The film explained "In terms of law, what are the standards for mental soundness and insanity?" The students unanimously answered "free will". That is to say, if the suspect committed a murder due to insanity in law, he is not guilty. If it is a sane murder, it is guilty. The distinction between confusion and soundness is related to whether the motive for the killing is based on free will. In the film, Al Pazno uses his professional experience to judge the killer to kill with free will, not insanity. But the factual judgment—the evidence against the killer—is zero. At this time, the personnel under the judicial judgment system insisted on the legal process—because of the lack of factual evidence—the killer was not guilty—to maintain the sanctity of the legal process. Insurmountability, or, like El Pasno, induce the victim’s sister to perjury the scene and convict the killer? This is a dilemma.
This answer was put forward by Pacino after the truth of the film was revealed: Where is the boundary between justice and truth? When the modern judicial system still has its own irreparable shortcomings, as an executive under this system, is it to maintain the procedures of the judicial system-must be based on evidence, or adhere to the purpose of the judicial system-uphold justice? This requires a minded person to make a choice. Pasno stood on the side of justice and made up for the loopholes in the system, rather than a simple tool to enforce the system.
In my opinion, no system designed by human beings can be perfect. It only requires people to act as the executor of the system. In other words, the effective operation of the system requires the mind and integrity of the executors of the system. It is a pity that in reality, there are very few system implementers who have the mind and integrity, and people often attribute the responsibility to system problems, right?
View more about 88 Minutes reviews
