Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,469
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 3:
Line 3: − +
no edit summary
It essentially argues that the defendant cannot be held responsible for his actions as he was only "following orders". It is generally not accepted as a legitimate defense provided the defendant had a clear [[moral choice]] and an actual ability to refuse to carry out illegal orders, which under a [[totalitarian]] state such as [[Nazi Germany]] would probably just result in the individual being executed for insubordination.
It essentially argues that the defendant cannot be held responsible for his actions as he was only "following orders". It is generally not accepted as a legitimate defense provided the defendant had a clear [[moral choice]] and an actual ability to refuse to carry out illegal orders, which under a [[totalitarian]] state such as [[Nazi Germany]] would probably just result in the individual being executed for insubordination.
[[William Calley]] also used the defense during his [[court-martial]] after the [[My Lai|My Lai Massacre]].
[[Adolf Eichmann] also used the defense during his 1962 trial.
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Law]]