'Lex Injusta non est lex'
             A comparison of four film jurists and their attitudes and perceptions on 'An unjust law is no law at all.'
             Lex injusta non est lex, or, 'An unjust law is no law at all' is a phrase which can entice a number of different perspectives on the way we think about law out into an open discussion forum. By considering this phrase form the perspectives of four different film jurist's, we can start to see some comparisons and contrasts between differing theories of law. 'To Kill A Mockingbird' provides us with Atticus Finch, a heroic individualist, idealist and liberalist, who fights for the end for his client, while 'Rumpole and the Younger Generation' showcases Horace Rumpole as an anti-heroic realist lawyer, who is said to be the 'best in the business' by the criminal society. 'Judgement at Nuremberg' provides us with two jurists for use, namely, Ernst Janning, the famous jurist who admits his guilt to become the tragic hero/villain, and finally the defence lawyer, Herr Rolfe, the contextual and positivist lawyer who defends the indefensible. The following discussion will be focusing more on the later thought of Ernst Janning rather than his first thoughts. The four jurist's attitudes and perceptions will be compared and contrasted to one another on the phrase Lex injusta non est lex. It will be shown that Herr Rolfe and Horace Rumpole are together in disagreement with the phrase, but for differing reasons, and that Atticus Finch and Ernst Janning support the phrase, with some comparable and contrastable reasons.
             Atticus Finch is portrayed as the town lawyer who holds a respectful position in the town. He defends a black client accused of raping a white woman in a time where there was much slavery and racial discrimination. While doing this, he shows himself to be a liberalist, idealist and individualist, which has a heavy...