First of all, this film is a bit interesting. The prosecutor must have read the testimony of the victim's witnesses. He knows that the murder and rape are all fat criminals, and the thin criminals are accomplices. The crimes are relatively light, but the evidence is insufficient. He made a deal with the fat criminal who had committed a serious crime, and asked him to accuse the thin criminal and assign all the charges to the thin criminal. So the fat criminal was sentenced to several years in prison, and the thin criminal was sentenced to death.
So the prosecutor is not innocent at all, so many people say that it is really unreasonable that the prosecutor is not dead, but after I read it, I think it makes sense that the prosecutor is not dead.
First, he is young, easily influenced, and easy to change his mind!
Second, he has a high position and is the chief prosecutor, the future local prosecutor (equivalent to the chief prosecutor of the procuratorate in China). It is relatively easy to change the entire judicial system after influencing the mind.
Third, the black prosecutor is really smart. Although there is an email reminder that the protagonist is suspected of being the protagonist, he did solve the incident and put the protagonist together, and the protagonist is indifferent. , it doesn't matter if it doesn't blow up, so when he finally sees the bomb, although he is surprised, he is not afraid, because his goal has been achieved, and the rest is optional.
The above three points are logical, so the fact that the black prosecutor did not die is not because the screenwriter and director were worried that they were too deep and just tried it!
This is a good film. The combination of commerciality and ideology is relatively good. I never thought that the film should be divided into a clear line. The film is made to sell tickets. It's also a good meal!
The last thing I said is an off-topic, not this movie. After watching this movie, I was thinking about a question. When your enemy is acquitted due to insufficient evidence, you will hate the law because he can't claim Justice, but when you are wronged but acquitted because of insufficient evidence, you will thank the law because he has done justice for you!
Yes, the law requires that there is no suspicion of guilt, and the law requires procedural justice. These make it easy to let the bad guys go, and it also prevents a lot of good people from being wronged!
The same is true for lawyers. The professional ethics of lawyers is to take the case of the defendant (this case may be assigned and cannot be abandoned), and they must try all legal methods to exonerate the suspect or commute the sentence. You are indignant. When you get out of the crime, I wish no one would pick up the criminal suspect's lawsuit, but if the criminal suspect is you and you have been wronged, do you hope that a lawyer can help you to file for justice?
Therefore, for any person, your likes and dislikes for the law are actually only beneficial to you. This has nothing to do with justice at all, but only interests!
The law, on the other hand, can only guarantee the basic interests of most people. It is not an oracle, it is not omnipotent, and it is not perfect.
View more about Law Abiding Citizen reviews
