The film talks about a gang rape case: Because of a conflict with her boyfriend, the petite and sexy Sarah went to The Mill bar to chat with her friend Sally who was a waiter here. They chat and drink. Danny, a regular guest at the hotel, invited them to drink. After getting acquainted for a while, Sarah and Danny went to the pinball machine to play games. They hugged, made affection, and smoked marijuana under the influence of alcohol. At this time, the jukebox just played a dance song that Sarah liked, and Sarah danced with it, sexy and provocative. At this moment Danny went over to hug Sarah and kissed wildly. Encouraged by the surrounding alcoholics, Danny carried Sarah to the pinball machine and raped her. Under the coercion, coercion, and coercion of everyone, college students Barb and Hancock also raped Sarah. At the same time as the rape, no one stepped forward to stop it. Some people were silent bystanders, Sarah's friend Sally also quietly left, and some people continued to booby, induce, agitate, and even coerce others to rape. This is the worst, even worse than those who commit rape.
It should have been easy to judge a rape case like this, but this is not the case. As Sarah had some criminal records before, although the case was closed, she was still attacked because of this, and she was obviously at a disadvantage. Sarah is in the lower class of society, without the warmth of the family, and messing with her cohabiting boyfriend, all of which make those who hurt her feel that her experience is deserved. This is obviously illogical! Even if prostitutes are raped reluctantly, they have the same right to defend their dignity. Many times, we always look at people with colored glasses and think that so-and-so does what it is, but we don't have the right to do so.
The law protects citizens, and it cannot prevent the person from protecting him because of any taint in the past. Is it possible to ignore the minimum principle of "everyone is equal before the law"? Seeing those so-called barristers deliberately neglecting the serious injuries suffered by their clients for their own fame and fortune, such as the invalidity of the testimony of several witnesses because of some words of Sarah before the case, I really feel that where is their conscience and conscience. I even wonder whether these so-called legal experts have any moral standards in their hearts (law is the lowest morality) that they can be so indifferent and cold when it's not a matter of their own. They should think that if such a case happens to their family or friends one day, at this time, if others do not act or even obstruct them, they will fall into despair. Lawyers are like this, and most people are almost the same, always short-sighted. In the past, seeing those lawyers debating and talking endlessly, they were very good at finding flaws, then seizing them and attacking them desperately until they defeated their opponents, felt very powerful. However, in the face of a situation where some fools can know whether they are guilty or not, those lawyers can still be "extremely professional" and can't help but yell. From then on, I also understand why the West has a jury. The jury members come from all walks of life and all walks of life. They are not legal experts. This helps them to provide conscience and moral humanity when judging cases, so that the law is not only cold and ruthless in the court (relentless is not just The reason is that there are many legal gaps, and these gaps are often not conducive to the victim's side.
The case in the movie is of epochal significance, because it broke the original saying that "as long as you are not directly involved in rape, you are not guilty." Now, if you induce, agitate, or force others to commit a crime, you will also be convicted. However, it may be very far away to include "watching the crime without stopping or calling the police" as a crime.
View more about The Accused reviews
