RIFLE RANGE BOY: jury

Juror #2
Director: Clint Eastwood

Yet another big one from Clint Eastwood. This 94-year-old may have directed his last movie, but one can never say never. This one makes us think, as did his previous offerings, like 'Letters from Iwo Jima', 'Flags of Our Fathers', and 'Gran Torino'.

It is a courtroom drama along the lines of '12 Angry Men', where the moral decision of convicting a person of a serious crime is the mainstay. This film, however, goes one step further. One of the jurors, Juror #2, may have committed the murder in the case he is judging. On the day of the incident, the Juror witnessed the tussle between the accused and his girlfriend at a bar. The girlfriend was found dead later that night by a creek beside a road. The accused was seen following his girlfriend in his car. With his destructive anger management issues, he was naturally accused of having mortally wounded his girlfriend.

The trouble is Juror #2 is a recovering alcoholic and was nursing the pain of losing a pair of twins a year previously. He was fighting his inner demons to resist the bottle again. Self-restraint allegedly won the day. As he left the bar, he drove the same country road as the other two. Just as the Juror bent to pick up his phone to answer a call from his wife, he felt a thud. He looked up and saw nothing except for a deer crossing sign. He checked his car for damage and moved on, assuming he had hit a running deer.

Juror #2 slowly realises, as he sits through the case, and with sudden flashes of his accident from the same night in his mind, that he could be the killer instead of the accused. What was he to do? Resign from his post, which may turn investigations towards him. At a time when he is looking forward to being sober for so long and ushering in his soon-to-be-born child, the last thing he needs is to go to prison.

With all the evidence stacked against the accused, argued by a DA with political ambitions, the accused is sure to be incarcerated for the crime he did not commit. A moral dilemma ensues within the Juror. Should he ensure that the jury delivers a unanimous decision of guilty so he (the Juror) is off the hook? If a mistrial is declared when the jury cannot convict him, the police may have to investigate again, and the Juror's name may crop up.

Does the truth reveal itself in the end? If the truth is so powerful and can maintain balance, why must we defend it? Is it everyone's moral duty to protect the truth no matter what it may do to them and the people around them? In the same breath, we insist that many versions of the truth exist. Who determines which is true, anyway? Many versions of it seem right from their perspective. Have they not heard of the Rashomon effect? Sometimes, truth is watered down to preserve peace.

Still, we insist on a fair hearing and that everyone deserves to be adequately represented. And we realise that many guilty criminals, with the power of the best legal minds that money can buy behind them, get away scot-free through technicalities. The innocent, too, can be punished with overwhelming circumstantial evidence. When a notoriously bad person who had escaped convictions before is penalised for a crime he did not commit, we say that his crimes have finally caught up with him. We justify the wrongful conviction akin to a person who lives by the sword and dies by it. Are the lawyers less enthusiastic about defending such criminals, or is wealth the determinant?

Are you being dishonest by putting your self-interest above doing the right thing? After all, no man is an island. On the other hand, no innocent man should be punished for something he did not do. Some feel pressured to mete out instant justice. We take shortcuts and cut down on paperwork. We don blinkers to confirm our biases and refuse to see beyond our scope of vision.

When a miscarriage of justice happens right in front of your eyes, just how far would you go to right the wrong, especially when it involves an admission of guilt? With the admission of error, you must bear the brunt of losing face and position.

There are no answers, only questions. The film ends on a cliffhanger, probably on purpose, so viewers can ponder it and draw conclusions. It brings viewers into serious discussions on truth, justice, morality, and guilt.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

American Crime Story (Season 1; 2016)

The People v. O. J. Simpson

A 64-year-old man was imprisoned for a year after being caught stealing ten cans of sardines, two bottles of instant coffee powder, and some mouthwash. He was punished with a month's imprisonment.

In the justice system, an individual trusted with the coffers of the nation and its future, accused of amassing RM 42 million for his own needs, gets 12 years in prison. This happened after much public pressure, demonstrations, democratic change of government and taxpayers coughing out more money to finance what turned out to be a non-ending series of trials-within-trials. Because the ex-PM has all the money that can buy justice and legal minds, there is a high possibility that he will end up spending the rest of his royal-pardoned six years under house arrest, in the comfort of his loved ones and window to the outside world. That is the best justice system that money and influence can buy.

This is by no means confined to the third world or despotic governments. It is a worldwide phenomenon.

When the Malaysian courts discontinued the jury trial system in 1995, the naive me thought it was a step backwards for justice. After all, more impartiality is displayed when more people collectively decide, and developed countries, particularly the US, still use jury services. So they must be right, I thought.

The sensational trial of Mona Fandey et al. gruesomely murdering a state assemblyman created such mayhem that the courts thought that trial by jury should be abolished.

The merits and demerits have been in the legal fraternity's imagination for years. In India, the famous 1959 case of a naval officer, Nanavati, murdering his wife's lover created such a storm that the legal system felt the sensationalism surrounding the trial made the juries err on their judgement. The Bombay High Court later reversed the jury's decision of freeing him to impose life imprisonment.

The opponents of the jury system argue that the law is too complex for an average person to comprehend, who may also be swayed by emotion, prejudices and sentiments.

In this time and age, with the bane of knowledge and information, we humans are more confused than ever. Like in the immortalised lines from the movie 'A Few Good Men', the real question is, 'Can you handle the truth?'. With so much information, emotion, biases, innate bigotry and prejudices bottled up within us, how unflinching can be towards the real truth?

This proposition is laid bare in the case People of the Stae of California v. O. J. Simpson, which took place when the American sports icon, Simpson, was accused of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Smith, and her companion, Ron Goldman.

Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ, David Schwimmer as
Robert Kardashian, John Travolta as
Robert Shapiro.

On the one hand, a black football player who beat the odds with his rags-to-riches story to be super rich, marry a white girl and live in a posh white, exclusive neighbourhood in LA. Some also looked at OJ as Uncle Tom, who had become a white, not as a black man. On the other hand, Nicole has reported domestic abuse in the relationship. When a blood-stained glove with OJ's and both victims' blood was found in the vicinity of the murder, the prosecution went all ballistic to charge him with double murder. They were clear in their approach. It was a case of domestic violence gone overboard.

From the get-go, the defence took a racial slunt towards the case. At a time in America when the police (like now) had the dubious reputation of being overtly racist in the way they handled their affairs. The Rodney King killing and the LA riots were They went along with the idea that the pieces of evidence were planted by bigoted police officers. To top it the lead defence lawyer, John Cochrane, drew in the support of the NAACP (North American Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, founded 1909). The defence tried to recruit as many black jurors as they could. In their mind, even though Simpson had turned into an Uncle Tom-like character with a white wife, country club and all, he was framed because he was black. That is where the defence was looking for sympathy.

With the fueling of fire by the extensive media, the trial became a competition between the whites and blacks of America. The whole trial became a media circus. First, it starts with Simpson engaging in a low-speed police car chase. Then, the trial was televised on Court TV, making people hooked on the twists and turns the case took. By the end of the nine months of trial, people were waiting outside the courthouse with bated breath to hear the jury decision. The jury took less than 4 hours to deliberate. Even though it provided a sound argument backed by scientific data, it was not enough. Simpson had apparently built a fan base among the jurors. They also voted along racial lines. The verdict would have been different if the jury was predominately white. The trial of the century ended with O. J. Simpson walking out a free man. A poll suggested almost 75% of white respondents believed OJ was guilty, whilst about only 25% of blacks thought he was guilty.

What is this about OJ's defence team being a dream team? I suppose it must be a group of morally corrupt individuals who mask themselves behind a law degree, unscrupulously stir sentiments, and churn out uncertainties in investigations and technicalities to create that element of reasonable doubt to crush the conviction. They promise the stars and the moon and charge an arm and a leg.

Robert Kardashian, the estranged husband of Kris Jenner (of the ''Keeping Up with the Kardashians' fame), was on the dream team. As a close friend and an attorney, he completed the whole trial convinced he was defending a guilty guy. To add fuel to the fire, 13 years after his acquittal in 2007, OJ was charged and later imprisoned for 33 years for armed robbery with a mostly white jury. So much for a fair trial and the adage that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.