Yesterday, by chance, I attended for the first time a trial at jury court. From a long time I had such curiosity and eventually I could indulge it. So far I have seen trials only at movies. By the way, I have remembered the following movies about trials:
Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger, 1959), based on John Voelker’s novel, starring James Stewart as the lawyer Paul Biegler;
Witness for the Prosecution (Billy Wilder, 1957), based on Agatha Christie’s play, starring Tyrone Power and Marlene Dietrich as the Vole;
To Kill a Mockingbird (Robert Mulligan, 1962), based on Harper Lee’s Pulitzer winner novel, where Gregory Peck is the lawyer Atticus Finch; and the masterpiece
12 Angry Men (Sidney Lumet, 1957), Reginald Rose’s story and screenplay, starring Henry Fonda as the #8 juror.
I have found all the process very interesting, mainly the debate between prosecution and defense. And I have to mention the popular participation, considering that ordinary people decide about the future of the accused. Although obligatory, it is an exercise about citizenship, desirable by every democratic citizen, I suppose.
Bad news is that our judiciary, which has been reformed since 2000, still has several problems like, for instance, partiality and slowness. I don’t know very much about this issue, but I believe the main diseases of the judiciary are class corporatism and corruption. When there is corruption inside the legislative and executive powers, there is possibly a popular trial for corrupts and corruptors by means of our choices. In case of judiciary, I cannot see another solution but the external control.
Anyway, I believe that oversimplifications and easy solutions for topics as justice and democracy lead to unsuitable excess of optimism or pessimism. So it’s advisable, sometimes, try presumably reliable sources to see different viewpoints. I recommend a critical and meditative reading of the following reports:
International Amnesty,
Human Rights Watch, and
Freedom House.
No comments:
Post a Comment