A TIme to Kill
Joel Schumacher's 1996 film "A Time to Kill" is a thrilling courtroom drama set in Mississippi in the fictional town of Claton set in the 1980s, where the main protagonist Jake Brigandes tries to prove that a black man can get a fair trial in the South. Schumacher reveals the critical themes of Moral dilemma and personal convictions, a flawed criminal justice system, and the racial divide and prejudice that all humans share regardless of gender, race, or class that everyone has through moments of conflict. Schumacher has used Film techniques to shed light upon these key themes to reveal the underlying unfairness in society, in which specific people are oppressed for things they have no control over.
The director uses Character
…show more content…
Is it right for a single man who has been wronged to take the judge, jury, and executioner role? Moreover, is it a failing of the justice system in which Carl Lee was forced to take action because if not, Billy Ray Cob and James Willard would have walked free? More moral conflicts of right and wrong pop up throughout the film, such as when Jake talks to his wife, Carla Brigance, about Carl Lee's conversation with him about his plans to kill the Two men and then Jake's subsequent action of not calling the police, which could have prevented the deaths. Jake faces the problem of his moral duty as a lawyer to be truthful, and his conviction as a father clashes when he defends Carl Lee. He feels guilt at not telling the sheriff but Empathises with Carl Lee as a father of a young girl at the same time. This blurs the line between right and wrong for him, creating further conflict. Ultimately, it is up to the jury to be both empathic and logical in deciding their verdict. Justice should, in the end, be tempered with …show more content…
Throughout the film, we see Jake Bridgance battle against the racist nature of the system in an attempt for a fair trial in the South for a black man. We see that many people living in Clanton do not believe in justice. Jake himself agrees with this, as when meeting with Carl Lee after the rape of Tonya, Carl Lee admits to his plans of killing Billy Ray Cob and James Willard. Furthermore, Jake knows what Carl Lee would do. He plays it off as just crazy talk. The district attorney states that "justice is and will continue to be colour blind" just before tampering with the jury lists to remove all black people. Even One of the police officers in the film, a person who upholds the law, has connections with the KKK. The law is supposed to impart fair justice by considering all aspects of a matter, including empathy. However, when the "eyes of the law are human eyes." How can the law be fair? During the scene where The jury, made up of all white members, is eating dinner, they reveal their verdict, with a significant number voting for a guilty verdict that condemns Carl Lee to death. A jury member then states a racial slur saying Carl Lee will die. The jury's racial Bias closes their eyes to what Carl Lee is, not just a black man killing two white men but a father with responsibilities as a provider and protector
His jury was also made up of whites but this one saw him as the regular human being he was. He was given the same rights as whites during his trial after all, he was just defending his impotent daughter whose innocence was completely destroyed for drunken pleasure. He also wounded a white officer in the process by accident, but the policeman comprehended and forgave him. He knew that hurting him was not his intentions. The jurors thought about what they would do in the same situation.
However, according to To Kill A Mockingbird, Atticus explains, “Those are twelve reasonable men in everyday life, ... [but] There’s something in our world that makes men lose their heads—they couldn’t be fair even if they tried” (Lee 220). Atticus is referring to the whites’ hatred toward the blacks. The hatred clouds the white people’s judgement. Even though a jury is made up of peers to make the system more fair, nothing can prevent the jury from being biased too.
In a testament to both his own stubbornness and loyalty to the guilty cause, Juror #10 rebuffs every argument made by the not guilty party. Equally important, Juror #3 is willfully obtuse to the revelations made by the other jurors, marking him as the twelfth and final juror to vote not guilty. In the end, it takes the other men demanding his line of thinking for him to finally declare “not guilty” (Rose 115). Juror #3, being the main antagonist, is stuck in his pessimistic mindset and refuses to change his decision regarding the defendant’s fate. At times, it’s clear he is blowing off rationale for the sake of maintaining his guilty verdict.
Towards the beginning of this movie, many blacks were looking at the white men with hatred for raping and nearly killing a ten year old black girl. The men transformed the innocent little girl’s life forever. The men were instantly
You know all those stereotypes about lawyers being nasty, money-grubbing people? Well, meet Atticus Finch and Jake Brigance, two brave and courageous lawyers who stand up for righteousness and justice rather than the majority. The two characters are both southern American lawyers and loving fathers who fight against racism in their hometowns. They are both driven by an interior strength, and both are deathly loyal to their families who became targeted by those that disagreed with what the lawyers were attempting to do. In Harper Lee’s novel To Kill A Mockingbird and Joel Schumer’s movie A Time To Kill both lawyers express the similarities and differences through the way they defend their client, their experience as lawyers and the way they
Atticus explains how colored people are at a disadvantage in court, despite the justice that must be served. Atticus explains, “The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box” (Lee 295). Scout learns about the hypocrisy that is carried into a courtroom, where every man should have a fair chance. Even though the court is supposed to carry out proper justice for the innocent and guilty, a black person would still have a slim chance winning against a white person. The verdict should be determined based on evidence and witnesses, although the jury in Tom Robinson’s case manage to pronounce him guilty simply because of their opinion.
Which shows that he isn’t one of the Jurors that likes different ideas that go against his own. Towards the start of the play, he is the main reason almost all the jurors decided to vote ‘guilty’ as he gives convincing points to why he believes that the boy killed his father. After every single vote, one person moves to the ‘not guilty’ side and this annoyed him the most as a few people started questioning
It exposes the racism and prejudice in the town and how the effect you as an individual can make on the justice system based on your race. During the trial, Atticus tells the all-white jury that in the United States, everyone is supposed to be treated equally in court. However the guilty verdict shows that the justice system can be based especially against a group like African Americans for instance. “Our courts have our faults, as does any human institution, but in this country our courts are the great levelers, and in our courts all men are created equal.” (page 205)
The judges were afraid the whites would riot against the court. Both the jury and the judges were peer pressured by the people. To Kill a Mockingbird and the beating, trial, and riots of Rodney King show that racism has always existed, and it’s the people that control the court. Evidence can be provided to prove the innocent and guilty, however the people can decide and fight for who “deserves justice.” We the people in which we can stand up and bring
Similarly, in the Tom Robinson trial racism is relevant, and Reverend Sykes, a prominent man in the Black community comments on the issue. He tells the children he “[has never] seen any jury decide in favor of a [Black] man over a white man …”, proving the fact that juries are racially biased (Lee 238). He explains to Jem how a jury can decide a man’s fate based on the color of his skin. Not whether he is truly innocent or not, but just because he isn’t like them. Juries being racially biased is an unfair way to decide a trial and has landed many Black men in
He realizes this when he “contorts [his face] and he begins to pound on [the] table with his fist,” and “seems [to be] about to cry” (Rose 63). This is when Juror 3 realizes that his negative experience with his son has dictated his distaste toward the boy and that he had no real reason to oppose him as much as he did. Though being the most stubborn of the jurors, being able to re-examine the beliefs and opinions he is so fixated on empowers Juror 3 to be able to demonstrate personal accountability, showing how important personal accountability is to confronting one’s past and biases. Throughout the play, because of his loud and opinionated personality, Juror 3 assumes leadership of those voting guilty. This is in stark contrast to Juror 8, a thoughtful person who is willing to give the benefit of the doubt who is the first person to vote not guilty to give the boy a chance.
Racial profiling is a serious problem as we have witnessed in the last few years in cases such as Oscars, Trayvon Martin and Sandra Bland. An even more serious issue is the ability of our law enforcement to get away with such heinous crimes. Oscar was guilty of committing a crime by fighting, yes, but the officer did not know who the suspect was and assumed Oscar was involved. Once he made the assumption of Oscar’s involvement, he then proceeded to speak toward Oscar with uneasiness and prejudice. From what the film shows, there were no witnesses so the officers had no basis of arresting Oscar and his friends.
‘A Time to Kill’ is a movie that depicts the racial tensions between the white and black Americans in the past. The movie revolves around the life of Jake Brigance, a lawyer, and Carl Lee Hailey, as he struggles with the law and racism after seeking justice for his raped 10-year old daughter. As Carl Lee approaches Brigance for help with his case, they both face the challenge of blurring the lines between the white and black Americans and helping Carl Lee escape the long arms of the law. In the movie, racism, negligence of one side of the story, and objectivity are applied.
Therefore, he tried to make the trial go faster by voting with the side with the most votes. My family in the real world also had to go through inconvenience of the jury duty. My cousin had her first prom and my Aunt got called for jury duty. She couldn’t help her daughter do her hair, makeup, and get pictures. My moms friend also had a conflict with the jury duty.
In a New York City, an 18-year-old male from a slum is on a trial claiming that he is responsible for his father death by stabbing him After both sides has finished their closing argument in the trial, the judge asks the jury to decide whether the boy is guilty or not The judge informs the jury decided the boy is guilty, he will face a death sentence as a result of this trial The jurors went into the private room to discuss about this case. At the first vote, all jurors vote guilty apart from Juror 8 (Henry Fonda), he was the only one who voted “Note Guilty” Juror 8 told other jurors that they should discuss about this case before they put a boy into a death sentence