In the musical, Chicago, Roxy who shot a man who lied to her about his vocation is put on trial. Her lawyer who is very skilled in law and oratory, tells her before the trial begins that in order to win she must give them the "old Razzle Dazzle". In other words, convince the judge and jury of your innocence by putting on a show of character for them (i.e. acting as though you were the victim). I've seen this play numerous times and I have to say, its no different than how those prosecuted are able to win court cases.
Lobbyists for cigarette and Fast food corporations are put on trial every year because a certain customer was victimized by their products. Each time the corporations won, not because they the corporates are rich but because their lawyers are experienced in this type of work since they face it every day. In the film, Thank you for Smoking, you are introduced to a man who uses his oratory and wit to overwhelm his opponents and this is what every type of lawyer from corporation lobbyists to Civil Rights lawyers like Johnnie Cochran use to save their clients from penalties. Now with regards to our simulation.
My group put together a mock trial to decide if we are to convict Cortes who led the Conquistadors to destroy the Aztec civilization of Crimes against humanity. We had to make this trial one that applied to trials back in Cortes' time and that's when the confusion set in. War crimes is a relatively new concept that originated as another brand of punishment for Nazi Germany and intensified after the Bosnian civil war claimed thousands of innocent civilians. To apply it to a time when Christianity was to justify every misdemeanor, murder or raping of innocent civilians was frankly impossible. This is because after WWII, religion no longer applied to those convicted of war crimes particularly in Bosnia whose Serbian militias murdered thousands of Bosnian Muslims in a time when Islamophobia (the sociological distrust of Muslims) was beginning to emerge. There was also no political international body that worked on these cases during the 1400s. It's amazing how relatively new this concept is when you think about it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Interesting way of looking at it...I appreciate your theatre and film references. Are you criticizing the legal system in that the defense frequently portrays the prosecuted as a victim? That seems sort of inherent in the system to me...I don't know. I don't think that McDonalds has won all of the cases against it, although I am not 100% sure about that. I feel like the one in India regarding meat products in their fries might have lost, but again I'm not sure.
First, Rachel, McDonalds lost a lawsuit against a woman who spilled hot coffee on herself. They paid her hundreds of thousands of dollars and now all coffee cups have disclaimers warning that the coffee is indeed hot.
Nate, I missed your class, but I heard it was interesting. Cortes undoubtably was power-hungry and greedy. But this was an era with no human rights where heretics were burnt at the stake, so I feel it is not practical to convict Cortes when natives did not have any protection under Spanish law.
The McDonald's case that Seamus references,, Liebeck vs. McDonald's, seems simply ridiculous and has frequently been employed as a poster child for tort reform. However, upon closer examination there was some merit to the suit. McDonald's served their coffee at 180F, significantly hotter than the temperature at other restaurants. The spilled coffee caused third-degree burns that required skin grafts and a weeklong hospital stay.
http://www.reedmorganpc.com/wsj_coffee.htm
Post a Comment