When Lore finally understands that the biggest obstacle between himself and the case is not in the prosecution counsel but in the jury, will he have some doubts about the legal system? Of course, Lore won't, not everyone in the film, they will think that the jury system is a very advanced legal system, and the young Nick just took advantage of the loophole in the system and completed his purpose. There is nothing disgraceful about the system itself, and all disgrace stems from those who despise it. Of course, this is an explanation.
The film "Runaway Jury" tells the story of the widow of a husband who died after being shot, hired a lawyer to fight with the people of the gun selling company, in order to make the lawsuit look more fair, both sides carefully screened the jury personnel, but this seems to be full of "high-tech" screening, in fact, it was wrong at the beginning, as to why it was wrong? We can see what is wrong with this system of jurys, which is known in the West as infallible.
The jury system is one of the frameworks of the classic legal system of the West, and many people who are absolutely religious in the West are also very much in favor of the jury system, and even for a period of time, the domestic media or legal practitioners are also the most favorable support for the implementation of this system in China. However, the mainland has not been affected by any judgment on the rationality of the system itself because this system conforms to the mainstream culture of the West. In the end, this system was not adopted, which was the most reasonable result.
Why not adopted, for the simple reason that this is a very typical basic framework of "democracy" in a small western context, what is the point of the trial of a case if it is the jury that plays the final decisive role in the determination of a case or the conviction of the perpetrator? As we all know, the role of the judge is indispensable, because the judge is familiar with the legal literature and has a certain standard for judging the case, which is relatively fair, because the judge has a comprehensive view of the case and can take care of the greatest common divisor according to the actual situation. That is to say, although some things seem more reasonable, from a legal point of view, they cannot be affirmed, and so on. For example, the compensation for the death of a murderer should not be an act done by the victim's family or others, but should be a ruling made by a relatively fair body such as the law. But if the victim's family committed such an act, it would not be legally feasible, even if it was reasonable.
But the jury system can largely override this logical framework. Everyone knows the famous case in the United States" "Simpson's wife murder case", if in our country, it is a murder, but in the United States, Simpson finally escaped sanctions, why? It was because of the jury's intervention in the case and the defense of the lawyer's maximum extent. Simpson was eventually acquitted in the United States, where many of his actions were justified and "protected," and the case encompassed essentially all aspects of the institutional flaws in U.S. law.
Back to today's recommended movie, this is a very ordinary American shooting, and the biggest driving force behind the American shooting is not the interest group of the American gun company, but it must have a deep relationship with this interest group. There are many ways in which an interest group can win a lawsuit, and controlling the jury like this in the film is just one of them, and more often, if it is a public prosecution case, it is more common for them to directly bribe witnesses or victims.
Isn't it nonsense that such a jury of various people can have a key adjudicatory role for the defendant or for the whole case when everyone has access to one-sided facts?
The reason why the jury has a long history in the United States and other Western countries is that there are many reasons, one of the most important reasons is the so-called human rights, criminals have human rights, we must fully respect when ruling, but they ignore the most basic fact, that is, whether the victim side also has human rights, and whether the dead also need respect. The right to speak cannot be in the hands of the living, because once they survive they can tell stories at will. And those who die cannot speak, is their power over because of the end of their lives?
Once the jury is in the ranks of those who can be manipulated in this film, how to impress these people will become the key point of the turn of the case, but any normal person knows that whether the case is turned should stem from the evidence of the crime, not from the empathy of the whole case. If democracy is not a rational democracy, then what a difference between that and dictatorship. Every dictator in history seems to have some kind of incitement ability to his audience, and it is self-evident what this ability to incite is. And in everyday society, if there is some kind of inflammatory closed loop between the lawyer and the jury when we want to demand fairness, then what is the meaning of the existence of the law?
When justice becomes a manipulated game, is the law still the law? The law becomes a game for the rich, as long as you have money, everything is negotiable, everything can be calculated, on the contrary, fairness and justice who will give it to you in vain? Whether the jury system is good or not depends on the scope of application, the system is derived, it is a result rather than a cause. Under the social structure of the United States, the jury is very suitable, but it is not necessarily possible to change places.
……
Hello and goodbye