‘Lex Injusta non est lex

This is comparable with the attitude of Herr Rolfe, who comes from a contextualist viewpoint. He would argue that moral philosophy; religion, human reason and individual conscience are also integral parts of the law. He is also known around the criminal society to be the best at doing what he does and usually wins the cases he contests. John Locke gave the notion that individuals have certain fundamental human rights that governments should not violate. Their attitudes are determinate on whether they let their moral and ethical beliefs impact on their practice and their views of the law. Ernst Janning states that he was just doing his job as a judge by enforcing the countries laws, but by the end of the movie has admitted his guilt and has the personal belief of people’s natural rights. Parkinson continues this by suggesting that just because an immoral legal system is disapproved by one is not ground to describe it as not being law. Herr Rolfe has the uneasy task of defending Ernst Janning at the Nuremberg Trails. Horace Rumpole is the old, shabby, tricky lawyer, bending around statements and mocking the court while still achieving what he set out to achieve. He gets people off crimes that they may have actually committed, on legal technicalities. The differing positions highlight the diversity of legal theories. It is suggested that this is because Horace Rumpole is a realist, and would not draw emotions or morals into the debate. Herr Rolfe’s attitude could also fall under the classification of positivism, as it believes that bad law is still classified as law as long as it has fulfilled the criteria for formal recognition as law within a given society. It is suggested that Horace Rumpole is a realist, and that he portrays what realists’ say what lawyers should do.