Jurisprudence Messages from Film - Term Paper Example

 The Value of Jurisprudence in Film and Fiction Jurisprudence is typically defined as the studying of law through a philosophical lens. The term refers to a movement in legal study that works to critically analyze the purpose and application of the law in order to arrive at the ‘truth’ behind legal reasoning and the exercise of legal power. In doing so, it is also proven that ‘truth’ behind legal reasoning and the exercise of legal power does not exist, creating a profound contradiction. Further, to really understand the term, it is necessary to look at its application through a historical, social and cultural context. It is only by looking at it from these viewpoints that one can begin to understand the differences in the way the law is practiced and applied based on the environment in which it is set. By taking such a rounded view, society obtains a better understanding of the law’s unpredictable nature, with the end goal being to better society by educating citizens to better predict what the law is and what it ought to be. It is hoped this understanding will then lead to better decisions based on the concept of jurisprudence rather than a blind application of current trends and assumptions. With such a complex meaning, jurisprudence as it exists in film and literature is essential to comprehension as it helps viewers and readers to understand the fundamental principles of the term through its practical application in differing prevailing attitudes throughout history, a viewpoint difficult to obtain through any other means. Although several works of fiction and films have been produced demonstrating this concept, the novels To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and Bleak House by Charles Dickens as well as the films Twelve Angry Men produced by Lumet and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington produced by Capra are most helpful in the study and understanding of jurisprudence. In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, readers are introduced to the concepts of natural law and positive law in the actions of Atticus Finch as he works to defend an innocent black man in a southern town and as he conspires to protect the relative freedom of the guilty man who saved his children. Briefly, the story is that of a small town lawyer (Atticus Finch) who is hired to defend a black man of the community who is accused of raping a white woman as told from the innocent viewpoint of the lawyer’s 9-year-old daughter, Scout. Peppered throughout the story is the battle and cooperation between natural law, typically understood to be the basic moral fiber or ethics of a situation, and positive law, or the codified version of laws and punishments determined to have bearing on a society. In the end, Atticus proves the black man is innocent of all charges while implicating that the damage done was actually caused by the girl’s abusive father, but the defendant is found guilty anyway by the all-white jury. In the meantime, the children have made friends with the eccentric mentally handicapped man who has spent the majority of his life imprisoned by his parents in the house next door. Feeling shamed by the events of the trial, the evil father of the girl determines to murder Atticus’ children in retaliation for the imagined harm, but is instead killed in the dark by the mentally handicapped eccentric who has been keeping an eye out for the children. Although the innocent black man is killed while attempting to break out of prison when he might have gone free had the case proceeded to a higher court, Atticus and the town’s sheriff conjure a story about the death of the evil father that leaves no suspicion of foul play on the part of the eccentric, keeping him out of the courts system completely. That Atticus devoutly believes in the ability of the law to see that the right thing is done as the story opens is evidenced in his trust that even though he’s sure he won’t win the trial in Maycomb County as shown in his discussion with Scout, “Simply because we were licked a hundred years before we started is no reason for us not to try to win” (76), he continues to encourage Tom Robinson to have faith in the system, “She said Atticus tried to explain things to him, and that he must do his best not to lose hope because Atticus was doing his best to get him free” (234). For all his knowledge of the law, though, Atticus is also seen as being the defender of natural law within the town. Miss Maudie brings this point home when she’s talking with Aunt Alexandra in the kitchen. “Have you ever thought of it this way, Alexandra? Whether Maycomb knows it or not, we’re paying him the highest tribute we can pay a man. We trust him to do right.” “Who?” “The handful of people in this town who say that fair play is not marked White Only; the handful of people who say a fair trial is for everybody, not just us” (236). The town has determined Atticus to be the epitome of positive law because of his actions, such as the way in which he dealt with his son, Jem, when Jem lost his temper at an angry old woman who hurled insults at the Finch family and destroyed all her flowers. “… son, I told you that if you hadn’t lost your head I’d have made you go read to her. I wanted you to see something about her — I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do” (112). That Atticus seemed to have lost some of his faith in the ability of the legal system to give justice to Boo Radley, the eccentric man that saved his children from the vindictive Bob Ewell is evident in his discussion with Sheriff Heck Tate. Although he’s ready to go to court to establish a case of self-defense when he thinks Jem committed the murder, he’s willing to concede to Sheriff Tate’s story when he realizes the person in question is actually Boo Radley. In Bleak House, Dickens presents an even greater contrast between natural law and positive law in the juxtaposition of the High Court of Chancery and its officials in considering the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce with the behavior of the people who live within Bleak House. In this story, the current Jarndyce, John, owner of Bleak House, has little hope of gaining anything from the case as it has been considered in the high court for generations. Jarndyce is also the philanthropic guardian of Ada Clare and Richard Carstone, but the narrator through much of the tale and the story’s heroine is actually Esther Summerson. Esther is adopted by Jarndyce following her aunt’s death and becomes a companion to Ada and Richard. Of the group, only Richard has any real hopes that the chancery case will make his fortune. When the case is finally solved at the end, the costs of representation absorb all of the estate Richard would have inherited and he dies without knowing his young son born to Ada. As the story unfolds it is also revealed that Esther is the illegitimate daughter of Lady Dedlock and an old love, Captain Hawdon. The Dedlock's lawyer, Tulkinghorn learns of this through Lady Dedlock’s maid, Mlle. Hortense. When he tries to profit by the information, Mlle. Hortense murders him and is later caught by Mr. Bucket, the detective. Lady Dedlock flees and later dies at the gates of the cemetery where Hawdon lies buried. Meanwhile, John Jarndyce has fallen in love with Esther and asked her to marry him. She consents out of respect for Jarndyce but during the engagement she falls in love with Allan Woodcourt. When Jarndyce learns of her feelings for Allan he releases her from the engagement and she marries Woodcourt, later bearing him two daughters. In this story, the argument between natural law and positive law again rises as the question regarding positive law becomes one of cyclical lunacy within the legal system. The case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce has been taken up by the High Court of Chancery for so long that “Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. … The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world” (Dickens, 2000, Ch. 1). Richard, the only person in the story who seems to take the case at all seriously, loses his health in the pursuit of its final resolution and eventually dies from the shock of the loss (Dickens, 2000, Ch. 65). However, those who follow positive law are not the only losers in the game. Captain Hawdon ends up a penniless pauper (Dickens, 2000, Ch. 11). Lady Dedlock sinks into deep depression at her disgrace and is found by her daughter who “passed on to the gate, and stooped down. I lifted the heavy head, put the long dank hair aside, and turned the face. And it was my mother, cold and dead” (Dickens, 2000, Ch. 59. However, those that have lived morally and justly are seen to have happy endings. Esther is given her freedom from an engagement she longer desires, leaving her free to marry Allan Woodcourt with no remorse and even the young widow and now single-mother Ada is given a welcoming home at either of the Bleak Houses, also serving to keep John Jarndyce from becoming a solitary hero. Twelve Angry Men, filmed in 17 days in 1957 by director Stanley Lumet, provides an inside look at the jury system at work that cannot be obtained by any other means other than participating in a jury itself. Exploring how personal prejudice, opinion, personality, insecurity and emotions can cloud the judgments of otherwise reasonable men who function well in their societies. The plot of the movie is straightforward enough — an uneducated Puerto Rican youth who has been in trouble with the law previously is brought in on charges of murdering his father with a switchblade knife. The 12-man jury consisting entirely of white, middle-class men, is sequestered in a small rectangular room in the middle of summer to deliberate whether to send the boy to the electric chair or not. Voting not guilty in the very first vote because of a reasonable doubt held, one juror holds out, determinably and persuasively forcing the other men to reconsider and review the shaky information and eyewitness testimony that had been provided against the defendant. Despite heated arguments, the formation of alliances of different groups of jurors, frequent changes of opinion and votes, this one juror persists in getting to the real reason jurors are voting guilty in the case. Viewers begin to understand the personal experiences and preconceived biases that entered the jury room. As more and more of each juror’s personality emerges, it becomes evident that one is so completely biased and judgmental, not to mention hostile toward all youth thanks to a poor relationship with his own teenage son, that he would have been unlikely to have been selected as a juror had the defense truly been working in the best interests of the pro bono client. Another, equally biased, even goes so far as to refer to the world as divided between ‘them’ and ‘us.’ Five of the remaining nine jurors were as unconcerned that they held a child’s life in the balance as they would have been had they been walking in the park on a bright summer’s day. Through the conclusion of the film, in which the boy is finally proven to be unquestionably innocent, viewers are made aware of how these preformed notions, ideas, insecurities, personality traits and combinations of the same work to shape the way in which the law is perceived and administered, independent of what the actual codified version might say. Like Bleak House, To Kill a Mockingbird and 12 Angry Men, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a story about a man with strong moral fiber representative of natural law standing solidly against a wall of pedagogic authoritarians. In trying to appoint a quick successor to a suddenly vacant Senatorial position, Mr. Jefferson Smith, the popular head of the state’s Boy Rangers, is selected. That he is intended to be a figurehead only is obvious from the very beginning as the powers that be work to protect the real estate holdings of Party Boss/Media Magnate Jim Taylor, who has been scheming for some time to gain additional funds from the public purse by passing a bill to construct an unnecessary dam. However, the political machine forgot to take into account the moral fiber (natural law) of the man they were appointing to office, which was alluded to early on with his status as the head of the Boy Rangers, but was underscored almost immediately when he announces on the way to Washington that “Dad always used to say the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes.” Although naïve and idealistic at the outset of his term of office, Mr. Smith quickly learns the rules of the game in Washington are not the rules he was taught growing up. Rather than joining them, he chooses to fight for his own terms, eventually wining the day for truth and the American way, once again underscoring the tendency for people to view justice in the legal system as leaning toward natural law as defined by altruistic standards not necessarily codified. In examining the concept of jurisprudence, it is easier to see the various elements in action when presented with examples from other times and places as they are in such works of fiction as Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird and Charles Dickens’ Bleak House or in movies such as 12 Angry Men or Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Seeing them in this way helps readers and viewers to start to analyze their own concepts of ‘truth’ in law creation, understanding, interpretation and enforcement in a way that might not be as immediate as experiencing such issues from the context of the present day, when racial bias, personal attitudes and social constraints might not be as obvious. In examining these types of works, one can see how the authors or directors tended to present natural law, commonly referring to those decisions based more on morality and ethics, in triumph over positive law, or those items that can be synthesized and codified in written form to be deliberated and presented in competition or in support of each other. References Capra, Frank (Producer/Director) (1939). Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. USA: Sony Pictures. Dickens, Charles (2000). Bleak House. G.K. Chesterton (Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.online-literature.com/dickens/bleakhouse/. Lee, Harper (1982). To Kill a Mockingbird. New York: Warner Books. Rose, Reginald and Henry Fonda (Producers) & Stanley Lumet (Director) (1957). 12 Angry Men. USA: MGM. Read More