so happens that there is insufficient evidence... So when watching this suspenseful film, my thoughts gradually become clearer. The director doesn’t seem to focus on the issue of who is the murderer, but perhaps more to deal with this case after 5 years (Simpson was acquitted in 1994 and the film was released in 1999). Objective and exaggerated narration. It can be considered that this film is largely to show the American judicial system and the unique value judgments of Americans, and to tell everyone that if the evidence is unfounded (the truth is not clear), anyone who is doubtful is innocent. , They all still have the greatest right granted to citizens by the United States-freedom.
If you have never understood the American judicial system, after watching this film, you will definitely be confused by the fairness and justice in the eyes of Americans. Because their country’s court trial system is quite different from ours. Just like the film shows: here are intertwined with unscrupulous emotional entanglements (almost everyone has a relationship with the victim of good means in one way or another, even the judge Larren in court), a series of political traps, murderous intentions An emotional friendship under all circumstances. In addition, both the prosecution and the defense are outstanding figures in the political and legal circles...
When both sides are evenly matched, does Rusty, as the defendant, have to keep his head down and wait for trial? The answer is naturally given in the negative, because the United States has granted everyone standing in the dock the right to be a citizen. That is the "presumption of innocence", that is, the precondition that "I would rather let a thousand go and kill one by mistake." The presumption of innocence is just like in the film, Rusty’s lawyer Sandy always had some suspicion when he first started to accept the case, but the presumption of innocence is the prerequisite for his final victory over the prosecution and finally bring freedom to Rusty. This principle gives every defendant basic human rights and also reflects the independence of the law. If the defendant has let the judge, jury, and defense lawyer prejudice it as a murderer, then it is clear that the defendant has lost everything, and he is already a criminal regardless of whether there was a murder or not.
Therefore, in order to be fair, in addition to the principle of presumption of innocence, the U.S. court has set up 12 seats. So as we have seen, the most important and most powerful person in this trial is not the judge from our perspective, but the ordinary American citizen who sits on the 12 trial chairs on the right side of the court. The prosecutors both racked their brains to find evidence and fix their words in order to win the impressions of the 12 judges. These 12 jurors are the final judges who determine the outcome of the case and control the life and death of the defendant. Just like the scene in the film always shows a blonde woman, when she hears or sees news of the victim's tragic situation, she will have a close-up facial expression, and then the defendant Rusty will appear extremely nervous, and the prosecution's lawyers will signal each other. The jury system is a major feature of the American judicial system. According to Americans, this is the best and fair way because it truly represents the common will of the majority of Americans.
So, in order to win the support of the jury, what is the most advantageous and sharpest defense and judgment tool? There is no doubt that it is evidence. It is better to say that everything depends on the facts than it is to say everything depends on the evidence, because sometimes the evidence does not represent the facts, but this is the only valid proof of the reorganization case that outsiders can see. In this film, the prosecutor initially collected sufficient evidence, such as the defendant’s DNA in the deceased’s body, forensic confessions and transcripts, clear fingerprints on the wine glass, blanket fibers in the defendant’s home left at the scene, telephone records before the crime, etc. And the motive for committing the crime was obvious. In the eyes of the unknowing American public, the victim was like an emotional and political victim, who had been slaughtered insanely by the suspect. However, all of these evidences were rejected one by one. Rusty’s defense lawyer Sandy used his rational mind and experience to serve his customers-DNA can only explain that the suspect had a sexual relationship with the victim but cannot explain whether the defendant was right. It carried out a massacre, the forensic medicine was chaotic and incomprehensible, and the defendant's boss Raymond had poor rationale, and all this was completely overthrown under the most important physical evidence-the disappearance of the wine glass. The destruction of the evidence means that the case cannot be established. After the judge dismissed the prosecution, he stood up and left and said to Rusty, who was a barrister, "This is a shame to the notary." At this moment, the people hearing the trial were also in an uproar. Leave. But the defendant is free, and the case is over! Except for the defendant and the real murderer, no one knows whether Rusty is the murderer, but obviously, although the notarization seems to be covered with invisible frost, the trial is fair, at least most Americans are Think so. Just like when Simpson was acquitted and released, people still gave a fair evaluation of the trial. The truth may not be as convicted in the trial, but it cannot be worth the fairness of the trial, because the fairness of the trial is responsible for the basic rights of every American citizen. This is the freedom that Americans have in exchange for their safety and even their lives! To go for freedom, everything can be thrown away... This is something that we, with different national backgrounds, different living backgrounds, and the other side of the ocean, cannot face the questioning directly.
Although the most important evidence has not disappeared, although the murderer has appeared, and although the ending presents a horrifying side, the United States will not file a lawsuit in this case again, even if the truth has been revealed! Because-a case cannot be tried for the second time. The thinking of Americans here is very different from ours. They believe that if there is a second trial, the time and space and the occurrence of the second trial will be longer than the first time, so it will only make the trial farther from the truth. This is unanimously rejected by the Americans.
The judicial system of the United States makes us in a socialist country on the other side of the ocean feel a little confused. It is difficult for us to judge whether such a system is good or bad, let alone define it in a few words.
Is truth important or justice important? Is efficiency important or fairness important? ——This is always a long-term issue of the times.
View more about Presumed Innocent reviews
