Choose one of the following movies and send a brief summary of the story line including the ethical dilemma facing the attorney. Suggested movies are as follows:
A Time to Kill
A Few Good Men
Analyze the ethical dilemme presented in the movie by writing 1400 - 1750 words about the following topics:
Summarize the movie plot
Describe the ethical dilemma from the perspective of each of the main characters involved
Describe how the dillemma was resolved
Describe the type of ethical framework that best describes how the dilema was analyzed and resolved by the characters involved
Consider whether the ethical framework used to resolve the dilemma was an effective solution. would a different framework have resulted in a better outcome?
Explain why you think legal dramas and dilemmas make for interesting entertainment.© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 8:40 pm ad1c9bdddf
A Few Good Men - if you haven't ever seen this movie, you should - it's amazing.
In the movie, "A Few Good Men" Jack Nicholson is a military officer who has covered up a murder. When he is in court on the witness stand, Nicholson, yells, "You want to know the truth? You want to know the truth? Well, you can't handle the truth." Nicholson's testimony is that some military crimes must be covert for national security purposes. He implies that it is acceptable to murder one cadet who isn't going along with the rest of the company. He states it is acceptable for him to lie about the incident under oath to protect the company involved as well as the military overall.
We believe this is an ethical dilemma for three reasons: 1. A murder has been committed. It is not acceptable to take a human life merely because this individual doesn't get along with the rest of the company. 2. The investigation of the murder is hindered. It is not acceptable to lie about the cause of death in an effort to preserve public relations or personal esteem. 3. Cadets and officers lie under oath in court. It is unacceptable to lie in court. The military has determined that it is essential this case be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. A sub-group in the military can't make its own rules of military morality.
In analyzing this critical incident, we stipulate first that the murder was wrong. The murder was immoral in every sense and those causing the murder should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We further stipulate that it is unacceptable for a coverup of the murder. Jack Nicholson defends the practice of lying under an area of lying covered by Plato.
Plato gave support for some lies when he said: "It is the business of the rulers of the city, if it is anybody's, to tell lies, deceiving both its enemies and its own citizens for the benefit of the city; and no one else must touch this privilege."(1)
If using the Plato type justification for the coverup, Nicholson and those around him have a deluded sense of their place in national security. Their actions are not for the preservation of military. Their actions and lies are for preservation of their own positions...
Kant declares: "A lie is a lie...whether it be told with good or bad intent...But if a lie does no harm to anyone and no one's interests are affected by it, is it a lie? Certainly."(2) Kant believes truthfulness is a duty, an "unconditional duty which holds in all circumstances."(3) According to the categorical imperative, if there is even one case in which it is acceptable to lie and honesty can be overridden, then the perfect" status of the duty not to lie is compromised. Kant is most strident in not allowing for even a seemingly innocent lie, which could save a life instead of causing harm. He merely asserts that if something terrible happens it is not your fault. The terrible act is something wholly unjustified in the first place.(4)
Duty is often represented by Kant and his deontological views on lying. Kant tells us that it is never acceptable to lie, and places this on the level of a moral law, or a "categorical imperative." He contends that lies always harm others--the individual or society. "To be truthful (honest) in all declarations, therefore, is a sacred and absolutely commanding decree of reason, limited by no expediency."(5)
Utilitarian Jeremy Bentham also would not allow for the Nicholson defense of the coverup. Bentham delivered a frothy lecture to England's judges who were using their power and lying to the people. Bentham sees nothing more abhorrent than using lies and power to further one's position....(6)
Our group finds this incident to be an example of a series of unethical behaviors. The justification for the behaviors is weak, with hundreds of years of morality, ethics, and laws written in opposition to Nicholson's rationale.
On any list of the most memorable movie quotes of the last 25 years, probably of all time, this one makes the cut. You may not have seen the film, but you've definitely heard the quote, even if you didn't know the source. The line is also a good summary of the entire film, even if it too often overshadows an excellent motion picture. Yes, the courtroom scenes are Hollywood-ized, but isn't that why movies exist?
Adapted by Aaron Sorkin (Sports Night, The West Wing) from his stage play, A Few Good Men merges a coming-of-age story into a military courtroom drama. Tom Cruise stars as Lt. Daniel Kaffee, a smart-aleck JAG lawyer whose career is on (ahem) cruise control until he runs into Lt. Cmdr. JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) and her relentless, over-achieving work ethic. Together with Lt. Sam Weinberg (Kevin Pollak), they are sent to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where a Marine has died under suspicious circumstances beneath the command of Nicholson's Col. Jessup. As Kaffee and company investigate, they unearth continually deepening layers of ethics and questions that lead to answers that perhaps should have been left covered.
Although the aforementioned quote is the most famous part of A Few Good Men, the film is much more than just that explosive exchange between Nicholson and Cruise. The first act of the film could almost be classified as a comedy, due to Cruise's spot-on performance of the young Kaffee and his laissez faire demeanor that prefers the softball diamond to the courtroom. But over two hours, the tone seamlessly coalesces into a drama filled with legitimate moral questions. The remarkable mixture of humor and poignancy sinks its teeth into you and refuses to relent, demanding repeat viewings. Go ahead, try to flip the channel when this movie is on (which is often). You'll find yourself entranced, watching and waiting for the climactic final scene, when Nicholson spews the thunderous trademark line.
The fantastic content is accentuated by a cast that is stunningly strong from top to bottom. Cruise and Nicholson headline with their powerhouse performances, even though Cruise is playing his normal role as a brash young gun who faces adversity and learns about both life and himself. He deserves credit not only for one of his best turns, but also for ceding to Nicholson when necessary, permitting the veteran actor to dominate the film, despite appearing in only three scenes.
Moore and Pollak transform roles that are only slightly more than ...
Movies that deal with the criminal justice system and examples of ethical situations/dilemmas the attorney faced in the movie.
Five elements of negligence
I need help with writing a brief:
A. One evening, Kelly went to the movie theatre. When the movie was over, Kelly needed to use the restroom. As she emerged from the bathroom stall and approached the sink, Kelly slipped on a puddle of water in front of the sink, crashed to the floor and landed painfully on her shoulder. Earlier in the day, the movie theatre knew the bathroom sink pipe had broken and called a plumber to come fix it. The plumber called the theatre late in the afternoon and said she could not arrive until the next day. The theater tried to shut off the water to the sink but could not. The theater did send an employee in with a mop every 15 minutes to mop up the water. However, this did not prevent the floor from becoming slippery. Kelly wishes to sue the theatre for its failure to maintain the bathroom in a safe condition.
On what theory or theories, if any, can Kelly recover from movie theatre? Discuss.
B. After Kelly fell, the theater posted an employee in front of the restroom and would not let any other patron use the restroom. When the theater closed for the night, the theater manager placed towels under the sink to absorb as much water as possible and a sign that said, "Do not enter. Wet floor."
That night, Cindy, Sandy and Teri broke into the movie theater after it had closed. Teri had worked for the theater for six months and had often used her keys to open the back door after closing to party with friends. Teri had several convictions for burglary on her record, but the theater hadn't done a background check.
The theater was completely dark. Even the exit signs that were required by statute to stay illuminated at all times were off. (The theater had taken the bulbs out of the signs because movie patrons complained that the signs were distracting.) Teri said that she knew where the theater kept some flashlights and to follow her.
As the three girls fumbled their way through the theater toward the snack bar, Cindy tripped over the cord to a vacuum that Paul, a member of the cleaning crew, had left plugged in with the cord running across the aisle. Paul is an independent contractor hired by the theater to clean the theater. He had quit early to take a nap up in the manager's office. Cindy fell head first into a row of seats, breaking her nose.
As blood poured from Cindy's face, Sandy ran to the restroom to get some paper towels. In the darkness, Sandy didn't see the sign and slipped on the wet floor, breaking her arm. Sandy cries out in pain, which wakes Paul up.
Paul turns on the theater lights and goes to investigate the screams. By the time he gets to the restroom, Sandy is gone. Paul then hears the door slam as the girls run out of the theater.
Sandy, Cindy and Teri left the theater. Paul not wanting to get in trouble for sleeping on the job decided to say nothing.
Cindy and Sandy want to sue the theater. On what theory or theories, if any, can Cindy and Kelly recover from movie theatre? Discuss.
C. The next night, the theater was getting ready for the seven o'clock show, when a patron spilled his super giant coke on the floor lighting that outlines the two aisles in the theater. This shorted out the floor lights for the entire auditorium. The unknown patron did not report this and simply moved to another seat as the movie started.
A state statute requires that "All movie theaters illuminate the auditorium aisles with one candle unit of light per linear foot. This will allow patrons to leave safely in case of an emergency."
Without the floor lighting, the theater was out of compliance with the statute.
Ed, a regular patron arrived at the theater just as the seven o'clock movie was starting. He stopped and bought a large Dr. Pepper and a jumbo buttered popcorn.
By the time Ed entered the auditorium, the house lights were out and the movie was playing. The auditorium was about 90% full. Although the theater auditorium was dark, Ed thought he saw an empty aisle seat, eight rows down, based upon the illumination reflecting off the movie screen. This had been the seat where the super giant coke had been spilled. Ed could not see the puddle of coke by the seat. As Ed stepped from the aisle carpet onto the concrete floor by the seat, his foot slipped in the puddle of coke and he broke his ankle.
As Ed lost his balance, the Dr. Pepper and popcorn flew out of his hand and landed on the head of Mrs. Witkins. Mrs. Witkins is allergic to Dr. Pepper and developed welts all over her head and neck, as an allergic reaction to the spill.
On what theory or theories, if any, can Ed and Mrs.Witkins recover damages from movie theatre? Discuss.
When responding to essay questions, using the IRAC approach to legal analysis found on page 112-115 of the Legal Research, Writing and Analysis can be very helpful. The IRAC approach forces the student to focus on the Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion. A thorough response to an essay question will include a discussion of each element of the tort and the facts that demonstrate that the element was present or absent.