I choose to watch the film “A few good men” . The narrative line goes as where Tom Cruise is asked to support two Mariness who are charged with slaying of a fellow officer. During the probe it was found that the Mariness were ordered what they call a Code Red. A codification red is where disciplinary step is told to the Marine when a member offends against his unit. This Marine was beaten. gaged. bounded with tape by his fellow officers because in the squad’s oculus he was non standing up to their demands. The two Mariness argue that they had a direct bid from the higher authorization to perpetrate such act. Throughout the film it came out that Colonel Jack Nicholson character had committed a offense and that this was unethical in the jurisprudence and the United States Marines.
The two Mariness Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Louden Downy edge. gagged and tortured William Santiago while he was kiping him subsequently died of hemorrhage in the lungs due to the assault. Demi Moore an advocator for advocate ( Joanne Galloway ) believes that the two were merely following orders and did non intend to mean for Santiago to decease. There are two ethical issues here that I see every bit far as the film went. One being the slaying was performed and the other is that the codification red was ordered of Jessup as a screen up. There was besides Kaffee who lies to cover up what Jessup says. He is a immature attorney who comes from a line of attorney where he has to turn out a batch of good. He is a winning attorney and losing a instance to him is non a pick. He besides is a supplication deal type of attorney that doses this on many of his instances. Kaffee is charged to assist support the two Mariness but say that they deserve to be in prison for the remainder of their lives. He knows the Mariness did something unethical but still stands by his word. In his eyes there is a quandary and that is of his feelings of people mistreating people who can’t defend themselves. So with that he doesn’t want to support the Mariness.
The ethical quandary of Tom Cruise is that he wanted to make his occupation as an lawyer of the Mariness but yet his personal feelings were that they killed a fellow solider. He knew that being appointed as to up keep the jurisprudence he still needed to make what was right as by his clients. Demi Moore was the character that besides knew from incorrect and right. She wanted to name to the instance but they would non let her because of her merely being with an advocator for advocate. Further in the film she did acquire to assist with the instance and got involved. She seems to believe that she had to besides support them as an officer would their ain. but knew that the offense was a difficult one to conflict. Jack Nickloson was the character of hatred and did the offense himself but wanted to take down others in his topographic point. He was non making right by his squad. and had non so good ethical behaviours. He wanted William Santiago dead or ache because in his eyes William was non keeping up on his terminal of the modus operandis of drills for the whole squad.
With each of these characters I feel that the quandary was solved in different manner but yet slightly similar. With Tom Cruise he made up his head that he would make what the Mariness hired him to make and what he was educated to make and that was to function and protect instead it be himself or another solider. He knew that his personal feeling could non count in this and he needed to support his solider and believe what they were stating him. With Demi Moore she excessively I feel that the quandary was resolved by her being able to assist to make the research and probe alongside of Tom Cruise for the suspects instance. She was besides to in the state of affairs that she felt they did moral wrong but her occupation was to assist support her clients in demand. Now Jack Nicholson the quandary was solved in his instance by him being found to be the individual who causes the offense and so acquiring charged with the offense himself.
Prosecution them filed charges on him. With all these characters in the film I feel that all was served and all was solve with the tribunals. The lawyers did acquire what they wanted out of this instance and the right cat will be making clip for a offense he told his solider to commit.
When you are speaking about the ethical model of this instance I see it as that the lawyers had a jurisprudence to follow. They besides needed to do certain that all moralss were followed every bit good. When we see instances like this you ever want to make what is right but feelings besides get in the manner. They knew what was needed in order to do the instance and to acquire their clients a just test. They needed to set their feelings aside and make the occupation that was appointed to them and they took other in making. When moving out on feelings or what you are told to make as a occupation you need to follow your moralss and non your feelings. These are two different issues and should non be put together anyplace particularly in the tribunal of jurisprudence. The ground this got solved is because everyone had to make what was ethically right and non what their feeling was stating them to make as a individual. The effectivity of making what was right I feel was a good thing because in the terminal the bad cat got what he deserved. Yet he did non make what was order as the codification of behavior. Jack was merely believing about acquiring rid of what I would mention to as a handicapped solider and how of all time that go on needed to be done.
If I had to foretell a different result if the frame work was different I would state that the two soldiers would hold went to prison for the remainder of their lives. The behaviour of Jack would hold gotten the two soldiers in the brig and no 1 would hold mattered. Seems that the manner the film went it was made certain that the result would hold been what had happen.
The offense. Seems with films like these you ever want the result to be for the good but normally ends up non what you do desire to go on. In my sentiment legal plaies are something to be desired. I for one didn’t truly like the film of pick and could non acquire into it. I know I had others to take from but this one was in my library of film to watch. I had to maintain pausing and inquiring my hubby inquiries to explicate to me what the meant or why did that go on. I feel if the subject is interesting like Roe vs. Wade I don’t have a job screening that sort of film. I’m non a war or military film individual because I have a difficult clip seeing what are soldiers go through. and can’t base blood backbones and crushing person for that affair. Not that was this film. all though it did demo some whipping so I handle it good. I feel that legal play like this can assist you in existent life state of affairss every bit long as they are right to the Torahs. Most of the clip what is seen in a film is non ever the jurisprudence. Legal play are difficult to watch at times but give you an penetration of what may be go oning instead its true or non. When I pick a play instead it is legal. personal. existent life I try to pick on the subject of the narrative line. Usually these are non my types of films but the difference is a good alteration of amusement.
