What exactly is Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code? When I watched the movie, I always thought it was an inversion of the burden of proof, because it was always said in the movie that because the victim was in a weak position, the defendant should bear the burden of proof when the victim expressed his unwillingness. After reading it, I found the following articles on the China Court Network :
According to Article 375, rape refers to the forcible sexual intercourse with other women against the following six conditions: against the will of another; without the consent of the other; consent given under threat of death or harm; the man knows that he is not a legal husband , while the woman believed or credulously believed that there was consent to a legal marriage between them; the woman could not understand the nature or consequences of "consent" such as being drunk, delirious, seriously ill, or poisoned by others consent; under the age of 18, with or without consent.
On the domestic Internet, it seems that India has always been a big country for rape. There is also a passage in the movie that talks about the views of foreign countries on India. I believe this is a relatively common impression. According to the normal thinking, under such national conditions, a film describing rape should be about preaching justice, punishing rapists, or even catering to the audience's fantasy and directly executing criminals. But the film takes a different approach, depicting a framed rape case. It's like a hungry person discussing how to exercise and digest after eating.
But I have to say that this idea is very advanced, especially when I watch it together with Metoo, a popular topic last year. In the turbulent movement, many victims of humiliation dared to tell the sad stories of the dusty years, and those who deserved their crimes also received the punishment they deserved. However, some of these cases are long-term and some are one-sided. More and more cases have made it impossible for public opinion to pay attention to them one by one, and there is no way to identify them one by one. Whether there is retaliation, or frame-up, or pure extortion cases we do not know. We don't know whether the accused parties are all guilty of heinous crimes, but it is certain that they will all receive punishments that are not necessarily commensurate with their mistakes.
There are two pairs of men and women in the film, the director man and the woman in kimono, the prosecutor woman and the defense man, and these two pairs are both male bosses and female subordinates. In addition to the explicit relationship between the director and the pair, it seems to be a metaphor for the lawyer's relationship. entanglement. This is a very old question. In a circle, whether the emotional relationship is suitable or not, and the morality is immoral. Not only male bosses and female subordinates, but the reverse, and even same-sex relationships may exist. In order to prevent moral hazard, many institutions have formulated relevant measures, such as not allowing teachers and students to fall in love, and some companies require that both parties cannot be direct subordinates or the same branch. These practices reduce this phenomenon from the source. However, the two parties in an emotional relationship are mostly unequal in social resources, and such practices only protect the company's own interests.
The film also explores the relationship between law and justice. We believe that there is justice in the world, yet to what extent does the law represent justice and to what extent does it defy it. The debate on justice also includes whether we should pursue consequential justice or procedural justice. The law is always lagging behind, and it is always imperfect, but what is written is not unpredictable. This is true for people, and it should be the same for institutions. In the popular Taiwanese drama "The Distance Between Us and Evil" last year, it also discussed why the criminal should be defended. The reason given there was to know why he did it to prevent more tragedies from happening, and the answer given here is Lawyers are claiming the law.
Finally, at the end of the movie, both sides made mistakes in the gladiatorial fight. Before the verdict, I think both sides have half the odds of winning, but the result of the movie is very straightforward, and there are many things that can be pondered. . If the film is pinched off at the end of the sentence, leaving the suspense of the verdict and the facts, it should be more charming.
View more about Section 375 reviews
