Like the original, the defendant is a child who is suspected of killing his adoptive father, but Mikhalkov designed a background for them that is more gripping to the hearts of the Russians: the accused is a child who killed his adoptive father - a A Chechen orphan of a Russian major. After three days of court trials, a 12-member jury will finally discuss and decide the fate of the accused.
Since the courtroom renovation was not complete, the jury could only sit in the indoor gymnasium of the school next door, which was sunny with basketballs and soccer balls all around and looked good, but apparently let (perhaps deliberately) the trial lost. Legal ritual beauty. There was a piano in the gym that was locked to the window with a protective net, and one jury member joked: Haha, in our country, even pianos are imprisoned.
Some of this group of jurors have to catch a train, some have to go on a tour, some are anxious to watch an exclusive interview with their mother, and some are writing poems.
Everyone raised their hands and voted, 11 votes in favor and 1 vote against. When everyone asked him why he was against it, he said, "Because you all agree, so I am against it." Wang Yi believes that starting from this sentence, this drama has transcended the secular world. Law, into the world of theology. The man went on to explain, because if I raised my hand too, this kid was going to be in jail "forever", think about what a heavy concept, forever. "He then began to tell his story, his career failed, his marriage failed, he used alcohol to drown his sorrows, provoked everywhere, but wanted to die quickly. Once on the train, he was very drunk, provoked the marshals, provoked passengers, but everyone Ignore him. In the opposite group, a little girl of a few years old asked her mother: "Mom, is this person crazy? very scary. "Her mother said, "No, he didn't, he was just very, very, very sad." "Later, this woman became his wife, and this little girl became his daughter. What he wanted to say was: "We may completely change his destiny by caring even a little bit about others." "
Then, while simulating the scene and analyzing the evidence, everyone began to tell their stories one after another. It seemed that everyone poured out their inner stagnation in this trial of others. They began to be angry, crying, crazy, and hysterical. Mikhalkov kept inserting footage of the growth of this Chechen child, silently telling the trauma of the Chechen war to Russia and Chechnya. Days and nights passed, while telling the story, more and more people joined the "innocence" party, until finally, the situation was completely reversed, and 12 people made a unanimous verdict: innocence. After the verdict, the first person who disapproved of the guilt returned to the gym and said to a bird that had been flying around the house before: "If you want to stay, stay, if you want to fly, fly away, You have freedom, and no one can choose for you." The
1957 edition of Twelve Angry Men basically stayed at the level of criminal law and criminal procedure law. Through evidence and reasoning, the child was acquitted and demonstrated the justice of secular law. . The Russian version of Twelve Angry Men goes deeper into the level of jurisprudence, legal philosophy and religion. He is asking: Can a person judge another person in place of God? Look at these jurors who get angry about their own business. Without the insistence of one of them, this Chechen kid (the jurors called him a Chechen son of a bitch) will be sentenced to life in prison. Why should this group of people sentence another person and decide his unalterable fate for life?
If jurors can't, then surely civil law judges can? In Tolstoy's "Resurrection", it is written that three Russian judges walked to the court, one was thinking about his mistress, the other was thinking about the fight with his wife yesterday, and the presiding judge was thinking about walking from the door to himself. If the number of steps on the judgment seat can be divisible by three, his stomach problems can be cured. Without further ado, let’s take a look at the criminal injustice cases in China that have been exposed by the media over the years. "Anyone with a little common sense can see" how negligible the proportion of cases that can be exposed by the media in the actual unjust cases. I have said long ago that these unjust cases that have been exposed basically have one of the following two attributes: either the "killed" victim has come back alive, or the real murderer is very righteous and refuses to cheat on good people. If you are unfortunate enough not to have one of the above two properties, well, sorry.
When Ma Ying-jeou served as Taiwan's Minister of Justice, on the eve of signing the execution order, "every time I feel uneasy and I can't sleep. It is a kind of state of mind in which the dream returns in the middle of the night, when heaven and man are at war." Obviously, our judicial system does not have such compassion We are only fifty steps away from the realm of the Gulag Islands.
Halfway through, I went for a swim. While swimming, I was thinking: In fact, the "presumption of innocence" is already the greatest humility that human beings maintain before God (if there is one). What else could it be? Even aside from countries such as Russia and China that do not strictly implement the "presumption of innocence" or not at all, is the judicial system of those countries that strictly implement the presumption of innocence an irreproachable sentence of a person's fate?
Mikhalkov doesn't seem to have an answer either, and his credits end: The law is a noble beginning, but what are we to do when those higher, benevolent laws are abandoned?
View more about 12 reviews
