Watching it for the second time after a few years, the experience is really different.
Episode 1
When Matha explained justice to her pupil, I identify with it more strongly than I did a few years ago.
Martha said (roughly speaking) that the important thing is not to put this person in jail, but to get this person a fair trial. Before I saw this sentence, I had been entangled, how did defense lawyers establish their sense of meaning when doing this profession, I only knew after reading this sentence. What they safeguard is not the interests of the defendant or the innocence of the defendant, but the justice of the judiciary itself.
This process of maintaining judicial justice is reflected in two aspects. First, the existence of defense lawyers enables the voice of the defendant to be heard in a more reasonable and court-compliant manner. In the process of trial, the voice of the weak defendant is heard, which in itself reflects the impartiality. The second is that defense lawyers constantly scrutinize and question the police and prosecutors' case-handling and evidence-gathering processes in court. In fact, the police's case-handling process is more standardized and the prosecutor's evidence chain is constructed and presented more logically. In this process, even if the planting under abnormal conditions is excluded, there will inevitably be unintentional mistakes by the police or the prosecution that will be discovered by defense lawyers, or some loopholes in the case-handling process will be exploited by defense lawyers. Especially in those cases where the police and prosecutors clearly believe that the defendant is guilty, but the defense lawyers have successfully discovered and exploited these mistakes or loopholes. The process of identifying criminal suspects is not objective enough. After the defendant has won the acquittal, whether it is the police or the prosecution, they will be more cautious in their subsequent case handling, and the legislature may issue a more objective statement based on these cases. laws and regulations, such as mandating double-blind experiments when identifying criminal suspects, that is, the police officer who sets the procedure should be someone who does not know the criminal suspect, or more thoroughly adopts a strictly random procedure.
In this way, because of the existence of defense lawyers, the entire public prosecution system can be more perfect. I now think that there are probably some defense lawyers who work with this sense of meaning. They certainly enjoy the sense of accomplishment that comes with winning a case, but when they are accused of defending the bad guy and having no conscience, they know they deserve it. Because they are not working for a certain person or a certain case, they are working hard for the continuous improvement of this judicial system.
This is my point of view that has become more and more clear over the years. Compared with people, the improvement of the system itself is more important. The way it is shown in the law is probably that even if everyone thinks a person is guilty, if the trial process in accordance with the law cannot determine the fact of the person's crime, then we can't lock him up because we think he is guilty, because The next time there is a similar person, we still have no standard to refer to, and can only still be "I think". In the long run, it's messed up.
Episode 2
Combined with my extrapolation of Martha's sense of accomplishment as a defense attorney in the last episode, it's easy to understand why Martha never defended a rape case.
As described in the previous episode, she does not think that Suspect is not worthy of defense or a fair trial, but that she believes that there are huge loopholes in the whole process of collecting evidence and determining the case of rape. At the beginning, she told pupil that more than 80 percent of the defendants in rape cases were acquitted, which shows that it is very difficult to convict rape cases at the judicial level. According to the logic of the last episode, if this difficulty is theoretically surmountable through hard work, then perhaps as a defense attorney, Martha feels that he can do it. But Martha later told pupil that she read about rapes and wrote about rapes in the courtroom. However, the whole judicial system's rape conviction process has not improved to the extent that she thinks it can be achieved through the efforts of defense lawyers, so she has been Reluctance to defend against rape.
In other words, I think the risk of rape defense for her is higher than she expects from the improvement of the justice system, so she has always rejected rape cases. In her 17 years of practice, she is defending a rape case for the first time.
So, how to rationalize this first time? Because Billy stressed to her the importance of this case for her to apply for silk.
Martha's concession seems to me not to be a concession to Billy, but to her own principles. So far Martha has appeared as a pure-hearted figure who pursues what she believes to be the right justice, is not afraid to argue with others, and is not ashamed of fighting. But she has always been full of sympathy. She was born in a public school and lives in a humble house suspected of being a basement. She knows what a pain looks like. So she sympathized with women who would be questioned over and over again by defense lawyers about their sexual history, so she never defended rape cases. This is her bottom line.
But she also wanted to be a silk, a QC who could choose a case and have time to vacation as she told Pupil, so she tried to give up a little bit of the bottom line. I guess, when she gave up that little bottom line, she probably already knew vaguely that when the case was over, if she won, she might have to slowly chew on her own pain and feel a part of her disappearance.
Breaking the bottom line in order to achieve an important goal, I always thought that once it happened, there was no going back, and it would only eat away the remaining bottom line step by step. For example, if an organization believes that in order to achieve the purpose that members of the organization can enjoy a better material life, they can plunder the property of other organizations, then in the next step, they may feel that it is okay to harm or even kill others in the process of plundering. Accept, in the next step, you may feel that instead of robbing one by one, it is better to simply kill the people of the organization to be plundered with biological and chemical weapons. . .
But maybe Martha won't. She did not have the joy of winning the case, and she still felt the pain after returning home, and felt sympathy for the plaintiff woman. For her, breaking the bottom line this time may not only stab someone else, but also stab herself, so she will remember that she may not stab it again next time.
However, I still feel that most people, after crying for a short time, may forget the pain at this time. After the scar is healed, the next time they stab someone, they will never hurt themselves again.
View more about Silk reviews
