Crime and Punishment II - A Time to Kill

[Shimmer]

Mod note: Do not post in this thread if responses are unable to be contained with tones of civility, documentation, sources, and restraint. Ad hominum and personal attacks will not be tolerated, nor will inflammatory responses be tolerated. All opinions are welcome, and all members are certainly free to express opinions within this thread, however, name calling, off topic posts, and other prohibited behaviour will result in moderator editing or deleting of post.

For those who haven't seen the movie A Time to Kill the plot summary is as follows:
A TIME TO KILL is the story of a black man's struggle for justice for himself and his family in America today. After Carl Lee's 10-year-old daughter, Tonya, is brutally raped he recalls the case of "four white boys who raped a black girl over in Delta last year." He asks attorney Jake Brigance, "They got off, didn't they?" Jake nods his head. Determined to see that the two rapists get what's coming to them, Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and guns them down in cold blood inside the courthouse on the day of their arraignments.

Carl Lee is found innocent by reason of temporary insanity after much courtroom drama and involvement with the NAACP and KKK.


Was justice served? Yes or no? Why or why not?

 

[Hawkeye]

I gotta say it this is by far one of my favorite movies. I am addicted to movies regarding segregation (Remember the Titans), and black history if you will (A time to Kill) and the 1930's-early 70's (I know I'm pushing it but its true) where blacks didn't get equality/recognition as much as they should have. My favorite books on this topic are by Mildred D. Taylor. They are 4th grade reading level but they are on the indangered list because of the violence and the language.

ANYWAY: To answer your question-
Was justice served? It depends on whose justice. Either way I think Yes, justice was served. I am glad he got off with temporary insanity and quiet frankly I gotta say that anytime the KKK and the NAACP are involved TOGETHER that just spells trouble.

And the worst thing is that even in the south and if I recall the movie correctly it was in a small town. I hate to say and it's gonna be hard for people to believe this but in the south there are still places where its hard to be in a sitituation thats fair especially for a black person and when the KKK is involved.

I personally to this day (I mean you gotta remember I saw this movie in what 96? So I can safely assume that this is about 10-20 years ago?) and especially THEN. It was beyond ridiculous. But yes, I think justice was served because ultimately the crime was rape of child. The debt was paid for when he took the law into his own hands.

My favorite lines of the movie was when the lawyer told the story of this horrible rape and how afterwards they urinated on her and the juries face is just so torn up and then he said, " Now imagine her white"

And the realization was they were just imagining a white child being raped not realizing the child was black. So do I think justice was served? Ultimately yes.

 

[Shimmer]

Interesting note: MM's summation at the end of the movie was filmed in ONE take, and the tears were unscripted.

 

[Raerae]

i would have cried if I was on the set in the jury. I cried watching it.

 

[Hawkeye]

That has to be one of the best movies ever.

I believe the tears were unscripted. I totally do. I couldn't even sit during that monologue without crying and I don't cry at movies!

 

[Shimmer]

So it's a viable defense that Hailey was 'temporarily insane' at the time the murders were commited or is it really a case of 'justifiable homicide'?

 

[Beauty Mark]

I think it may be justifiable homicide. If the two men were guilty as sin, I can understand where the father was coming from. I don't know if "justice was served." No matter what happened to those men, I don't think there's really justice in anything. They deserved a harsh punishment, sure, but it will never equal what happened to the child and the scars she'll have to carry.

 

[Shimmer]

Obviously not, but in allowing the father to walk 'free' does that not promote vigilante justice?

 

[bellaetoile]

perfect timing, i just finished reading this book for the like, 4th time, and plan on going and renting the dvd later on today. as a criminal law student, i find this concept of vigilante justice quite fascinating.

with the exact situations as they were presented in the book, i would have sided they way of the jury, and acquitted carl lee hailey. i think saying he was 'legally insane' might be going a bit far, however, as was pointed out in the book, he definately was not 'of sound mind'. was he guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of homicide? yes. was it justifiable? in my opinion, yes.

i will say, though, that parts of that book were very dramaticized for the sake of fiction. constitutional rights were ignored, judges and prosecuters were not upheld to their duties, etc. in this day and age, a change of venue would have almost certainly been granted, and there would have been more public control in the county. stricter law enforcement, of course, would be put into place, as jury intimidation is a felony offence in the US. john grisham is a phenomenally entertaining author, however there are legal discrepencies in his books. still, i thought it was a powerful and moving story.

i will also say that is is hard to receive a fair trial by jury. i recently served on a jury for the los angeles superior court system, and it was definately an eye-opening experience. the defendant was a minority, and i was appalled at some of the racist comments that fellow prospective jury members made. it was sickening, and just went to show that even in the year 2oo6, unfortunately, there will always be internal predjudices that work unfairly in trials.

 

[Hawkeye]

oh its easily viligante justice. I dont believe the crap of temporary insanity. I just dont. I don't care who it is (Like that lady who drowned her 5 kids? Yeah she wasnt insane she knew exactly what she was doing). I think he knew what he was doing too. I mean I can honestly say that if I ever found out my kid went through that whoever did it-their ass would be mine.

Was justice served? Yes. Vigilante? Yes.

And in all fairness sometimes vigilante is the best kind because sometimes our legal system lets face it it sucks.

 

[Beauty Mark]

Of course, it's vigilante. I don't know if it's right for the father to walk free (I sympathize for him, though), but it does promote that ideology.

I don't agree with the idea of vigilante justice, because as f'ed up as the court system is, it works in a lot more ways. Vigilantes are fueled by hot-headedness, and- I don't want to even think of the mess that would happen from that system.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer Obviously not, but in allowing the father to walk 'free' does that not promote vigilante justice?

 

[bellaetoile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbeabitch oh its easily viligante justice. I dont believe the crap of temporary insanity. I just dont. I don't care who it is (Like that lady who drowned her 5 kids? Yeah she wasnt insane she knew exactly what she was doing). I think he knew what he was doing too. I mean I can honestly say that if I ever found out my kid went through that whoever did it-their ass would be mine.

i agree that the insanity defense is being pushed, and i mean PUSHED, to the limits, especially lately. PMS defenses, hormone inbalances, post partu depression...i am in NO way saying these conditions don't exist, nor am i trying to undermine those who suffer from them, however, some of these shark-like defense attorneys who will search tooth and nail for any excuse possible are really compromising the judiciary system. i want to be a defense attorney, however, i fully intend on upholding my morals and beliefs. some of the defenses that have been used recently are absolutely sickening.

 

[User34]

I think that being a mother myself and knowing that if the law was not going to punish those individuals for their actions then yes,I would take the law into my own hands and give them what they deserve for taking the life of a child in such a brutal way.

 

[Beauty Mark]

People tend to press a lot of things to the limits, and they end up ruining legitimate reasons for those who have them.

Seriously, good for you for having integrity. It's a rarity nowadays.
Quote:

Originally Posted by bellaetoile i agree that the insanity defense is being pushed, and i mean PUSHED, to the limits, especially lately. PMS defenses, hormone inbalances, post partu depression...i am in NO way saying these conditions don't exist, nor am i trying to undermine those who suffer from them, however, some of these shark-like defense attorneys who will search tooth and nail for any excuse possible are really compromising the judiciary system. i want to be a defense attorney, however, i fully intend on upholding my morals and beliefs. some of the defenses that have been used recently are absolutely sickening.

 

[Lalli]

The movie is very weak compared to the book. book was awesome. i feel justice was given to a certain extent. the father commited a crime by becoming a vigalanti and taking the law into his own hands but a society where blacks were looked down upon would his daughter have got justice? would they have been punished? I felt the right decision was made to free him

 

[Shimmer]

On a moral standpoint he most certainly was right.
On a legal standpoint, not so much. He did in fact break the law, and did it premeditatively.

 

[Lalli]

and im not saying he didnt break the law. he did but morally it probably makes his case stronger. what were the chances that the two boys would have been convicted in a society like that? im not familiar with the american legal system past or present so dont know how in a predominantly white city the jury would have reacted to the rape of a little black girl. I dont think I could be on the jury of a trial like this ever. id crack but all i can say is Grisham writes some damn good books and this was by far one of his best

 

[Shimmer]

It really depends on the setting.
In some areas a trial almost unfair to the white men could be had whereas in others there would not be fair justice for the little girl raped.

I know you've never been to Mississippi, and apologies to anyone on here from there, but it is a dirty, nasty, gross, yucky state from anything I've seen of it (which is a lot) and it's questionable in that situation as to whom the jurors would favor. :/

 

[giz2000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alumeze I think that being a mother myself and knowing that if the law was not going to punish those individuals for their actions then yes,I would take the law into my own hands and give them what they deserve for taking the life of a child in such a brutal way.

As a parent, I would have to agree...