1. Is it a judge's duty to enforce the positive laws of his/her jurisdiction regardless of the judge's opinion about the validity of those laws - where the laws a) violate clear international standards of human rights (crimes against humanity) or b) are otherwise unjust - contrary to some constitutional provision of morally repugnant? 2. To what extent should judges be personally responsible for presiding over trials and entering judgments that constitute crimes against humanity? 3. Do the answers to 1 & 2 change if you consider prosecutors rather than judges? 4. Do efforts to limit the bad effects of reprehensible laws absolve a judge from personal/moral or criminal responsibility? Why or why not? 5. Specifically regarding the film, do you think the extent of Nazi atrocities or Janning's admission that he was going to find Feldenstein guilty and order his death regardless of the evidence was the major deciding factor in Judge Haywood's decision to find Janning guilty? Explain your answer. answer all above questions