The jury is not a simple celebration of the rule of law, but a pursuit and yearning for justice!
In the classic movie "The Runaway Jury", we see a scene of chasing for our own interests, and this uncontrollable self-interest competition is not the direction of justice, but the interference of the ego with the jury beyond the rules under the rule of law system. At first glance, the film seems to interpret suspense in an ethical background, but when I think about it carefully, I find that it is a realistic legal film that is not only full of tense rhythm, but also reflects the entanglement of conscience and justice, and highlights the value of conscience in the process of safeguarding justice.
Filmed in 2003 and based on John Grisham's novel of the same name, the story begins with the plaintiff, the defendant and the hidden third party (male and female protagonists) vying for control of the jury, ending in the triumph of conscience over self-interest and the realization of justice!
Although the film has been baptized for more than ten years, it is still evocative to the present; in addition to the shock brought about by its thrilling and tense plot ups and downs, the immersive reality of the rule of law issue is also thought-provoking, so that every audience will spontaneously substitute into the scene to think about what kind of complex state of mind they are facing.
Conscience as the underlying nature of man, although it will be somewhat blinded in the process of pursuing profit, but when the real good and evil decisions are made, the vast majority of people will make choices that are inclined to justice, which is consistent with the Confucian idea of "at the beginning of man, nature is good"; perhaps people will waver in the face of self-interest, but the ultimate conscience will be awakened by justice.
The protagonist Nick is an ignorant young man in disguise in the jury, but the truth is a master of human nature and legal procedures, under the cover of the superficial image, step by step to guide the jury's decision to the direction of justice that he expects, and the final jury decision is driven by conscience; the director uses the jury loophole under the American trial system to make up for it if conscience is needed, as a metaphor for the rule of law at that time still needs more stringent guidance and norms.
Below we start a journey of reminiscence from three aspects: the operation and value of the jury system in the United States, the maintenance of justice by conscience, and the criticism of the actual rule of law in the film.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right">01</h1>
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > film revolves around the chase control of jury members, showing the operational loopholes of the jury system in the United States and triggering people to think about the improvement of the jury system</h1>
"Stop believing in the fact that lawyers can dictate everything, the reality is that the jury wins the world."
This is the most classic line in the movie, accurately telling the loopholes of the American jury system, and the reality is the same; although the film constantly switches back and forth in the rapid picture, it is actually to express the tension of the plaintiff and the defendant in selecting jurors and fantasizing about controlling the jurors, because this is the core of the outcome of the case, so the director uses a tense sense of rhythm to arouse the audience's attention.
In the movie, in order to select the juror candidate in his mind, the plaintiff's lawyer found a jury consultant; the defendant lawyer directly used a large team to track, investigate, threaten, bribe and other means, which can be described as all-purpose, in order to influence the outcome of the case through the left and right jury.
This shows the pivotal role of the jury in the judicial trial of the United States, which did not originate in the United States but was introduced to the United States when it was colonized by the United Kingdom, and was later officially written into the United States Constitution and widely promoted throughout the Federation, although it has been running for hundreds of years, but with the changes in the social situation, many problems are still exposed.
Understanding the film's content requires us to learn more about the workings of the Jury in the United States:
First, how are jury members screened?
As a jury member for the most critical case decision, the judge first selects a certain number of people from the local voter registration list with juror qualifications to ask for opinions; in fact, the questioning is only a procedure, because the U.S. Constitution stipulates that American citizens have the obligation to be jurors, so usually no one dares to escape without a legitimate reason.
The judge then asks the person who has received the invitation to come to the courtroom, carefully selected by lawyers from both sides. In the selection process, both lawyers have the right to deny, as long as one party does not agree with this person will be brushed off, and finally 6 to 12 people are selected to form a jury, which is the reason for the rapid switching of the picture in the movie, because the feedback of the background data is the basis for the lawyer's final decision.
Knowing how to compose, we also need to know how the jury was tried and decided?
Because people who understand the law cannot be members of the jury, the jury can only rule on the factual issues in the case, such as ruling whether a person is guilty or not, ruling which party wins a case, and in general, can only judge the results that they consider to be just based on their daily life experience and conscience.
The specific judgment of several years, how much compensation these legal issues, is made by the judge in accordance with the law, we all know that the judgment is based on the facts, the law as the criterion, so the determination of the facts is both the most basic and the most important, so the substantive role of the jury is very large, will become the object of all parties to compete for the object of the force.
The jury's ruling, after watching the performance of the lawyers of both sides in court, subjectively decides which party to support according to their own likes and dislikes, this process is the value choice of the juror's heart, but the result will not be completely fair; because everything has two sides, the jury members have different understandings of justice, different values, and even the temptation of self-interest, will affect the fairness of their vote.
Although the final result is decided by vote, criminal cases must be unanimously considered guilty by the jury to adjudicate, and civil cases only need a simple majority to pass to decide, but the vast majority of jurors around the entire jury is the problem.
Back in the movie, we will find many problems, such as the weakness of jurors' human nature is easy to be caught and threatened, the use of information technology and big data is easy to collect the preferences and value orientation of jurors, and some jurors are just to cope with formal participation, such a complex and tangled situation, how democratic will the result of the case be? How impartial?
It is undeniable that jurors are ordinary people from all walks of life, they have their own joys and sorrows and the rhythm of life, how to avoid the introduction of emotions in the process of participating in the jury, how to avoid the adulteration of interests, are worth reflecting, fair results need fair jurors, and justice how to reduce the interference of external factors and subjective loopholes, need a sound system guarantee; if all this can only rely on the awakening of conscience to guarantee, then no one can do the conscience online all the time, I think that's what the director wants to convey about the need to improve the jury system in the United States.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right">02</h1>
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > the entanglement of human nature in the movie under the conflict of interests and justice is actually a real risk hidden in the humanity of each juror, and how to ensure that conscience is always online is a difficult problem</h1>
Further, conscience is close to justice; take a step back, self-interest affects righteousness; whether to let conscience choose freely, or to take the initiative to polish human nature, should be the reform that the jury system needs to think about!
I don't sway others, I just prevent you from cheating. --Actor Nick.
It can be seen that people, including the male protagonist, actually do not fully believe that the jury can be absolutely impartial, he is worried about the control of the jury by the plaintiff and the defendant's lawyer, and he is worried about the negative treatment of the jury members, if he needs conscience to maintain justice, then he must be the host who awakens the conscience.
There is no doubt that everyone has a conscience, because conscience is often the embodiment of a simple concept of justice. When Nick's ex-girlfriend was killed in the school shooting, the local government also filed a lawsuit against the gun manufacturer, but in the end it was lost under the control of the defendant's lawyer in this case, and Nick wavered his high expectations for conscience; so with the lessons of the past, he would choose to personally participate to prevent the jury's conscience from being hoodwinked again.
Just as there are two sides to everything, human nature has selfishness and conscience in parallel, although in the process of serving as a juror, people should be in the perspective of rule of law and justice, but the weakness of human nature is easily exposed to others, to the left or to the right may be able to convince themselves to accept, but the result is that conscience is ashamed of justice.
So under the right guidance, stimulating the potential conscience of all jurors can finally achieve a just result, which is the goal of Nick's efforts, he set up interference, pierced the true intentions of others, through the fast-paced picture of the film, so that we can show the conscience and righteous tendency of the essence of human nature through his character portrayal.
Although the statutory individual juror obligation will face various temptations and risks in the process of fulfilling, if we can regard it as a right, actively participate in the decision-making of the case, and follow our own inner conscience, it is a contribution to democracy and an endorsement of the image of justice, and all this is what every citizen with jury qualifications needs to do.
The defendant in the film is a gun manufacturer as a representative of vested interests, if it is sentenced to huge compensation, then it will inevitably trigger other victims of shooting to follow suit, then the industry will inevitably perish, so the verdict is not only the justice of the case, but the contest between the existence and non-existence of the industry, then their conscience and sense of social responsibility will obviously be hidden, after all, the pursuit of profit is the nature of capitalism.
Therefore, the big consortium dominated by gun manufacturers will do whatever it takes to win this lawsuit by manipulating, bribing, and even threatening the members of the jury; but the combination of the male and female protagonists successfully contains and confuses the defendant side, and finally hits the other side by surprise, indicating that in the face of the monopolistic vested interests, the road to justice is still long.
The rationality of facing reality again and again in the film makes our hearts full of tension and doubt, and we have to fall into a suffocating calm, but also torture our own conscience, fantasizing that we are the savior who can turn the tide, and can make justice white in the world; this successfully awakens the audience's conscience and sense of justice, but this is not enough, the director's purpose is to awaken the conscience of the whole society, to promote the development of the American rule of law in a more democratic and fairer direction.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right">03</h1>
<h1 class= "pgc-h-arrow-right" > the critical value of reality conveyed by the film, is the problem exposed by the operation of the jury system in the United States so far, and the torture is whether to rely on conscience for a long time to achieve justice simply, or to use a more perfect rule of law system to escort justice</h1>
Through the film, we know that since the jury of one case will have many deficiencies that affect justice during the trial process, then other cases will inevitably exist in commonality.
In the movie, under normal circumstances, jurors can go home, but because they have suffered from outside interference, they have to choose to isolate them, which will inevitably affect normal production and life, affect judicial efficiency and the efficient operation of the jury system; especially in the current small jury trial process in the United States, "litigation and defense transactions" are not uncommon, although judicial efficiency is improved, but the exchange of interests behind it is criticized.
In the United States, there is even "our most powerful professional legal team, why should we find a "layman" to be a judge above the judge? "Self-criticism. Although no system is perfect, it can be perfected, and I think this is the director's hope to cause the American people to reflect and improve after exposing the problem.
Although the jury trial system is written in the US Constitution, independent of the government and the judicial system, on the surface it is not easy to be controlled; but with the development of society, professional segmentation, the support of big data, the convenience of information access, the study and selection of jury members has become controllable, so it has to be more cautious to deal with the system, otherwise the democratic trial known as the rule of law may eventually become a rule of law loophole cloaked in democracy.
Through indirect reality disclosure, the film directly exposes the weaknesses of human nature and the loopholes of the jury system, revealing that relying on absolute conscience to achieve complete justice is not a long-term solution, and using a more perfect rule of law system to escort justice is the wise direction for improvement.
< h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" > concluding remarks</h1>
I don't want much, just simple justice in my heart.
Perhaps this is the real expectation of every weak person involved in the litigation, if the outcome of the case needs to be protected by the timely stimulation of the potential conscience of every juror, then who will do this golden hoop stick that stirs up the sleeping conscience?
Regardless of whether human nature is good or evil, justice is not evaded, as a juror, you should fulfill the ultimate obligation of jury, act justly under the guidance of positive values, which requires the soundness of the rule of law system, but also the improvement of the awareness of the rule of law, in the United States that flaunts freedom, democracy, and rule of law, there is also a long way to go, this is the film to convey the world's rule of law values and side reflection.
Of course, on the road of conscience and justice, what people want is not justice to the left and conscience to the right, but the two walk hand in hand and seek peace together, so as to highlight the rule of law civilization that the people yearn for!