歷史是由勝利者書寫的，亦即審判者。德國對猶太的惡，日本對中國的惡，意大利對本國人的惡，可能會受到審判。那美國對越南的惡呢？蘇聯(lián)對波蘭的惡呢？無人可予以審判。更不能審判的，是漢回蒙滿糾纏千年的、無數(shù)次的、遍及神州的、尸首千萬的彼此屠戮。而同樣的情況，又發(fā)生在東南亞、南北美、歐非中東至全世界，至人類全部的歷史。誰又會去為尼安德特人公訴呢？

該片涉及兩個(gè)核心法律問題:第一、一個(gè)人的行為既符合了國家利益又符合法律，但行為造成了惡果，這個(gè)人應(yīng)該對惡果負(fù)責(zé)嗎？第二、法官的職業(yè)道德是應(yīng)該忠于法律？還是應(yīng)該凌駕于法律之上進(jìn)行判斷？如果凌駕于法律之上，法官又應(yīng)該遵循如何的判斷準(zhǔn)則？或者說有沒有比實(shí)然法更高的規(guī)則可以對實(shí)然法進(jìn)行判斷？該片辯方律師是一個(gè)德國人，他圍繞兩個(gè)案件試圖將焦點(diǎn)轉(zhuǎn)化為：男人是否智障（智障絕育案），女人是否偷情（費(fèi)爾德斯特種族污染案），他并沒有嘗試去討論惡法是否有罪，而是默認(rèn)《種族進(jìn)化法》合法的前提下去討論證人的行為是否符合法律本身。這也許就是耶林法官最后陳述中所說的：律師陳述暗示了希特勒統(tǒng)治下的德國為人民服務(wù)，也許就證明了納粹死灰復(fù)燃的可能性。伯塞爾夫人是德國上層社會典型代表，她為自己的丈夫叫屈，他是真正的英雄，他死于政治壓迫而不是正義的審判；她認(rèn)為耶林不應(yīng)該遭受審判，耶林是真正正義的人；她厭惡公訴人，殘害猶太人的影片她認(rèn)為是公訴人個(gè)人的恐怖收藏。她不認(rèn)為德國上層社會的人做錯(cuò)了什么，她對法官說“我們在這里喝酒，我們怎么會知道那些殘害婦女殺害兒童的事情”“這一切都是希特勒的錯(cuò)，我們都是被迫的”。律師和伯塞爾夫人都很好地能夠代表德國大眾對納粹政黨以及納粹法律的看法，他們認(rèn)為這些法律執(zhí)行者是在為國效忠、他們認(rèn)同納粹法律本身國家本位的思想、他們認(rèn)為德國造成的惡果并不是德國本身的問題而是全世界的問題、他們認(rèn)為德國被審判不是因?yàn)榈聡鲥e(cuò)了而是因?yàn)榈聡膽?zhàn)爭失敗了。包括很多人基于耶林法官自我厭棄的陳述認(rèn)為耶林法官是一個(gè)有正義感的人，但這樣一個(gè)人在自我陳述中同樣透露出德國需要納粹政黨以及納粹法律。他是納粹法律的實(shí)施者，他的法律職業(yè)道德要求他忠于法律，但從政治層面他同樣也認(rèn)同納粹法律所體現(xiàn)的國家本位思想。簡言之，他效忠于希特勒以及納粹法律，只是當(dāng)他直面了納粹法律所帶來的慘痛，他個(gè)人道德難以承受，“他只是不知道會造成那么多人的死亡”。人人都認(rèn)為自己的行為是“無奈之舉、是值得被原諒的。但與之形成鮮明對比的是海伍德法官，他同樣面臨著美國國家利益的壓力，美國需要得到德國人民的支持，關(guān)押德國人民的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人并不能獲得德國人民的支持，但海伍德頂住壓力秉持法律做了判決。以國家利益為幌子也被他一語道破：忽視了人的價(jià)值才是真正有罪的地方。（“參與法律制定的人的目的卻是要?dú)缛祟?。?zhí)法者更是參與行動違法地執(zhí)行。任何人參與犯罪的環(huán)節(jié)都是有罪的。耶林法官，我們相信他也憎惡邪惡，但我們對他的憐憫不能同他參與的罪行混淆。人的扭曲僅因?yàn)檎?，打著為著國家利益的幌子，背叛友誼、謀殺孩子。在拼死相搏時(shí)最好的方法就是借刀殺人。但國家不是巖石，國家不是個(gè)人的，它有它自己的利益，國家在困難的時(shí)候更難維持。讓我們堅(jiān)守我們的誓言：正義、真相，還有人權(quán)的價(jià)值?！保?/p>

Judge Haywood: The trial conducted before this Tribunal began over eight months ago. The record of evidence is more than ten thousand pages long, and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen of the charges in this indictment. Rather, the charge is that of conscious participation in a nationwide, government organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations. The Tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

Heir Rolfe, in his very skillful defense, has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilization. But the Tribunal does say that the men in the dock are responsible for their actions, men who sat in black robes in judgment on other men, men who took part in the enactment of laws and decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings, men who in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws -- illegal even under German law. The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common: Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime -- is guilty.

Heir Rolfe further asserts that the defendant, Janning, was an extraordinary jurist and acted in what he thought was the best interest of this country. There is truth in this also. Janning, to be sure, is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture and the death of millions by the Government of which he was a part. Janning's record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial: If he and all of the other defendants had been degraded perverts, if all of the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs, then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake, or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis, ordinary -- even able and extraordinary -- men can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beggar the imagination. No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them: men sterilized because of political belief; a mockery made of friendship and faith; the murder of children. How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country too who today speak of the "protection of country" -- of "survival." A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient -- to look the other way.

Well, the answer to that is "survival as what?" A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult!

Before the people of the world, let it now be noted that here, in our decision, this is what we stand for: justice, truth, and the value of a single human being.