Project #2 - Movie Analysis

For this activity, I watched My Cousin Vinny. I personally thought the movie was quite funny and interesting. The movie itself is about two average-joe guys that are traveling through Alabama end up getting tried for a murder that they never committed. It ends up that the two guys that actually did it, looked just like them and were driving a similar car with the same paint color. This movie really goes into the timeline all the way from crime scene & preliminary investigation to sentencing. One aspect that I thought was interesting that the film makers showed was how the jury members all came from this little backwoods town, so of course everyone knew the murder victim, so everyone just immediately said "they did it." One thing that I really liked about the film was how the defense lawyer, "Gambini," knew just about nothing when it came to dealing with a trial. It was interesting to see how he could start to learn as he went, but also how he started to use his common sense to start piecing together what actually happened & prove the witnesses wrong. One thing that I thought was a little wrong (besides the obvious wrong decision in jury selection) was how "Gambini" thought the courtroom would be. He comes in the courtroom in black pants, cowboy boots, black leather jacket, and chains around his neck. Now, I understand that they did this to make it funny, but everyone in their right mind would know that you would dress up for court, especially a murder trial. Needless to say, he gets kicked out of the courtroom. Overall, I thought the movie was funny and interesting to see just about all of the timeline fall into place. It was also interesting to see the truth in how a lot of crimes fall onto the innocent. If you are looking for something funny & kind of realistic, I would recommend watching My Cousin Vinny.

For this activity, I chose to watch one of my all time favorite movies, “Devil’s Advocate.” The story follows Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves), a hotshot defense attorney from Gainesville, Florida, as he boasts an impressive winning streak of defensive wins. Lomax’s winning streak is so impressive that it catches the eye of a monster law firm in New York and they anxiously seek to make Kevin Lomax a partner in the firm. Once Kevin and his wife Mary Ann decide to move to New York, they are pampered by the law firm with luscious accommodations. It all seems too good to be true for the Lomax family and it very much in fact is. The mystery around Kevin’s success begins to unfold when he meets the head of the law firm; John Milton (played by Al Pacino). Throughout the unfolding of the film, Kevin and his wife start to experience very strange things. While Mary Ann, who soon becomes bored with her lavish lifestyle starts seeing visions of demons, Kevin sees his success grow in very strange ways. As he works as co-counsel on a large defense case, he starts to read jury members personalities in almost an uncanny way. He reads the jury members so well that he won a plea of not guilty from the jury in only 35 minutes. The movie culminates with Kevin’s success causing Mary Ann to break down mentally and Kevin finds out that the head of the law firm is actually his father; who just so happens to be Lucifer himself. Lucifer wants Kevin to create life with his half sister in order to bring about the anti-Christ and take over “the family business.” Kevin realizes the error of his vanity and makes the ultimate sacrifice by killing himself and thereby thwarting the Devil’s plan. After Kevin commits suicide the story jumps back to a crucial point in the beginning of the movie where originally Kevin successfully defends a guilty person. This time around Kevin chooses to not to represent the guilty, thereby seemingly negating the events that occur in the film. As soon as you think that good has triumphed Kevin is approached by a journalist who wants to do an article on “the lawyer with a conscience,” to which Kevin agrees to. In the last scene the journalist transforms back into John Milton who ends the movie by sayings, “Vanity is definitely my favorite sin.”

What I love about this film is that it deals with a wide range of issues. Is it vain for a lawyer to constantly seek to win cases if he is properly representing his clients? When does it cross the line of having an unfair advantage over a prosecutor if you are doing everything in your power to properly represent someone? Is it ok to properly represent the guilty, and if so what moral dilemmas are created if you win? It also touches on the duality of man in that it deals with the temptation of success and how success can drive people to do unethical things. The movie also deals with how corrupt the law can be and how law is in the middle of many different organizations; politics, weapon usage, religious, etc. Many aspects of the philosophical debate on law are addressed as well as the psychology side of law. The movie deals with greed and temptation. The name of the main antagonist, John Milton, is even in reference to English author John Milton who wrote “Paradise Lost,” one of the most epic and most famous pieces of English Literature as well as a psychological analysis of the Lucifer himself. I have had the pleasure of reading Paradise Lost which raises many morally ambiguous questions with regards to the nature of the Devil and what drives/motivates him in his actions. Many of the quotes from the movie are actually from the poem itself.

The ending of the movie is my favorite part in that it offers a philosophical debate over the true nature of God. In the ending the characters of Kevin and John argue over many philosophical issues such as; Is it better to reign in hell or serve in heaven?, Who is to blame for man’s sins? Should man’s faults be celebrated as being a part of human nature? Does God condemn man even though he created man to fail? And, is the devil ultimately the advocate or defense of man’s actions?

The movie I watched for this activity was Don't Say a Word. This is a movie about a child psychiatrist named Nathan who finds out his daughter has been kidnapped. In order to get her back, he has to talk to a girl in the psychiatric ward named Elizabeth, because she knows where the jewels are that the kidnappers want. Elizabeth has a 6 digit number in her head and Nathan has to find out why that is important. It turns out that Elizabeth's father was murdered 10 years ago by the same people that kidnapped Nathan's daughter. Elizabeth had a doll that contained the jewels that the men wanted, but when her father died, she put the doll in his casket so the men wouldn't find it. In the end, Nathan gets Elizabeth to tell him about the murder and leads the kidnappers to Hart Island where they bury John and Jane Doe's. They find the doll and the kidnappers are caught. This was a very intense movie, because you don't know what is going to happen. I liked how it showed the psychiatic ward and the process that the psychiatrists have to go throught when they get a new patient. This whole story happened in one day, so that was very unlikely that Nathan could find all of the right information in one day. He was also lucky that Elizabeth liked him, because she didn't like any of the other psychiatrists in the building. If Elizabeth didn't like Nathan, then none of this could have happened so quickly.

For this project, I watched "Runaway Jury." Even though I've seen it so many times to the point I can quote the movie, for me it never gets old.
Runaway Jury is a movie that pertains to the profession of Trial Consultant. Gene Hackman plays a big-time Trial Consultant whose tactics can considered ethnically questionable at best. In the film, Hackman's character is hired by a major gun company to oversee the jury selection and trial of a civil case filed by a gun victim's widow in which she sought compensation for the gun company's negligence in their sales and manufacturing practices. Her attorney (played by Dustin Hoffman)reluctantly hires his own Trial Consultant (played by Jeremy Piven) after Piven's character shows up and convinces him to.
With any movie, unexpected plot twists occur when Rachel Weisz's and John Cusack's characters show up and infiltrate the jury (when Cusack's character was selected to serve on the jury)to sway their votes...for a price.
The movie is suspenseful and, at times, action-packed. However, it provides a very unrealistic image of a Trial Consultant. The movie would have you believe that Trial Consultants use tactics such as pulling up all (and normally confidential) information (like medical records and so forth) on every member of the jury pool and utilizing teams of undercover staff to record their every movement to select 12 perfect candidates for their case's jury.
I'm not one who really enjoys suspense type movies but this film definitely surprised me when I first watched it.

For this project I watched the movie Erin Brockovich. I rewatched this movie because it is one of my favorite movies that relates to pscyhology and law. This movie is based on the real life story of a house mother who finally lands a job working for a private law firm. Her filing job at the firm causes her to become intereted when she finds blood samples are found on real estate papers. On her own she starts to investigate the situation. In the end she finds that the company Pacific Gas & Electric is using a type of chromium to cool their machines that has leaked into the water of a nearby town. Erin and her boss find 400 plantiffs which makes this a very difficult job for a private law firm and financial support for a case this big looks doubtful. In turn Erin's boss sides with another law firm to cover costs and then this case is well underway. One interesting thing I learned from this movie is that instead of a jury run trial it becomes a direct-action lawsuit. At first the plaintiffs thought this was a terrible decision but after winning and becoming the largest medical lawsuit in U.S. history the future looks a lot brighter. The difference between having a jury decide and a judge means that with only a judge there is no chance of appeals. They thought this would be best for the plaintiffs because if they used a jury to decide PG&E could appeal over and over and the plaintiffs could never see a settlement during their lifetime. I found this very interesting because it amazes me that for one it is common to hear of appeals today and knowing that this is happening means someone is left out to dry. Also knowing that this whole case could have never seen the light of day because of financial issues is hard to believe. Think about how many cases today may be dropped just because of finances. There are many other reasons to why cases are never presented in court, it's just hard to believe that finances on the part of the lawyer is one of them.

For the project I watched probably one of my favorite movies "A Time to Kill." This movie is about race and really what is ethically right. A man killed two people that hurt and almost murdered his little girl. The KKK becomes active in the neighborhood after the events take place and it is a question whether or not it is ever really okay to murder. The movie follows through court and what happens in developing the case to protect the father. They do try to say that he wasn't in his right mind while he shot the two men. The father is fighting for justice not only for himself but for his little girl and family. This is a great movie to watch and it will make you wonder about what you would do in this situation, and taking matters, like the law, in your own hands.

I watched "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" starring Michael Douglas. The basic premise is that a journalist frames himself for a murder to catch Douglas, a hot shot DA looking to run for governor, who he suspects is planting evidence in various cases.

This gives a particularly in depth and interesting look into the idea of planting false evidence. The DA waits until there is a case with only circumstantial evidence, such that the defendent would ordinarily be acquitted. Then the DA introduces a new piece of forensic evidence (e.g. a cigarette butt with saliva on it taken from an interview session) into the trial after doctoring crime-scene photo's to show that it was there all along. In this way he can avoid being caught and win what would otherwise be the most difficult case to win.

The psychology is in juror decision making; for example why would one piece of evidence linking him to the crime be enough when there are any number of other explanations. The film also raises issues regarding therapeutic jurisprudence pertaining to all the false convictions the DA has gotten and the impact this has on the lives of those involved (e.g. juror guilt, the criminal's ruined life, etc.).

The end is terrible and it turns out the journalist did in fact commit the murder he framed himself for and...just bad.

Movie Review:

Bundy: A Legacy of Evil

For this week’s movie analysis I chose a movie that was NOT on the movie list but I felt deserved to be discussed. As the title of the movie suggests, this movie follows along the story of one of the United States most famous serial killers, Ted Bundy. Because this movie was a made-for-DVD-movie and not a documentary, it cannot be held to the same standard as an actual feature films or documentary. The movie opens with a drunk and murderous Bundy sitting around a campfire while a tied up victim struggles and screams in the back ground. The scene then flashes back to glimpses of his childhood where the child Bundy is hiding from his drunken “father” and looking at violent pornographic comic books. In this scene Bundy learns that his “father” is not actually his father but really his grandfather (a point not explained very well in the movie but my prior background with Bundy understood what they were trying get across). It the fast forwards to a much older Bundy in college with his first girlfriend, Stephanie Brooks (pseudonym). The film progresses over the span of their relationship, while Bundy shows signs of absent mindedness, clumsiness, and much sexual and intimacy problems. All these lead to her breaking up with Bundy. Bundy then vows that he will become someone someday and sets off to find out the identity of his actual mother. He then goes to the hall of records to find that his then believed sister was actually his mother. After discovering this Bundy becomes more confident and outgoing, taking on many jobs in the public spotlight. He starts going into politics and works on the side at a suicide hotline. Over this time we see a cheesy, 1980-style music montage where Bundy commits a series of murders, kidnappings, and rapes. After this scene, Bundy’s political career leads him to reunite with his college girlfriend. Bundy, now in law school with a rising political career, is not the same absent minded uncommitted boy that he once was. Bundy courts Stephanie for several months and actually purposes to her, only to leave her at the restaurant he proposed at and disappeared from her life forever. Bundy then goes on a murderous spree, taking huge risks by sneaking into a sorority house and murdering two girls in their sleep. Bundy gets away but is picked up a few hours later for sleeping in his car. Bundy escapes prison but is soon caught again and brought to trial. Bundy parades for the cameras as his own defense attorney and the movie moves through the trial process very quickly. The movie ends with Bundy walking down death row and finally his execution in the electric chair.

After watching this movie I took note of several different things. There were a lot of things I thought they did well in the movie and a lot of things I thought they could improve on. Firstly, one thing I liked about the movie was the way they portrayed some of Bundy’s behavioral traits. They did a great job of portraying Bundy’s absent-mindedness, irritability, and his failure to commit to long term things. These things are sometimes associated with early signs of antisocial personality disorder. They also did a good job at showing Bundy’s inability to be sexually intimate with women. They also did a great job of showing Bundy’s fake charm. One thing that I thought they did poorly was show Bundy’s motives. While not particularly an expert on the Bundy Case, I was under the assumption that Bundy’s murderous appetite stems from his psychological inability to relate with people. In the movie they showed Bundy in a light that said he was out for revenge and taking out his anger on others. They almost portrayed him as a sympathetic character, giving him all these motives for murder such as him losing his girlfriend. From what I’ve read, Bundy killed because he had a strong will to, not because he was out for revenge. They also showed very little about Bundy’s arrest and trial procedures. Bundy’s actual trial was a very interesting one as he represented himself. One of the big breaks they got on the case came from teeth marks left on the body of a victim matching Bundy’s teeth. They showed none of this in the trial part of the movie. I believe that they did a fair job of conveying their meaning to the audience and thought that overall it fit with a lot of articles I’ve read about Bundy.

I know that this movie is not on the list, but it really should be. I watched the movie "The Green Mile." This movie was about a black man in the 1930's that was wrongly convicted for the murder of two small girls. Obviously, in the 1930's, the US was still in a state of segregation and so a man of a different color was always guilty. John Coffee (the black man) was a simple man. He looked like a strong and mean man, but at heart he was only a child. He had found the two small girls and was trying to save them, but the two children died before the search party came across them with John Coffee sitting there with their bodies. The psychological piece of this movie lies on the guards of the "Green Mile." The head guard finds out through John Coffee's gift of healing, that John Coffee was innocent and that the actual killer of the girls was in the jail cell across from him. So now the guards must decide whether to try and free John or to have to execute him through the electrical chair. This becomes a conflict for the guards being as they know that John is innocent. In the end, the guards have to do what the law tells them, as much as they hate the decision. On moral grounds, they knew the situation was wrong and were unable to do anything about it. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone. It truly makes you think about decisions that are made everyday. This is truly a movie that goes into so many more aspects of psychology and law, but I don't want to spoil the movie.

I watched the movie "I am Sam". This movie is about a mentally handicapped man who has a daught with a homeless women. After his daughter is born, the women abandons te family and Sam is left to take care of his daughter by himself. His daughter is eventually taken away from him by child services. He then fights to get her back.

I think tis relates to class because of the fact that not all people are given the same rights as everyone else. In this movie Sam does a great job of raising his daughter but the law will not allow him to take care of her.

The movie I watched was "Silence of the Lambs." I have really wanted to watch this movie for awhile and I finally got to it! I thought it was kinda creepy when she had the interviews with Hannibal Lecter. I couldn't believe that they sent someone that was still a rookie, Clarice Starling, out to talk to a serial killer like Hannibal, especially alone. That is one part that I didn't find very believable but I wasn't sure. The movie was basically about the FBI trying to catch a serial killer by going through another serial killer. They wanted to see if Dr. Hannibal Lecter could find out who the guy was.

There was a really nice twist in the end and I thought that really made the movie and I wasn't expecting that to happen! I thought the movie was brilliantly made and it lived up to all that I heard about it!

It relates to the class because the FBI is investigating a serial killer and they wanted a profile of Hannibal to see if he knew anything about this killer. It shows the investigation and the interaction between the FBI rookie and Lecter trying to catch him. Good movie.

For this project assignment I rewatched Man on Fire because it is one of my all time favorite movies. This movie is definitely dramatic and full of action, but yet it still portrays the way the law was carried out at the time in Mexico. During this time Mexico had a large problem with kidnappings of children from upper class families. After kidnappings occured a victim's family would receive a ransom note. In fear of the recent kidnappings a high class Mexican family hires a body gaurd played by Denzel Washington. During the movie he has to take the law into his own hands and get back the girl who he has tried so hard to protect. After looking around on different sites I found one that gives a detailed summary of the movie, but also takes a look at the psychological aspects of the movie. Suicide, alcholism, and criminal gang enterprises is just a beginning to the drama filled movie.

Here is the link to the site:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/man-on-fire.htm

I watched the movie To Kill a Mockingbird. I had read the book in high school, but had never seen the movie.

The story is centered around a small town lawyer, Atticus Finch and his family. The story is told from his daughter, Scout's perspective. Atticus is representing a black man who is accused of raping a white woman. Since it's the 1930s, racism is very prevalent in this town. Many people in town try to hurt or influence Atticus to not represent Tom Robinson. Atticus is not swayed by his racist neighbors, believing that Tom Robinson deserves a fair trial as an American citizen.

Atticus Finch represents the epitome of what the public expects lawyers to be - servants of justice and the greater good. It was great to re-examine his character from a legal perspective.

I watched one of my favorite movies, Fried Green Tomatoes, for this activity. I never really thought of it to have a lot of psychological ideas in it, but it does have a trial concerning the murder of Frank, the husband of Ruth. Frank used to beat Ruth a lot, even while she was pregnant with their baby boy. Ruth's best friend Idgie told Frank that she would kill him if he ever beat her again. A little later, Frank went missing and no one knew where he was. About five years later, they found his truck in the lake, but no body. Idgie and her hired man Big George were the one's who were suspected of murdering Frank. They were not taken into custody, but they did go to the trial. In real life, if someone is suspected of murdering someone else, they are always taken into custody. Another thing that happened in the movie was that the preacher was going to testify, but he wanted to use his own Bible. Come to find out that it wasn't a real Bible but a copy of Moby Dick. I really don't think the judge would let anyone else use their own Bible during a testimony. After the trial and Idgie and Big George were found innocent, everyone left and discontinued the search for Frank's body. I think that even if he wasn't liked by many people, the police would still want to know if he was murdered. There could still be a murderer running around town and no one would know it. Cases like this would be more thourough in real life.

i decided to do another movie analysis and this time going with "Silence of the Lambs" and what is very interesting about this movie is not only its content but where the writer got most of the ideas for the movie. The books that i am reading from John Douglas are all fascinating in the aspect that it was his life and his cases that the writer of the movie got his ideas from. The reason that i got interested in John Douglas is throught the book report assignment suggestion of his book "Mind Hunter" and since reading that one i have been reading and plan to read all of his work, which is taken apart and piece together to make up the content of that movie.

For this project I watched "Legally Blonde." I’ve watched this movie many time but never really thought of it as anything other than just a comedy. Though watching this time I took in a more prospective look about what was going on as far as how it deals with the legal system. I don’t really think that this movie is a good depiction of how a real court case would unfold. I doubt its ever that easy for someone to admit to a murder they framed someone else for. However I do think that it does show the steps that are taken to come to a trial as far as the evidence and getting the persons alibi for the time that the crime was committed. It also shows how some law students may get their foot in the door by working on a case with a more experienced lawyer and how knowledge is taught that way.

Like what others have said this movie is very embellished with how things would work and how easy a court case is. Im positive a case like this would not take just a few days at it seems like it does in the movie. I think its a good movie as far a comedy goes but not a good depiction of how the actual legal system works.

The movie I chose to watch was Legally Blonde. The movie is about Elle Woods, your typical dumb blonde sorority girl. After her boyfriend breaks up with her for someone "more serious" she decides to prove to him that she can be serious and applies to Harvard law school, and is accepted. When she arrives she soon realizes that Harvard is nothing like Beverly Hills and has to adapt to the lifestyle. Once doing so she is offered a position to be on a very high profile case for a woman who is accused of killing her husband. Elle is a huge fan of this woman and quickly befriends her. Brooke reveals her alibi, but it's one that no one can know about or it will reveal that she is a liar about her work out video. As the case progresses Professor Callahan the main attorney in the case hits on Elle, and she quits the case. Brooke fires Callahan and hires Elle to be her attorney with the guidance of Emmett. Elle wins the case through her knowledge of beauty and daily maintenance.
All in all this movie is a cute movie, but as far as portraying how the legal system really works, not realistic at all.

I watched Philadelphia, and it encompassed a lot of the questions I had about how lawyers put aside their personal beliefs in order to uphold the law. Denzel Washington's character is very homophobic and anti-gay, and yet he defends Tom Hanks in court against the law firm that Hanks used to work for. Hanks was fired from the firm because he was gay and suffered from AIDS during a time when not a lot was understood about how AIDS is transmitted and it was not socially acceptable to be openly gay. It's very interesting to see Washington attempt to cope with his disgust of homosexuals while publicly defending one. And after he wins the trial, I think that Washington finally realized that gay people are OK to be around.
Most interesting about the film was watching the stigma against homosexuals held by so many individuals. The heads of the firm that Hanks worked for were repulsed by his homosexuality. They even went so far as to say that Hank's AIDS were less acceptable than another person's AIDS who had contracted it through a blood transfusion. They believed that Hanks' entire lifestyle was immoral. Even the judge was disgusted by Hanks' homosexuality.
I was very pleased when the jury ruled in favor of Hanks, essentially ruling that it was ok to be homosexual and that no one could hold it against you.

For this project I watched Legally Blonde. Although the movie might not be very legit, I think that it displays a pretty good view of court. The movie is a lot about relationships, and preppy frats and sororities. The very end scene depicts a court case where Elle is defending Brooke in a case where people think Brooke killed her husband. It turns out that Brooke's husbands daughter killed him because she thought that her dad was Brooke. If you haven't seen this movie, I highly suggest it. It's really funny and does have to do with law:)

I watched, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and thought it was very good! The only part I did not like was the ending when C.J did end up killing the woman. I thought the movie did a very good job portraying how the defense and prosecution open and close their statements. It is a very powerful and influential part of the court. The movie was very intriguing and a mind thinker to say the least.
To sum it up, this movie is about a news reporter who as been following the D.A's cases for some time. He finds himself to believe that the D.A and his detective have been tampering with evidence to make sure they win ever case, and they did. C.J, the reporter, makes himself the perfect suspect so that it looks like he did the murder, and at the end he would come out with a video tape in the court room that shows he is innocent and that the D.A tampered the evidence to make himself win. At the end, the movie makes a drastic turn and it is definitely worth watching.

I have always loved the movie Runaway Jury. The first thing I'd like to address is the kinds of people who make up a jury. When I think of a jury I think of stern looking people middle aged people. However, we need to realize juries are people like you and me. This is one of the biggest concepts in this movie. John Cusack uses the fact that the jury is simply people to sway them in certain ways. John Cusack actually wants to be on the jury we later find, but at first tries to get out of jury. He even tells the judge he has a video game competition type conflict. He does this to look doesn’t look suspicious. John becomes an extremely well liked juror and uses this to his advantage. Likability is a huge factor in life in general. By appealing to the people of the jury and being likeable he was able to sway the jury in some ways. Being persuasive is another factor he uses greatly to his advantage. I see persuasion everywhere I look these days. Billboards, ads, and commercials are swirling around us daily. Even in court cases we see the lawyers being extremely persuasive. In the ways the talk, walk, and act we can see how persuasive they are being. When I first started following the Mark Becker case I immediately thought to myself, Marker Becker will be guilty because the lawyer he was up against was so persuasive. Something about the way he talked and handled the case was so appealing. And when I stepped back and thought about the people sitting in the jury, I realized they would probably be a lot like me. This movie does a great job of showing that juries are people like you and I. Not to mention this movie has an amazing plot and throws you for a couple of really good loops. I would highly suggest this movie to anyone!

The movie I chose to do was A Time to Kill. This movie can really move anyone in the sense that we all want justice even when it seems like evil is going to prevail, we get it in the end. But, that is not always the case in the real world. In the movie a 10 year old girl was walking home with groceries when two men threw beer cans at her in the back of the head while they drove by, they pulled over and raped her, and then attempted to kill her. The two men are arrested and Carl Lee Hailey, the father of the young girl, comes in and shoots them both with a gun killing them both. He is then charged with two first degree murders and a young lawyer is brought in to defend him. The lawyer didn't care if he was innocent and Carl knew that. During the trial the jury and the judge were all white. This case is almost like the Scottsboro boys case where 9 black boys were charged with raping two young white women on a train and not a single person in the courtroom except for them were black. There are so many things to consider when watching this movie. Was it right for those two men to rape and attempt to kill that young girl? No. Was it right for Carl Lee to avenge his daughter and shoot the two men that raped her? Technically no. But we have a right to protect our loved ones, but we don't have the right to take the law in our own hands. During that time there was a lot of racism going on so I think Carl Lee was justified in killing those two men. If it was a time like today then I believe there would have been a fair trial where they would have accepted evidence into the case relating to the rape of his daughter. The main focus on the whole movie in the trial was to convict Carl Lee with 2 counts of first degree murder. No one looked at the psychological part of it, that the only reason he murdered these two men was the result of them raping his daughter. Now anyone of us who had a child that was raped by two older men, would want to see them pay for what they did, some may forgive but I know I could never. Carl Lee played the typical father role, a truthful role that he killed them for the right cause and he would do it again. The two men were getting off pretty light so he did what he had to do. I suppose today if this trial were happening you could say that Carl Lee was a little crazy because of the fact that his 10 year old daughter was raped and he lost it to the point where he had to shoot the men that were responsible for it all.

I recently re-watched the watched the film To Kill a Mocking Bird. And was reminded that despite what we say not everyone gets a fair trial. The racism shown in the trial shows that any system, no matter what it says, can be corrupted by peoples petty hatreds. Atticus Finch also serves as a reminder of what many lawyers aspire to be. The man who works to see that justice is done no matter how unpopular it makes him.

For my third and final movie analysis I decided to do it on a movie not on the list but one that I thought had plenty to offer in Psych and Law and that is “Redemption” (2004.) The movie is based on the life of the Co-founder of the notorious L.A. street gang the “crips” Stanley “Tookie” Williams. The plot of the movie takes place while he is in prison and a journalist contacts him to get the real story behind the man. The movie showed what great leadership abilities Tookie possessed and even when he was in prison for the first few years he was still able to rule all those around him. His ability to have respect from so many of his followers was all due to his psychopathic personality that lived on a single principle of kill or be killed. The story that he tells is one that shows how much of an influence his environment was on him and he explains that had it not been to social forces he would not have had to lead the life he did. When asked why he created the gang he said it was to protect his neighborhood from violence and the only way they saw that it was an effective way to do so was through violence. He also touched on the fact that had he not created the Crips someone else would have created the same thing just named differently so that goes with the idea of Zeitgeist, that spirit of the time does not rely on an individual person.
What is remarkable about his perception of L.A. street gangs and why young black males kill other black males is this idea of self hate. The idea came to him that in our society we have this picture painted for us of the young black male and the resentment we feel towards them is also felt by all young black males that grew up in our society which leads to this self extermination. The struggle to survive is what caused some black youth to change their appearance to a more suitable white culture but Tookie saw it only as a way to loose our inner selves in order to survive.
It is through education and critical thinking that Tookie saw the destruction that his life’s mentality has created with the mass killings of youth and not only the young black male anymore. Street gangs have caused many young individuals as well as old to lose their sense of life and live only for the gang they were affiliated with. Group cohesion was very simple attain within these gang due to group think that everyone else is the enemy.
Tookie’s saw signs that his life had an expiration date when all of his original “loved ones” which the Crips called all the members, were dead. The movement that he started got too powerful and not even he could control it anymore. The Crips gang took on its own identity and became an organization that’s still present to this day.
This movie and this whole idea of the Crips gang are perfect in showing how the environment has a way of developing a person to have this psychotic personality. Our society has this message to the inner city youth that there is not much for them in life and these gangs are a way to escape but in reality they get trapped in a self fulfilling prophecy that leads nowhere. Tookie was executed a few years ago for the crimes he committed but he left a much better legacy then the one he was forced to make. His words were that he always lived out his life to the extremes, meaning that when he created the Crips he did in a way that left a lasting impression in gang history and once he switched over to live for peace he did so with all of his energy and was nominated for the Nobel peace prize twice for his work.
My main point whether it is evident or not is that through social facilitation we develop our personality and it is subject to change over time only to the amount of effort we put into change.

I watched the movie "Shawshank Redemption." It was a really good movie, but it was really sad. Practically the whole movie takes place in the Shawshank State Penitentiary in the late 1940s. The main character, Andy, gets convicted of murdering his wife and her mistress, but later finds out from another inmate who had previously been in another prison that another inmate confessed to committing the crime. After confronting the ward about the situation, Andy was sent into the hole because he, who was a banker on the outside, had been helping the ward illegally get money. If Andy was exonerated, the ward feared that he would be basically ratted out and sent to prison. Throughout his whole stay, Andy had been digging out a secret tunnel for escape, which he later did and used the name he made up in case the money he was stealing for the ward got tracked back. He later cashed out on this deal, publicized all of the horrible stuff that was going on in the prison, and the prison was raided.

The story was really sad because it talked about how inmates become institutionalized and when the time comes that they are able to leave the prison, they are unable to function in everyday life. An older man who had spent nearly his whole life in prison committed suicide because he couldn't adjust to life outside of Shawshank.

For my second movie analysis I choose to do it on “The Deep End of the Ocean”. I love this movie and find it very moving how a family is able to become a family again. For those of you who don’t know this movie a little boy named Ben are kidnapped and is found 10 years later living in the same town as his real family. The movie didn’t show much legal scenes, but there was a legal part to the movie. The lady that kidnapped Ben had raised him as her own son and her husband had adopted Ben. Ben was only three years old when he was kidnapped that the family that raised him for the last 10 years is the only family he knows. Of course there is the legal aspect of custody. Ben’s biological parents want him back and his father that raised him (the women that kidnapped him committed suicide), wants to keep him. There is also the legal aspect if the man that raised Ben should get charged with the crime of kidnapping. There is also a small investigation right after the kidnapping where the police question people in the hotel and conduct a search for Ben.
There was a lot of psychological aspect to the movie. There were emotion problems for the family to overcome. Beth, the mother, was so distraught after losing Ben that she kind of cut herself off from her family. The other brother who was suppose to watch Ben for a minute when he was kidnapped as to overcome his feelings of guilt that it was his fault that Ben is gone and that his family blames him. There are parts in the movie where it looks like Beth might even be depressed. There is also the women that kidnapped Ben. She was an unstable woman who ended up committing suicide. Did she kill herself because she felt guilty about what she did or did her mental state play a part in it? Then of course when Ben finds out about the whole situation he has to deal with everything. He has to come to the fact that the person he thought was his mother kidnapped him and that he was to leave is “dad”. This has to take a huge emotional tool on him. There was a lot of social psychology going on in this movie. There was also a lot of relationship factors going on to. There was some intrapersonal aspect going on. Ben had to find out who he really was since his life gets turned upside down. There is some many psychology aspects that are in this movie, which is one of the reasons it is so good.

For my second analysis, I watched the movie The Life of David Gale. This is a very powerful movie that has a lot going on in it. At first, David is a professor at a college and he hooks up with a student at a party. He is married, and when the student claims she was raped, David's life comes crashing down. David is an avid member of Deathwatch, and so is his friend Constance. After Constance is found raped and murdered, David is convicted. It is them the job of Bitsey, who is a journalist, to get the story from David before he is executed. In the end, all the clues don't match up to Bitsey, but David is executed before she can prove that he was framed.

This movie has a lot of legal and psychological issues. First of all, David lost his wife and his son after the rape accusations from his student. This obviously causes him to be distraught and he eventually is executed! Although he was doing it to prove that the death sentence is immoral, a normally sane person wouldn't likely do something that extreme. Also, legally the evidence doesn't add up, but David is still executed even though he is innocent.

I watched Shutter Island. The movie is about a U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels. Him and his partner are called out to Ashecliff Island to investigate the disappearance of a woman prisoner. Ashecliff Island is where the criminally insane are locked up. Daniels thinks that the island has many dark secrets and his main goal is to get to the bottom of it. Throughout the movie, Daniels is having several hallucinations of his dead wife. Daniels' wife died in a fire in their apartment years ago. He begins to think that the staff poisoned him and that they want to do experiments on him. Daniels partner eventually disappears and Daniels thinks that the doctors kidnapped him for experiments. After a long chase to get to the light house (where these supposed experiments take place), the doctors and staff of the prison finally make him realize that none of what he thinks is true and that he is actually the one who killed his wife, because she killed their children (and he could not remember having children). This movie is all about psychology. At the end of the movie, you find out that Daniels has been a prisoner at Ashecliff for a year and he goes through a cycle where he knows who he is, and then he'll switch into U.S. Marshall mode and think the island is out to get him. It becomes obvious that Daniels, whose real name is actually Andrew Laeddis, is many psychological problems. Laeddis comes back into reality but shortly after, relapses into his life as Daniels. At the end of the movie, Laeddis is taken to have a lobotomy. This movie really makes you think and it's too hard to explain through typing. There are several psychological terms that can be used in this movie. Laeddis' wife was a manic depressive and thought she was told to kill their children. Laeddis severely repressed his memories of the death of his children and the murder of his wife because it was too painful for him to deal with. Abnormal psychology best relates to this movie.

For this project I picked a movie outside of the list (but I asked before hand if it was OK to do this project on). The movie that I watched was one of my favorites and it is called American History X.

This movie is about the lives of Derrik and Danny Vinyard. Derrik is the older brother and when their father passes away in a fire Derrik ends up confused and in the hands of a. He ends up in the company of Cameron Alexander, who is the leader of a White Supremacy Group in their town.

Derrik ends up going down a path of violence and racial discrimination against the minorities in his town. He winds up in Prison for 3 years after an incident at his home.

While Derrik is away in prison, his younger brother Danny starts to follow down the same path that Derrik went down. Danny ends up joining the White Supremacy Group that his brother was once the leader of (besides Cameron).

There are many psychological examples in this movie that stand out. These psychological aspects are shown by the way the White Supremacy Group is composed, the institutionalization of Derrik Vinyard, Danny Vinyard going into the same mind state of his older brother. The effect of peers on the behavior of others. The movie also shows when Derrik Vinyard is released from Prison, the police want him to go back into his White Supremacy Group that he used to be a big shot in and be an informer to the police to help take down Cameron and the other "big shots" in the group.

It is a very interesting movie to watch, and there are a lot of underlying psychological factors that are shown in this movie that I have not mentioned above.

For my last and final movie activity I choose to do Big Daddy. Big Daddy is about a guy name Sonny who has a kid show up on his door step. The kid is his roommate who is out of town on business. The movie takes the viewer through how Sonny tries to take care of this kid and the bond they end up forming. The law factors of this movie are of course the custody of the child. There are scenes with DHS were Sonny agrees to take responsibility for the kid and then ends up telling DHS that he will adopt the child. Then there is the actual custody hearing, where Sonny tries to get custody of the boy after DHS found out that he lied about being the father. There is some law scenes which focus on a few witnesses, most are friends of Sonny. There are many psychological aspects to this movie. Of course there is the fact that Sonny can hardly take care of himself let alone a child. So is Sonny psychological able to take care of this child. Then there are the psychological factors affecting the child. He just lost his mother and then he gets taken to strange man who is suppose to be his father. The child has to be confused and maybe a little be depressed. He has to cope with a lot of new and different things at a very difficult time in his life. Then there is the relationship between Sonny and his dad. Sonny’s dad thinks that he is a screw up and isn’t fit to raise a child, but Sonny proves him wrong. There is a rocky relationship between the two throughout the whole movie until the court scene. The move also show another scene that focus on kids rebelling against their parents which shows how big an impact a parent has an a child’s life. Then there is also Sonny’s relationship with the boy. At first he just takes the boy until his roommate gets home, but after spending time with him, Sonny begins to from a bond with the child. This bond is taken away when DHS removes the child from Sonny’s care. This has a huge impact on both Sonny and the child, because they have both grow as people because of each other. These are some of the main psychological and law aspects of the movie.

The movie that I chose to watch was the "Shawshank Redemption", a movie that I never actually saw until last night. Its about a man who is put into prison for the murder of his wife and her secret lover. The man spends nearly 20 years and was wrongfully convicted for the murder of his wife. No one believes him, and he is changed the minute he walks into that prison. During his stay, he makes friends with fellow inmates, gets a job, has trouble with other inmates and gets raped. While working a job, he over hears a guard talking about losing a bunch of inheritance money, Andy, the wrongfully convicted prisoner, says he can help being he was a really smart banker on the outside. Eventually the warden and all the guards take any questions they have to him, the warden even has Andy do his dirty money scams and it comes to the point where Andy digs his way out and steals all the dirt money because he was the one doing the books, so he knew where it all was. The warden and dirty guards were turned in by Andy and the warden killed himself to get out of being put in prison. Andy escapes to Mexico where he lives happily and freely. This movie is an excellent watch and relates a lot to our class. Wrongfully convicted, a jury who sees only what the prosecutor tells them, a corrupt system, violence against the inmates and the psychological damages done to the victims that are staying at the prison itself.

The second movie I watched for this project was "Law Abiding Citizen." Basically a man's wife and daughter are brutally murdered, yet the D.A. takes a plea bargain because the case would be difficult to win at trial due to bad DNA evidence, and the fact that the husbands eye-witness testimony would be compromised because he eventually blacked out. 10 years later the husband begins killing everyone involved with his case even though he is being held in jail as the likely suspect.
The psychology involved in the original case is obvious. It shows how eye-witness testimony is brought into question if someone is not in a reasonable state of mind, or if they become unconscious during the crime. It shows what can happen when members of the defense team (notably the D.A.) make deals in order to further their own careers as well. Procedural justice issues are raised repeatedly in this film exampled by the recurring quote "It's not what you know, it's what you can prove in court."
The original D.A. and his team must work extra hard to make sure they can catch this guy as he manipulates them in a number of ways to make it seem as though they've "got him" when upon closer examination they have nothing. In my project I outline a scene when the husband confesses to the murder of the two men who murdered his wife and child. However, as the D.A. is about to leave the husband reveals that it only sounded like he confessed when in actuality he used trickery to make his confession appear as more than it really was.
In essence it shows how due to the psychology inherent in all aspects of our life (decision making, perception, intelligence, language, motivation and emotion, etc.) can be manipulated and exploited during the legal process, so a firm understanding of both the psychology invovled, as well as the legal procedures is needed in order to avoid complications, and achieve justice.

I watched the movie Legally Blonde. It's about a woman, Elle, who wants to go to law school to be with her ex boyfriend. At this point, you can already see some psychological aspects coming to play. Elle has some attachment issues with her ex boyfriend. Once she gets accepted into law school, she joins a team of students that work with Professor Callahan to solve cases. The case Elle and her students have to solve is a murder case involving a woman that Elle knows, Brooke. Brooke is being accused of killing her husband. The truth is that the daughter killed her father, thinking it was Brooke. The reason Elle figured out it was the daughter is because the daughter claimed to be in the shower during the shooting but had just received a perm earlier that day. If this was true, her perm would be ruined and not intact like it was at court. The whole movie shows the timeline of a crime beginning at developing the case and ending at sentencing and punishment. The movie isn't entirely accurate. It's unlikely that a group of students would be the defense team in such a high profile case. It's also far fetched to find out someone is lying based on their hair style; but it's all a movie. The movie does do a good job at showing how to develop a case. It also shows several psychological issues. The daughter had a lot of anger at her step-mother, Brooke, for being the same age as her. She had enough anger to want to kill Brooke. Brooke had a lot of anxiety while in prison and throughout the case, being blamed for the murder of her husband. Professor Callahan tried to force himself on Elle showing Callahan may have issues with power or self-esteem. Throughout the whole movie, Elle is involved in learning and memory. She has to learn to take the LSAT and she remembers that Brooke was her work out teacher and fellow sorority member. Brooke also has self-esteem issues because her alibi for the day her husband was murdered was that she was getting liposuction. All in all, this movie is a good example of psychology and law.

The movie I saw for this week was Shutter Island, which was a great psychological thriller. I will not elaborate on the plot, for fear of spoiling, and other people have commented on this movie. The main character, who works for the FBI, goes to an island which houses some of the most dangerous patients in country, when he begins to uncover a plot involving his former wife, who was killed in a fire and deception amongst the psychiatrists who run the island. At the end, you encounter quite a twist. It was a very good movie, a thriller mystery. It involves several different aspects of psychology, including how we should treat the criminally insane, the use of drugs, and even surgery on the brain.

I watched Big Daddy. It is a great film filled with humor and obvious legal issues that I'm so glad to write about in my portfolio!

For my movie analysis, I watch Erin Brokovich. This movie was actually a good movie for psych and law, as it incorporated both aspects very well. It was a true story, so most of the information in the movie was pretty accurate.

She receives a job at a lawyers office, in which she begins working on a case that has to do with the water supply in the town of Hinkley, California. She works on this case with her lawyer. The residents of Hinkley are all becoming chronically sick because of the presence of Chromium 6 in the water supply.

The movie builds a lot of drama, and even though it was over two hours long, it didn't seem that way because it kept you on your toes the entire movie! I would definitly reccommend this movie for a project, it's fun to watch, and you learn a lot while doing it.

I watched the 1957 "12 Angry Men." I thought this was the first time, but there were details in the evidence I was able to remember before it was depicted. This movie seemed to portray a lot of various evidence that is either overlooked or ignored as reviewed by the jury. For example, I'm surprised the defense attorney missed the fact that an elevated train was going by while the tenant downstairs heard "I'll kill you" and a body hit the floor at the same time. Yes, they did explain that the appointed defense attorney probably didn't care at all about the defendant, but that won't win him/her any credibility in the future.

Don't get me wrong, the movie is great, but there's so many parts where it's just too... "Hollywood" to believe. Another example is when they called in a diagram of the apartment. I'm not saying there wouldn't be one, but it almost seemed like the court had a diagram and did nothing with it. Although security is tighter today, would Henry Fonda have been able to get that switchblade in? I could go on for awhile about these little things.

However, the main point is to compare with actual psychology and law. In the law aspect, we see Henry Fonda buying a duplicate "one of a kind" switchblade. We see how false memory could play into effect as demonstrated by the old man who "heard" the crime. We see how a false witness can be the primary means to condemn a potential innocent man due to the means of not wearing their glasses. Psychologically, we see Lee J. Cobb's character deal with prejudice for the youth and how it made him an ineffective juror. This was true about Ed Begley's character as well. He believed that most people who come from slums are naturally no good criminals. We see some jurors, such as Jack Warden's character, that don't truly care one way or another as it doesn't affect themselves. We see

Although the law implications made by this movie were all at the end of the movie, there were tons of examples regarding to psychology in the movie. For example, Muriel, Nick Cage’s character specifically states, “I’ve done everything to make you happy.” Yet, in the very scene that she says this, there is a painted portrait of herself hanging in the background. Although personality disorders are typically developed in childhood, Muriel demonstrates many behaviors associated with narcissistic personality disorder. She has no empathy for her husband or others, she develops a sense of grandiosity even before the winnings, and she wants admiration as demonstrated by her self-claims of having “a heart of gold.” This is further demonstrated in the divorce negotiations. She not only wanted her husband’s half of the earnings, but all of the waitresses as well.
This is where the law comes into play. As Muriel was present during the ceremony of handing out the lotto winnings, she fully knew that half was being handed to the waitress. She cannot rescind the handout whenever she feels like it.
In the trial, everything seemed circumstantial. We only see Mr. Cage’s and Ms. Fonda’s character make their statements. In a case like this, I would imagine character witnesses (The cops partner, The Waitresses Co-workers / usual customers) would go a long way. This would have debunked the statement that they had an affair prior to the winnings.
Without giving away any more of the movie, I’ll just say that it was a good movie based on real events.

I have a special place in my heart for David vs. Goliath stories, and this is no exception. While I will not use the real estate on this paper to discuss my passion for this battle against the corporate world, I am quite confident that someday my own research or an organization I am involved with will cause Monsanto a hell of a lot of grief.
There are many intersections between psychology and law in this film, one of which is learned helplessness. The members of the community were each initially depicted as downtrodden, introverted, and almost indifferent about their situation. When Erin approached them, each family had a story about how and why they weren’t initially interested in getting involved. Some of them had experienced defeat before, and didn’t care to get their hopes up about a resolution only to have their aspirations dashed by a corporate sponsored judge. Some of them believed that their situation was as good as it could be, and involvement in the case would result in the loss of their already meager benefits.
In some ways, Erin helps to actually initiate cognitive dissonance in the affected families. She uses her abilities and tenacity as an investigator to present the real possibility of accountability for PG&E. Through her investigation, she also excels at relatedness, and earns the trust of her potential clients by mastering their personal and medical history. This is demonstrated by the clip of the initial out of court hearing that occurs between Erin’s firm and PG&E’s representation. She is able to match individual names with recorded physical abnormalities, cancers, and symptoms, while the PG&E attorneys return only a blank stare. Which leads me to another intersection between psychology and law: deindividuation. The way the situation is presented in the film, the affected families are lumped together, removing faces, names, and personhood by PG&E. It seems as though they are more of an obstacle, or just an added line on the balance sheet. In a book I read about the coal industry, Wendell Berry notes “distance negates accountability”. What he meant by this is that the distribution of accountability is parsed in increments so small, the burden of anxiety of one’s actions becomes manageable, and more importantly acceptable. This idea dovetails with Milgram’s studies, for when the “teacher” sat next to the “student”, electrocution levels decreased. This idea may explain the negligent behavior seen from inspectors retained by PG&E that signed off on the analysis of hexavalent chromium levels in the water. It also may explain the assigned physicians failure to report the relationship between medical conditions and the environment the affected families were living in.
This film proves effective in demonstrating another idea, and that is the power of one. Erin Brokovich didn’t even finish high school, much less belonged in a court room. Understanding that this is certainly the exception and not the norm, it is based on a true story after all. In an environment dominated by money, power, degrees, and men, ultimately it was a woman that started the motion required for justice, affirming the notion that the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Project#2-Movie Analysis-“My Cousin Vinny”
Who could pass up an opportunity to discuss this cinematic shakedown? This film is bursting with sensationalism, but its “Hollywoodization” is not without usefulness, as parallels with course content are easily drawn. One of the first departures from reality I noticed was when Vinny asks for the files from the prosecuting attorney, and his request is immediately granted with a smile. For my book report I read “The Wrong Guys”, in which defense attorneys report fighting tooth and nail for every single document they could get their hands on from the prosecution. While I have not investigated this phenomenon, I can only assume that capital cases are subject to a much higher level of scrutiny and protocol than small-scale cases like the one presented in the film. So the idea that a defense attorney could obtain all of the prosecutions files on the case with a simple request is likely very far fetched.
Another example of sensationalism is the use of expert testimony. The prosecution uses an expert to identify the tire tread marks from the alleged getaway-car driven by the defendants. In class we discussed how often times expert testimonies cancel each other out, however apparently in Hollywood this does not occur if your rebuttal expert is Marisa Tomei. In the film Marisa Tomei’s character has no credentials other than she grew up as the daughter of a grease monkey, yet she is able to convince the jury that the tire tracks left by the killer’s vehicle were not those of the defendants.
In the film, eyewitness testimony was also a critical portion of the prosecutions’ case. The events portrayed in the film are not as far from the truth as one might think though. Through assigned coursework and in-class discussions we have reviewed the fallability and malleability of memory evidence and eyewitness testimony. Was Vinny sitting in the back of Dr. MacLin’s class a few years ago? His ability to expose the discrepancies of the prosecutions’ witnesses seems to indicate he just may have. Vinny’s examination reveals the impossibility of one of the witnesses being able to identify his client due to the fact that she was not wearing her glasses when the crime occurred. Another witness’s claims are defrayed when Vinny explains the amount of time required to prepare “grits”. Although it is sensationalized for the silver screen, eyewitness testimony has its drawbacks, and Vinny proves capable of exposing these in the film.
Another key concept covered in class is the public perception of confessions. In a comical manner, the defendant is coerced in a sort of “Who’s on first” method, a fabulous exchange between the defendant and the arresting officer. The interrogator uses leading questions and supplies Ralph Machio’s character with information about the case that he would not have otherwise known. While actual police interrogations are not like that portrayed in the film, mistakes and forced confessions are more common than anyone would like to admit. It has been demonstrated over and over how easily false confessions can be obtained, especially when leading questions are used.
Despite the over-simplified sensational depiction of the legal process in this film, it is actually a decent example of some of the problems that continue to plague the current criminal justice system. If only more people dressed like Joe Pesci…