READING 7

In the Greenfield and Guy’s article they explained how media take criminal stories and expand them to make a film so it will be watched in a cinema. Lawyers wrote the whole article. The main point of this article was how the lawyers were in the media willing to be seen as the good guys by solving cases. From my understanding I noticed how lawyers would take a small certain case and make it into a big issue. They solved that case to make themselves known. Greenfield and Guy stated the fact that the lawyers were not ethical, meaning they would play with their own rules to make justice within their case. For example Killing of the Mockingbird, found evidence the accused to be found innocent and not be placed guilty for being a different race.  Television lawyers played the role of saving the innocent from jail. Even for good lawyers, defending a case could be bending the rules to make case seem successful. The viewers like to watch trials due to the justice being fairly applied and anticipation of the outcome of the case. The media makes films because the society wants to see others people suffer rather than themselves.  I feel that couldn’t agree or disagree because it is very interesting to see how the justice system works. On the other note I wouldn’t like how media can puts a stereotype on lawyers to be a certain way.  I feel that media overall has cons and pros to shape an individuals views.

The film Presume Innocent can be explained by Greenfield and Guy’s article. The film involved a murder story. Which was expanded into a major public criminal case. The accused murderer’s law firm corrupted the evidence and testimony for the accuser to not face punishment. The accused lawyer was unethical because he bent the rules in order to be viewed as a good lawyer. He didn’t be forth evidence against his wife, who was the murder of the mistress. The film was made to portray the mythological romanticized law system in the 1990’s, which allows viewers to acknowledge the fault within lawyers and law system. At the end of the film we portrayed how he wouldn’t now tell who the real murder was to protect his child. However, accused is facing punishment because he is living the consequence from his actions.

Another example of Greenfield and Guys’s article is Until We Meet Again.  The main character was accused of killing her husband but could not remember the event. She sought help form a report agency, which discovered she was not the killer. There was controversy over who the real murders were. Two doctors were killed because of their affairs with a young nurse. It turned out that the real killers were her two best friends. The reporter bent the rules to solve the case. I feel in overall how lawyers or reporters do whatever it takes to make their story be successful even if they are placed in danger.  Seeing these two films I have an assumptions that lawyers and reporters should use ethical and moral chooses before risking if the justice being safe.