The Nuremberg Defense and modern psychological theory

[Pappa]

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

Generally speaking, the Nuremberg Defense seems to be an unsuccessful defense in law because as 'free agents', humans should be able to override their orders due to their own ethics. In other words, you wouldn't kill or torture an innocent human being just a superior ordered you to.

However, it has been shown, time and time again, that nearly everyone is willing to act in a way they would normally regard as immoral if ordered to do so by a person in a position of authority.

The most famous example is the Milgram experiment, in which volunteers believed they were giving other volunteers electric shocks of increasing severity for answering questions incorrectly. All this was done at the behest of a man in a white coat (presumably with a clipboard).

Similar experiments have shown again and again, that nearly everyone can be encouraged to break the law by an actor posing as a policeman or security guard.

Where does this leave the Nuremberg Defense? Should it be a valid defense for Nazi war criminals, concentration camp guards and the like? What about other crimes... a petty criminal begins associating with gangsters, Mr. Big orders him to murder someone. Is that the same thing?

[FBM]

You am make me think some.

If you assume that the ultimate purpose of the law is to punish the guilty, then it's reasonable to go light on the mere underlings and throw the book at the instigators.

If you assume that the ultimate purpose of the law is to maintain social order, then it's reasonable to punish anti-social behavior wherever, and in whomever, it manifests.

I am go back to not think more again.

[Feck]

It gets worse there maybe gene markers for some types of violent criminals ,"not my fault yr Honour it's in me genes "

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If people didn't have this natural tendency to follow orders, even if they know they are immoral or absurd, Candid Camera would have closed after its first show.

The question of whether it ought to be a valid legal defence is an easy one. If the defence is allowed, how do you know whether someone did something out of a sense of 'having to follow orders' or merely because they themselves were 'bad'? Every nazi barring Hitler could have claimed the same defence. Ultimately, any legal system that allowed the Nuremberg Defence would be unworkable.

For those that get suckered into committing criminal acts - tough! The law says that you are legally responsible for your actions unless mentally ill or below the age of criminal responsibility. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you are stupid enough to be persuaded to break the law by another, that is your lookout - not guilty by reason of inanity is not a defence.

While the legal question comes down to practicality, the moral question is far harder to answer. Like all such, it comes down to grey areas. If your boss asks you to lie to his boss, even as small a thing as a lie of omission - don't mention the problems we had yesterday to Mr Smith - do you do it? I would be surprised if anyone could honestly answer absolutely yes or no to that. It comes down to what you are being asked to say, or not say, and for what purpose. Basically, what orders are you being asked to follow? Where do you draw your line? And, importantly, are you committing an act that makes you feel guilty by following those orders? There is no easy answer.

[Existentialist1844]

Read The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.

[Pappa]

Read The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo.

It was reading about some of his work (in Elephants on Acid) that got me thinking of this.