why would we get this kind of straw man argument related to the other areas that make Ives seemingly distasteful, since it may be a case of Kramer imposing his personal politics rather than presenting an accurate nuance of what really went on at Nuremberg and the questions they raise (you would have gotten *far* more compelling drama if Haywood were clashing with Ives on the pure ex post facto point). The point being you may have Ives accurately pegged, but is that actually accurate in regards to how things really happened? That is where I think the legit objections do come in regarding the kind of film Kramer made and why I have a hard time with it. I've always found it amazing that of all of Kramer's "message" movies, the only one I can sit through is "On The Beach" because it somehow manages to be the most apolitical of these particular movies (in contrast to the 2005 remake)

I'll steer clear of the current events, since I understand the timing of how that came about and I again thank you for your kind PM.