to our film fellow..... |
Posted by
pancho
(Moderator)
- Wednesday, December 11 2013, 16:07:41 (UTC) from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Mozilla Website: Website title: |
...I always enjoy legal dramas, with good acting especially...a particularly good one is Otto Preminger's "Anatomy of a Murder" which I've been enjoying again on youtube...but something just struck me. In the courtroom scenes a big deal is made about not mentioning before the jury that the husband who killed the man, killed him because he raped his wife....now, I understand that certain things which may prejudice a jury must be kept out...for instance if a man is accused of rape and has been a proven rapist three or four times before, this information is kept out because he could well be innocent THIS time and that just because he raped before does not mean he did it again. But how can you defend a man accused of murder if you can't say WHY he committed the murder? What's your case? And isn't motive a big part of every murder trial? The first thing cops do to find the one who killed is ask who would want this person dead....the husband killed the guy....why? There has to be a reason...and the reason in this case is that the husband was angry enough to kill because he saw what had been done to his wife...otherwise what do you say in defense? He just felt like killing? It was Tuesday and the guy always kills on Tuesday? The plea was "temporary insanity" that he had an "irresistible urge" to kill the man who raped his wife...if that is your defense, how can you NOT mention the rape that started it all? I realize it made for a dramatic confrontation in court with one side trying to bring in the rape and the other trying to keep it out as irrelevant...but it just dawned on me that this could not happen in real life...and I like real films......? --------------------- |
The full topic:
|
*** |