but uses a lot of space to introduce the background of the case, the police's thinking of solving the case and the process of the public catching the murderer. The whole film has created two important questions, one is who the murderer is, and the other is why the public must completely avoid the police's sight when arresting the murderer.
Obviously, the previous one doesn't have too many details of detection. There is no reasoning and no scene. It just tells us that there are no clues in this case, only the continuous expansion of the scope and a series of measures that the police think of.
The second line can be regarded as the real part of the film, and the final result and the process of reaching the peak of the conflict are all more than ten minutes before the end of the film. From the discovery of the criminal to the final civil trial, the criminal all showed a kind of panic and anxiety. His motives and actions all made the citizens living in panic want to deprive him of his right to live because of anger and hatred.
If the film is here, I am afraid it will be a very satisfying result.
But the criminal's lawyer, after the criminal has explained all his motives, believes that the mentally ill person should be handed over to a doctor instead of the police, even though the facts of his crime are clear.
Rights, the word became the center of all discussions.
Criminals have violated girls' right to life, many families' right to reunite with their children, and the public's right to have a safe society, and he himself has the same right to have his life protected by law.
The voice of lawyers is drowned out by the public frenzy, and the most direct and effective way is to eliminate such people who endanger the society. This is really an indisputable fact.
But are public trials really a substitute for legal choices?
The answer is naturally no. A peaceful and democratic legal system urgently needs to be established, but moral decay and legal adjudication cannot be absolutely unified. Such contradictions and disputes often collide in the establishment of legal system and the transformation of public consciousness. But in the end, what it shows is the public's desire for fairness, the equivalence of rights and the liberation of expression.
Therefore, the role of the state apparatus in the construction of the legal system is to assist in the establishment of such an equal environment, but isn't this lag the weakest explanation and direct cause for the emergence of repeated contradictions?
View more about M reviews
