Moment of truth

18 September 2007

9:16 AM

Well, I just turned in my first collegiate essay for a grade. I hope it does well. I figured I'd post it in here just so everybody could take a look. I'll let you know what kind of grade it receives when I get it back. For now, enjoy.

Liberty and Justice for Me

The law, as defined by Aristotle, is “reason unaffected by desire” (Aristotle 3). This definition describes the standard under which legal systems should be based, but is hardly a truthful depiction of the legal system in America. Opposition to Aristotle’s claim is present in media characterization of the legal system, and is often the focal point of many story lines of movies and television shows. Movies such as Fracture and The Shawshank Redemption are prime examples of movies with characters who let their desires interfere with their roles as preservers of the law. Characters like these, who rank personal satisfaction above unbiased justice, diminish our confidence that the American legal system is capable of treating all judicial cases equally and seeking the truth in order to identify the guilty without punishing the innocent.

Legal procedures are systematic, and are designed as such to avoid inconsistencies in legal cases. Aristotle’s perception of working law implies this. For a society to secure equal rights for its citizens, procedures must be implemented that ensure fair treatment and protection from extreme measures. The legal system provides orderly dispute resolution as an alternative to self-help, which often plays off of emotions and individual perceptions of justification, as opposed to the law’s neutral views of justice. American people need to know that the law has regulations in order to confide in it to settle their conflicts with others.

Ideally, the attributes described above help describe a perfect legal system. However, as many know, we do not live in a society with a perfect legal system. Popular media suggests that, in an economically motivated society, even our supposed protectors of the law are willing to trade money for justice.

In Fracture, DDA William Beachum exchanges more challenging cases with coworkers for his own benefit. He claims that his exchanges are justified because, for every case he passes to someone else, he picks up two or three cases in return, thus lightening the load for his fellow associates (Fracture). In all actuality, even though Beachum picks up more cases and makes more work for himself, the alternative cases are easier to win. The real reasoning behind Beachum taking his associates’ cases is that, if he can trade off one tough losing case for a couple easy winning cases, he can still make himself look good. With a higher conviction rate, Beachum lands himself in a position at a new law firm that pays more and gives him a better image.

William Beachum’s methods may help him financially, and they may also bring forth justice upon the criminals he convicts, but his passing of tough cases to those who might not be as prepared or experienced as him also carries the possibility of obstructing justice. The law promotes equal rights for all, but cannot provide absolute equality when more capable lawyers pass on cases simply because they desire not to damage their political careers.

Similarly, money tempts members of the legal system to abolish moral values and judicial ethics. Warden Norton in The Shawshank Redemption does so when he denies further investigation into the murder of Andy Dufresne’s wife solely because Andy runs the warden’s books and launders the money made through deals between Norton and labor companies (Shawshank). As a result of Norton’s desire for money and a competent accountant to handle it, the law’s objective of uncovering the truth is brushed aside. This, along with the example of William Beachum’s personal interests in Fracture, adds to the popular characterization that members of the legal system are concerned less with equality and justice and more with earning a quick buck.

Further than the aspect of selfishness in regards to being money-driven characters, popular media also depicts protectors of the law as people who seek their own personal satisfaction when dealing with court cases. These individuals disregard the systematic procedures inherent in equal justice and also act against advisement of their superiors because their egos interfere with their conduct as professionals in their respective fields of work.

After William Beachum secures his seat at a new law firm, he gets lazy about his duties under his current employer. In court, the defendant, Ted Crawford, manages to surprise Beachum with shocking information that destroys what he thought was a textbook murder case. As a result of his humiliation in court and Crawford’s aggressive taunt tactics, Beachum refuses to be taken off the case by his boss. He just can’t let himself be played by Crawford, so he risks both his current job and his new job for a chance to prove himself to others as the man who can convict Crawford.

With this, popular media introduces a haughty characteristic of lawyers, thus portraying them as men and women with a desire to validate their capabilities among themselves and others. This can bring down our view of the legal system because lawyers who seek solely to test their skills could be in over their heads, and thus less capable of working effectively to uncover the truth.

Fracture contains yet another exposition of selfishness, present in the character of Lieutenant Robert Nunally. As the secret lover of Ted Crawford’s wife, Jennifer, it is understandable that he be particularly aggressive when restraining Mr. Crawford after discovering the woman’s lifeless body. Though, when the police prepare to take Crawford’s confession, Nunally insists on being present, regardless of the possibility that the confession could be considered a coerced one, and rejected by the court as evidence. Here, emotion plays even more of a role than in the previous examples and arguments. Lieutenant Nunally loved Jennifer – so much so that he couldn’t put his mind to rest without being witness to her killer’s written confession. Due to his desire to satisfy his emotional needs, Lieutenant Nunally neglects routine procedures and defaces possible evidence. Ted Crawford is later able to claim that he was under duress when giving his confession because the man who had just beaten him was in the interrogation room.

The lieutenant meant no harm to the judicial process by being in the room while Mr. Crawford gave his confession, but as stated earlier, the law has strict regulations that attempt to prevent false conviction. Because duress is addressed in these regulations, this popular characterization of the legal system affirms that cases are treated equally, but surely negates confidence that the legal system seeks the absolute truth. All evidence initially perceived to be “pretty damning evidence” (Fracture) turned out to be useless in this case, all because of one man’s desire to appease his grieving soul.

When Aristotle made his claim about the law, it was profoundly idealistic. Realistically, however, law is reason bombarded with desire. Genuine courts in America may not be as dramatically affected as the courts depicted in popular media, but through analysis of movies like Fracture and The Shawshank Redemption, our confidence in a consistent and pure legal system in America is surely diminished by characters who base their actions on personal wants and desires.

Works Cited

“Aristotle.” Wikiquote. 8 September 2007, 16:55. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 15 September
2007. .
Fracture. Prod. Charles Weinstock. Dir. Gregory Hoblit. Perf. Billy Burke, Ryan Gosling, and
Anthony Hopkins. DVD. New Line Cinema, 2007.
Shawshank Redemption, The. Prod. Niki Marvin. Dir. Frank Darabont. Perf. Morgan Freeman,
Bob Gunton, and Tim Robbins. DVD. Warner Home Video, 1999.