Through this film, the maneuverability of the jury members is completely visible. As Fitch pointed out, they are a group of ordinary people who owe a lot of debts. They talk about fairness and justice, and the rule of law and morality. It is purely playing the piano against cattle, which is probably the idea of most utilitarians. I have been thinking about the dilemma of justice. From law formulation to application to trial to sentencing, as long as people participate (people must participate), there must be subjective disadvantages. Then why does the West emphasize the importance of judicial procedures? Why does the much criticized system of jury still exist and has become a typical feature of British and American judicial democracy? It's because of people. Yes, people have greed, self-interest, and conscience. No matter how you choose between the prosecutor and the defender and prevent fraud, after all, I make a judgment based on self-worth. However, the advantage of the system lies in its existence. Because of its existence, everyone has the opportunity to participate in the justice system. It is everyone's responsibility to maintain judicial justice. The scene in which the jury members swear to the U.S. Constitution is extremely profound, and the results are of course important. My goal of popularizing the law has been achieved. The law has become a part of citizens’ lives, and social morality is based on rational thinking. This is the biggest advantage of the system. He is not a good system, but a better system is there? Although the civil law system and the maritime law system cannot be simply compared, compared with the United Kingdom and the United States, they still feel that the judicial literacy of the Chinese people needs to be improved. In the face of social hot spots, people can talk about it, but it is too reasonable to think about the legal requirements. few. Atmosphere is important. The ending of the film is quite ideal. In the end, the conscience triumphs, and the conscience is not completely swayed by monetary benefits. If the film is made to be successful than the transaction, yes, Rohr's conscience bet is lost, I think it is still a good film, and even more deeply saddening.
Ten years ago, you used money to help the arms dealer win the lawsuit, making the families of the victims desperate to make a living. Ten years later, using the other way to give back to the other body, let you lose this money contest, your conscience never bowed your head. The gentleman takes revenge and faces the wall for ten years.
View more about Runaway Jury reviews
