Runaway Jury Essay

Morality in the Courtroom

Runaway Jury is a movie about a court case that deals with a shooting in an office. Throughout the movie, Nick Easter, one of the jury members, and his girlfriend, Marley, tamper with the jury and try to collect bribes from each side, so they can pay back their home city’s debt from a previous shooting case. This is situational ethics because they know it is immoral to tamper with the jury, but they can give a reason to justify their actions. In Runaway Jury, there is relativism, situational ethics, and the objectification of good and evil which helps the characters in the movie make the right decisions about the court case.

Relativism is a view that states that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups

that hold them, and it is a doctrine that states that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context and are not absolute. This is basically saying that if you believe in relativism, then you believe that everybody has different views on what is moral and immoral. This can lead to a form of tribalism because it groups together ideas and can lead to the self-construction of a person’s own truth without proof or evidence to support it. For example, if a person had an inside joke with their friend and said it to another person who did not know what it was, then it would cause a lot of confusion, and the other person could get hurt because they do not know about the inside joke. This relates to theology because a person could be taught one thing and blindly believe it. If they tell someone that whatever they are doing is wrong, it would make a lot of confusion because the two people have different beliefs. (Definition Handout)
Joseph Fletcher wrote a book called Situation Ethics, which set the standard for the modern situational ethics movement. After his work, all writings after it referred to Fletcher and his writings. According to Fletcher, situational ethics should state that decision-making is based on a particular situation and all of its circumstances. Love should be a factor in every decision a person makes, and if a person is able to justify their actions with love, then it is okay even if the action is considered “bad.” (Fletcher Handout)
There are many examples of situational ethics from Runaway Jury, but the biggest example is when Nick and Marley tamper with the jury so they can beat Rankin Fitch in the case.

They did many things to manipulate the jury like changing the lunch time on the first day to a later time. Nick Easter also used Carmex to make it look like he was hungover to try to get other jurors to help him and connect with him, and one night, Nick noticed that all of them were full of melancholy so he decided to go to each and every single juror individually and talk to them so that they could listen to him later, and help him take down Fitch. The object of Nick and Marley’s actions was the court case. The intent was to take down Fitch and to try to pay back their city’s debt from when they lost a court case that Rankin Fitch was working on. The circumstances of these actions was that Rankin Fitch knew that they were tampering with the jury so he, too, was messing with the jury to try to gain an advantage in the case. Another circumstance is Judge Harkin and the other jurors make an impact to the overall outcome of the case. Nick and Marley’s actions are clearly bad on a civil level, but by using situational ethics, their actions can be justified for good over evil. For example, Nick and Marley meddle with the jury so they can pay back their city’s debt from the shooting case that many believe was a very poor verdict. For most people, this would be very immoral and wrong but looking from their

side of the story could justify their actions because they are trying to fix others’ mistakes and trying to pay back their city that is now very poor, which is one of the seven Corporal Works of Mercy from the Bible called “Give Alms to the Poor.”
The second example of situational ethics is with the actions of Rankin Fitch.

The object of his actions is the court case. His intent was to keep his reputation as one of the best jury consultants in the nation, even if it meant breaking the law and moral values. One of the circumstances of the situation was Wendell Rohr. Wendell Rohr worked for Celeste Wood, and he was a big challenge to Fitch because he is hard-working, and he never gives up. Another circumstance is Fitch’s underground research lab. In this lab, Fitch and his workers videotape the courtroom, and they do illegal research on the jurors so that they can try to emotionally hurt them anonymously, so they are tricked into voting in Fitch’s favor. All of Fitch’s actions in the movie are illegal and are mostly morally bad, too. For example, he was looking into people’s private records without permission and he was physically and mentally scarring the jurors just so he could get a slight edge. He went so far on one of the jurors that she tried to commit suicide. Even with using situational ethics, it is very difficult to find good in this situation because of how morally wrong and how evil these acts are. From Fitch’s standpoint, the only good to come out of these terrible actions is that his reputation will not get

damaged.
The objectification of good and evil requires an abstract concept to be defined in concrete and definitive terms. To objectify good means to classify something as empathetic, selfless, helpful, and a self sacrifice towards a greater cause. To objectify evil means to call something narcissistic, self-centered, or having an absence of goodness or holiness. These things being analyzed could range from ideas, people, things, or actions. Objectification is also looked at as a practice to better understand the subject by attaching a label to it. This is a form of Meta-ethics and determining how people apply concepts of good and evil to aspects of life. The objectification of good and evil also helps shape moral choices by providing a person with distinct sides of good and evil. There are three steps in shaping a moral decision. These steps are object, intent, and circumstances. The object is the focal point that is being analyzed for moral impact, and it is often the action. The intent is the reason why the action was performed. The circumstances are all the different variables the affect the overall outcome of the action. If the object is bad, then the intent and the circumstances have to be bad. (Definitions Handout)