Olivia Thaler blog 3

Firstly I would like to talk philosophically about something I read. During the trial, Hanna shows her wittiness as she reverses the roles between her and the judge and practically makes the judge look pathetic. They asked her if she understood that she was sending people to their deaths. She replied that the as more people came in, they had to make room for those new ones, and had to kill the old ones. She then asked the judge what it is that he would have done if he was put in that situation. The entire room and the judge were dumbfounded, and the judge ended up finding a way to answer the question, without answering it completely. This is very controversial because it has to do with the value of human life and whether one should act indifferently towards it. Does one person’s value ever outweigh another person’s? She clearly did not have an option. I was impressed with the way Hanna handled the entire situation. It seems to me that she would rather spend time in prison than face feelings of shame and guilt. She did not lie or try to go around the truth, rather, she pointed out things in the defense that were unfair to ask. At times, her own lawyer could not get her to act in the way he thought was appropriate and that may have got her out of more jail time. I respected her for living up to the truth and still remaining strong and respectful; but I do not agree that what she did should be respected. Michael’s life after the trial can be considered “messed up.” He becomes ill again. I think seeing Hanna and her trial brought back these feelings. This was brought back to him because of his previous relationship with her and because he cannot handle the understanding or accept everything that occurred in Germany.