Aftermath of the killing moment

Darian 2021-11-15 08:01:27

Through the film, I have seen the influence of racial factors on American justice and the procedures of American criminal trials. The story of the film itself is not important, but what these authors want to convey through the story is valuable. I want to talk about my own thinking about these things. The reason for choosing such a course is to understand how the law as a rule affects the lives of ordinary people. Under the framework of the law, how we must act in order to maintain the greatest freedom without breaking the law. However, after a glimpse of understanding in these lessons, I think that law is not just simple rules. The human ethics contained in the law, good and evil, are too broad and profound, and we need to understand them carefully and slowly. Even so, it is not enough to include all the thousands of forms of human society, and it is changeable and complex.
When studying history, I know that American society discriminates against blacks, but as a Chinese who has not experienced ethnic and religious contradictions, I can’t personally experience the difficulties that racial discrimination brings to the survival of black Americans, nor can I understand why whites are Discriminate against black people, or expand it a little bit, why there is discrimination between people. Just take blacks and whites as an example. If because whites are "noble and purer" than blacks, or because blacks are descendants of prisoners and slaves trafficked from Africa into the Americas, their natural social status is lower than that of whites, then why does such discrimination exist? The law gives everyone equal rights by birth. As a form of social contract, the law naturally defaults to the common consciousness of people under the social contract organization. Although various factors such as the environment, resources, education and other factors will bring about inequalities among people, everyone should be equal in terms of legal rights. Could it be that whites can openly oppress and discriminate against blacks just because of their skin color, and take these behaviors for granted? Where has the preached democracy gone, and whose human rights are the protected human rights? The law should be the representative of fairness and justice, but when the people who make the law consider fairness and justice only part of the group, then what is fairness to the forgotten group? What is justice? Since they can't get the protection of the law, then the law loses the meaning of observing it for them.
To some extent, the judgments of judges and lawyers are the real body of the law. For the defendants who are on trial, they are the representatives of the law, punishing their own demons or protecting themselves. But just because these judgments are made by people, there is no guarantee of absolute rationality or absolute fairness. God creates perfection, and human beings are only responsible for infinite proximity. Because of this, when white judges and lawyers prepare to try blacks with their own prejudices and limitations, the only chance for blacks to fight back is to fight against whites with their own prejudices and limitations. The law that represents fairness and justice is impartial, and at this time it has turned to white people. Is this fair to black people? Is this called justice? Democracy brings equality, and the rule of law brings freedom. But such democracy only makes inequality deeper, and legal rules only make free ones more unscrupulous, and those who are not free are even more restrained and oppressed. Regardless of which piece of land, the fairness and justice pursued by the law should allow everyone to live in poetry and live with natural dignity and a sense of security. The ideal state is that when legislators make laws, they must take into account the fairness and justice recognized by every citizen in the territory and protect them. However, this ideal state is impossible to achieve, so the law can only provide a large framework for people Fill in the flesh and blood in the long-term practice. Get close to the truth, judge the truth, make a judgment. These are all subjective cognitions made by people on the basis of the fact that they are not complete or not. They are different from the unified standard of natural law. It is "cognition" and "bias". It is impossible for two people to be the same, so If you want to gain recognition from a wider group of people, you must resonate in their hearts. Therefore, the judgment must conform to traditional culture and social ethics. Of course, you must stick to the bottom line of the law and uphold the fairness and justice of the law. So what does the law that I agree with look like? It is impartial, selfless, and protects all social strata to be able to walk in their own way in a stable manner, so that those who infringe on the rights and legitimate interests of others will be punished.

View more about A Time to Kill reviews

Extended Reading
  • Damaris 2022-04-21 09:01:47

    The most classic part is the hero and heroine's discussion of the death penalty, but this is a bit too fake to win

  • Edna 2021-11-15 08:01:27

    The issue of race is always something that directors love to shoot. Although this film does not analyze this issue thoroughly, the big stars and Matthew McConaughey’s full lawyer fan are enough to entertain.

A Time to Kill quotes

  • Judge Omar Noose: Good afternoon, citizens. Be seated. Counsel. And you, sir, are you Carl Lee Hailey?

    Carl Lee Hailey: Yes sir.

    Judge Omar Noose: Mr. Hailey, I am holding a copy of an indictment returned by the grand jury of Mississippi presenting that Carl Lee Hailey did murder Billy Ray Cobb, a human being, and James Willis Willard, a human being, and did attempt to kill Dwayne Looney, a peace officer, against the peace and dignity of the State of Mississippi. Do you understand the charges against you?

    Carl Lee Hailey: Yes sir.

    Judge Omar Noose: How do you wish to plead?

    Carl Lee Hailey: [pause] Not guilty, Your Honor.

    Jake Tyler Brigance: The defense enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Your Honor.

    Judge Omar Noose: Your trial is set for July 22nd. All pre-trial motions and matters are to be filed no later than July 8th. Is there anything further?

    D.A. Rufus Buckley: Yes, Your Honor. In the response to the insanity plea, the state requests the defendant be examined by it's own doctors.

    Judge Omar Noose: Granted.

    D.A. Rufus Buckley: Additionally, the state opposes any request for bail.

    Jake Tyler Brigance: But Your Honor, we have not yet asked for bail. Now Governor Buckley cannot oppose a request until one is made. He should have learned that in law school.

    D.A. Rufus Buckley: Your Honor, even Mr. Brigance's meager legal experience should have taught him two things: number one, I have not been elected governor... yet. And number two, he is required to request bail. The state opposes any such request.

    Judge Omar Noose: Well in the future why don't we just wait until he makes the request?

    [DA Rufus Buckley nods lightly with a slight smile]

    Jake Tyler Brigance: Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor, we would like to request bail.

    Judge Omar Noose: Denied. I have never allowed bail in a capital murder case and I don't feel that an exception is called for today.

  • Jake Tyler Brigance: There ain't nothin' more dangerous in this world than a fool with a cause...