In the entertainment industry, it is quite common to base movies based on courts and crime. Criminal justice is a very interesting topic in the world of cinema. Most of these movies suggest a different perspective on the crime and its affects. Moreover, there is always noticeable differences between law on books versus law in movies. Primal fear is one of the finest of its kind. Defense Attorney Martin Veil decides to take the case of an altar boy named Aaron who is accused of murdering a priest. The boy is revealed to have multiple personality disorder and his case is dismissed due to an episode of the boy in the court. There are many differences between the movie and the actual law whereas notable differences such as defense attorney being readily available for the case, crime scene investigation issues, court trial and insanity evidence.
In the beginning of the movie, it is shown that Defense Attorney Martin Veil decides to take on the case of Aaron just from mere televised news. This is very untrue in reality. Per the law, suspect himself is responsible for demanding a lawyer. In Aaron’s case, he did not have enough money to hire a lawyer so the constitutional law would provide Aaron a state appointed public defender. No defense attorney would decide to take up on a case just from watching it on
…show more content…
During the entire courtroom trial, the judge is shown to be questionable about the evidence. Whereas by the actual law, it is the jury who is the tier of proof. In other words, jury decides on whether or not the evidence presented is credible. In the movie, the judge also objects to the use of the psychiatrist’s testimony is inadmissible to the court while basing his verdict on this basis after the defendant physically attacks prosecutor. By law, none of this is likely in an actual
Throughout the trial, defense attorneys attempted to argue Salvi was suffering from psychological disorders that would make him incompetent for trial. Ultimately, however Salvi was found competent to stand trial. After reading Salvi’s full psychiatric interview, the official court transcript of the four-day competency hearing, and the day-to-day summary; I have come to agree that the defendant, John Salvi was competent to stand trial.
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
The movie did not really go into much of the activities before the pretrial. The action really happened with the court drama. There are several points that are in the movie that are more for show than for true effects. In the pretrial the Judge went a little
Judges make rulings on what evidence may or may not be admitted over the course of a trial and technology impacts the way police collect and process evidence, this is true today as well as during the 1892 trial of Lizzie Borden. The rudimentary practice of evidence collection and processing by police was a critical factor in the acquittal of Lizzie Borden. Fingerprinting had not been introduced into the court system and the absence of an eyewitness left the prosecution with little to work with, this left the prosecution only circumstantial evidence but most if not all of it pointed at the defendant. The Borden home was absent of any signs of forced entry and the traditional signs of a struggle couldn’t be located during the police examination but several gruesome facts indicated Lizzie Borden may have been innocent. Medical evidence as to the method used in the killings pointed toward a “tall man” being the culprit, specifically the nineteen wounds inflicted on Abby Borden were said to have been from a dull edge of an axe.
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
... others that as soon as they claim they hear voices or are claim they killed someone because they did not like the way a person’s eye looked that they can get off on a lighter sentence. The defendant has planned all of this out, and if it works out the way he has planned it, there will be a murderer released from a mental institution after a short period of time instead of being locked up for the rest of his life with the other criminals like he deserves. If this person were insane, he would have not have mentioned anything about the old man’s fortune if it were so unimportant that he would have never mentioned it at all. The States believes that the defense has failed to prove it burden of 51% and this man must be convicted and sent to a prison before he murders someone else and uses “insanity” as an excuse again.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
Jurors opinions can be influenced by an emotional testimony. Deborah W. Denno’s article Neuroscience, Cognitive Psychology, and the Criminal Justice System is the Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law’s publication of a panel at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the Association of American Law Schools. The panel had three goals: “examine the interrelationship between neuroscience and substantive criminal law; to incorporate criminal procedure more directly into the examination in a way that past investigations have not done; and to scrutinize cognitive bias in decision-making,” (Denno
In Anatomy of a Murder, there were four expert witnesses, Dr. Smith, Dr. Harcourt, Dr. Raschid, and Dr. Dompierre, who testified during the trial and gave their respected opinions based on their expertise about the evidence and stipulations raised. An expert witness is defined as a witness who has special knowledge or training in a specialized area (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg.123). The opinion of an expert witness may be admissible if the opinion is being given about a subject that can clear issues in the court. To determine whether or not the expert witness testimony is admissible, it must meet the requirements of the Federal Rules of Evidence 702-704. In addition to reviewing each of the three Federal Rules of Evidence, I reviewed each of the four expert witness testimonies and analyzed whether or not each testimony complied each Federal Rule of evidence.
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Costanzo, M., & Krauss, D. (2012). Forensic and Legal Psychology: Psychological Science Applied to Law. New York: Worth Publishers.
Criminal justice through “moral panic” is “a condition, episode, person or groups of person emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests; its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media; the moral barricades are managed by editors, bishops, politicians, and other right-thinking people; socially accredited experts pronounce their diagnoses and solutions; ways of coping are evolved or (more often) resorted to; the condition then disappears, submerges or deteriorates and become more visible.” (Kraska, 2004) Thus by creating this moral panic, which is an emotion, by involves media, government officials, public, politicians and interested parties that exaggerate the problem from how big the problem really is. “The idea of emotion as a kind of cognitive shortcut explains why jurors, like children are more likely to make emotional judgments than judges.” (Bandes, 311, 1999) Society alone has many emotions towards criminals and victims ranging from hate, anger, fear towards ...
Martin was focused on winning the case by attempting to prove Aaron 's innocence. At the start of the novel, Martin stated that every person has the right to the best defense regardless of the accusation. He did however pose an ethical dilemma, he would defend the guilty and make a way to convince the jury to think otherwise. The basic ethical pillars are being violated by him doing this the main one being trustworthiness. Martin believed that it was acceptable to skew the truth, which in turns violates the ethical codes of honesty. His awareness of being dishonest, causes an unethical situation in itself. Martin was interested in becoming a big shot attorney, he often stated he did not care about his client all he was concerned with was the outcome of the case. Martin wanted to be the best win every case regardless of his client’s guilt. This raised questions while I was reading, why is this considered ethical in the workplace? It is important to have compassion, a person of integrity acts out of moral principle. This person would do what was right, even if it meant a job loss or the loss of a client. The public interest should always be placed before self-interest, which was not the case in this situation. In defending Aaron, he knew he wasn 't taking the care for Aaron 's best interest, he was concerned with his career and success over the threat to the public.
The differences and movie techniques in the movie High Noon compared to the short story “Tin Star” made the movie better and more interesting. One difference is Mrs.Ramirez she isn’t in the story at all. However she is in many scenes in the movie. Mrs.Ramirez gets in a fight with her husband and he thinks that she is unloyal.
When debating Netflix and movie theaters the factors to consider are convenience, variety, price, and the experience. These are the four most important factors, because people want the best quality that is the most cost effective. Through my research, I show that movie theaters have an unsurpassed experience associated with them, but Netflix is convenient, affordable, and has a wide array of programs.