"I Was Only Taking Orders": Excuse or Defence?
When looking at the most horrific and heinous crimes in history, there appears to be no legitimate defense or excuse for the perpetrators. Regardless of how defendants spin their stories, most believe that punishment for crimes of that magnitude simply cannot be negotiated. However, one line of defense is utilized time and time again, to surprising degrees of success: “I was only taking orders.” This article aims to explore the validity of this defense in criminal cases and its historical context.
The phrase first gained widespread use and infamy in the Nuremberg Trials. Taking place right after the end of World War 2, the Trials processed, tried, and punished famous Nazis accused of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Despite the fact that every single defendant had played an important role in the destruction of millions of lives and livelihoods, the phrase “I was only taking orders” was the most commonly used, and perhaps the only plausible defense for the actions of the defendants. Most argued that, as a superior officer/official had directly or indirectly ordered them to perform a certain action, they could not be held accountable for said action. Although plausible for some defendants, the defense failed to work in the majority of cases, as those on trial were high-ranking officers/officials themselves. Thus, the argument of one merely taking orders only managed to lessen the sentences of a few defendants and helped in the acquittals of three, while the majority ended up receiving death sentences.
Though the defense has historically had a mixed reception in court, conclusions cannot be drawn from the past alone. To truly consider the validity of the defense, it is first important to examine whether or not receiving an order detracted from the autonomy a person held to make their own decision. Autonomy is dependent on the information an individual receives and the range of options available, both extremely constricted factors when receiving orders from a higher-up. Consider the Milgram Experiment, designed by Stanley Milgram to emulate the conditions of extreme orders being given, in order to determine the validity of the “I was only following orders” defense. In it, a participant was seated in front of a switch which, when turned on, would shock a subject seated behind a window in sight of the participant. The experimenter would then order the participant to turn on the switch, with each turn increasing the voltage of the shock, all while the subject in the other room faked immense pain and suffering. Due to the extremely strong commands and authoritative presence of the experimenter, as well as the lack of information the participants had, every single participant shocked the subject to 300 volts, and an astonishing 65% went to the max of 450.
With a lack of information and an oppressively commanding figure giving out orders, it is somewhat plausible that one would make a horrible decision not out of their own will, but due to force. Compound that with the fact that denying orders was followed by death or demotion, and it becomes increasingly plausible. From the unwitting man who believed he was participating in a harmless experiment now finding himself walking into a room where he is ordered to administer electric shocks to an innocent man, to the Nazi general ordered to execute prisoners of war or be killed himself, the act of following commands by someone more powerful than oneself is natural and inherent to all people. Though it cannot excuse a war criminal from his actions or be used to paint a murderer in a good light, the fact that the defense of following orders is legitimate cannot be denied.
