一级谋杀

I watched Murder In The First these days, this movie is based on real events. Here are the mainly plot: Henry was sent to prison at a young age for stealing five dollars, he tried to escape from the famous alcatraz prison, but failed after being betrayed by a fellow inmate. The warden of the prison, Glenn, hated Henry for threatening his position, so he put Henry in a sealed dungeon for three years, where there were numerous beatings, and Henry was mentally and physically devastated. The first thing he did when he left the dungeon was to kill the prisoner who had betrayed him with his dinner spoon. Henry was charged with first-degree murder and put on death row.

Lawyer James who had just left the school gate was ordered to defend for Henry, Henry almost lost the ability to communicate after years of torture, James did not give up any opportunity, gradually close the distance between the two people. But in the process, James encountered resistance from many sources: the judge and jury, Henry himself, and the American prison system. But he did not give up, uphold the persistence of justice, found many suspicious points of the case, in the court he directed against the inhumane prison side, exposed one appalling prison scandal after another. In the end, he won -- Henry was convicted of second-degree murder, and the alcatraz jail was ordered by a jury to open an investigation.

What struck me most about the film was the soliloquy at the end of the film by lawyer James: “That was the last time I saw Henry alive. His body was found in the dungeon the day before the appeal session. Under his body, he wrote a word on the ground on a rock: victory. Henry taught me the meaning of the word. He is the only person I know who gives more than he asks for. All he wants is a friend. I regard him as one of my best friends. Unlike others who lived longer, Henry did not die for nothing. In the end he was not afraid, he lived and died in victory. If only we could all do this.”

It’s true that Henry's body is like a worm, vulnerable to the power and the unsound system, but with his own weak, hit the stone, even if shattered. After Henry's death, humane management of American prisons was taken seriously. Although it was Henry who began the trial, but it was the prison, the dark system, that ended it. So Henry died, but he actually won.

The film takes aim at the dark side of the American justice system, especially inside prisons. The prisoner, the lawyer, the warden, form the main thread of the story. Although this is the 1940s, it still has a strong cautionary message today.

After watching the whole movie, my view is as follows:

First of all, Henry was sent to prison for stealing only five dollars. I'm somewhat mystified is that did the five dollars meet the criteria for filing a theft at that time? There was a sharp contrast, James stole five dollars from his brother as a child, but his brother only educated him. Henry, on the other hand, went straight to prison for stealing five dollars from the post office, with no chance to defend himself. And the life in prison was inferior to death, so did this conform to the principle of punishment? Can it really have the effect of cracking down on crime and civilizing criminals? I deem that was overpunishment. China's criminal law is to follow the principle of adapting to crime and punishment, the most significant thing is that it comprehensively considers that the penalty should not only adapt to the nature of the crime, but also to adapt to the circumstances of the crime and to adapt to the personal danger of the offender, so that the punishment will not be excessive or even unreasonably illegal.

Second, Henry had spent three years and two months in solitary confinement, in a dungeon it was not supposed to use -- a gas chamber left over from the first world war. At the time, the law limited a person to a maximum of 19 days in solitary confinement. So was it a loophole in the law? It was clear that Glenn's practice was seriously illegal, but no one supervised. And the dark reality of lawyer James's boss, fearing he would find out the truth to win a trial, even wanted to disqualify him from representing Henry. Similarly, the film was full of beatings and endless brutal torture. Is the law only intended to deter criminals with cruel punishment rather than guide them through a combination of moralization and punishment?

In the end, the crucial point of the case is whether Henry really did commit first degree murder. The criminal statutes of most American states grade murder according to the different types of murder and the severity of the penalty imposed. Generally, murder is divided into two levels, namely, first degree murder and second degree murder. The main difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is: there is no intention to kill and premeditated murder. First degree murder generally has the following categories: first, premeditated homicide due to negligence and cause the death of most people. Second, murder in the course of committing other felonies, such as arson, rape, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping. The second degree murder is that the perpetrator has no premeditation to kill, not in the course of the crime to kill, but a temporary intention to kill.

Therefore, I do not believe that Henry is guilty of first degree murder in this case. A closer examination revealed that on the day of his release from solitary confinement, Henry had only come to dinner. But there was a person deliberately taunted to provoke him, he killed that prisoner was a temporary intention rather than premeditated murder. Therefore, it does not meet the constitutive requirements of first degree murder. Also, I deem it's debatable whether Henry's killing was murder. The law states that an intentional killing upon “great provocation” and “in the heat of passion” constitutes the crime of voluntary manslaughter. In applying the test of whether an intentional killing was upon great provocation and in the heat of passion, the question is put to the jury, or to the judge in non-jury cases, as to whether the accused reacted as a “reasonable person”. Therefore, at this time, the role of the jury or the judge is relatively large, which requires a higher comprehensive quality of the jury and the judge. Though James eventually won the case, was justice still justice?