Ethics

A Time To Kill 

Introduction and Summary of the Film
The movie, A Time to Kill is based on the novel of the same title by John Grisham.  It is a story that shows how the line that separates justice and revenge is very blurred and the story makes it more complex as it is set in a place where racism has not completely died down notwithstanding the civil rights movement and desegregation that took place 40 years ago.

The setting is Canton, Ford Country, Mississippi, a state where racism is still very strong and this was proven when two white racists raped and mauled a 10-year old black girl named Tonya Hailey.  The two men, Pete Willard and Billy Ray Cobb were later on arrested after bragging about their deed in a bar.  Despite their arrest, Haileys distraught and embittered father, Carl Lee (played by Samuel L. Jackson), felt they would not get any justice owing to a similar incident in the past where the assailants were acquitted despite the strong body of evidence.  He decided to take matters into his own hands by killing Pete and Billy Ray while they were being escorted to the courthouse.  His attack severely wounded deputy DeWayne Looney (played by Chris Cooper) who was escorting the suspects and was immediately arrested by Sheriff Ozzie Wells (played by Charles S. Dutton) who despite being a black man himself who sympathized with Carl Lee, had to enforce the law.

As Carl Lee faces the charge of murder which is punishable by death, he elects to get the legal services of his friend Jake Brigance (played by Matthew McConaghuey) despite the objections of his friend and representatives from the National Association for the Advancement of the Colored People (NAACP) who were closely watching the case to ensure that the dispensation of justice will not be tainted by racism.  Opposing Brigance is District Attorney Rufus Buckley (played by Kevin Spacey) for the prosecution who is very unscrupulous and will do whatever it takes to win his cases for he aspires to become governor of Mississippi someday and he is hoping his successes would help buttress his budding political career.  Presiding the case is Judge Omar Noose (played by Patrick McGoohan) who appears to be fair and impartial but the tension and controversy has somewhat intimidated him to refuse Brigances request to transfer the case elsewhere which makes the job of the defense more difficult despite the racially balanced composition of the jury.  Tensions further heightened as the trial becomes public as the media stood up and took notice by converging in Canton to cover the case.  During the course of the trial, Carl Lee showed no signs of remorse killing the rapists by telling the court, Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell in response to Buckleys question if the rapists deserved to die.

The tensions were beginning to run so high that the National Guard had to be called in to enforce order as the trial went on.  The jury secretly met against the judges orders and have been entertaining on pronouncing the guilty verdict on Carl Lee.  Despite the attacks against him and the pleadings from Harry, Jake is determined to see the case through in order save Carl Lee from execution.  Carl Lees faith in Jake has not diminished and he refused to accept plea bargaining.  He told Jake that he is his secret weapon because of his race which was why he picked him as his lawyer instead of anyone from the ACLU or the NAACP.  At the climactic point of the trial, both attorneys gave their closing statements.  Jake was the last and his delivery took an emphatic approach when he enjoined the jury to put themselves in Carl Lees place by imagining that was their (white) daughter.  Carl Lee was acquitted on grounds of temporary insanity and the story ends with Carl Lee reunited with his family and getting together with Jake.

Thorough Explanation of the Ethical Dilemma
Besides the theme of racism, another theme of A Time to Kill is the blurred line between justice and revenge with racism thrown in it.  In terms of ethics, one asks if Carl Lee was justified in killing his daughters assailants.  In absolute terms, this may be difficult to answer given that they can be seen in several perspectives.  If one were to subscribe to the rule of law, it would be easy to say Carl Lee was wrong and what he did was against the law.  The suspects had been arrested and were about to be taken to court to stand trial for their crimes and what he did was circumvent or usurp the law by acting as judge, jury and executioner.  For that, it is only right and proper that he be charged for the crime of murder and pay the appropriate punishment for it which in this case is the death penalty in his locale.  Furthermore, in the Christian sense of wrong and right, Christian teachings frown upon vengeance and told the aggrieved to allow God to be the one to dispense justice.  To do so otherwise would be a sin.  On these two counts, Carl Lee would already be considered guilty, legally and morally (based on Christian teachings).  In a perfect world this would be proper.  But in the harsh and cruel realities of Ford County Missouri, justice may be hard to come by as racism appears to remain strong and a black persons chance of getting justice would be slim to none.  This was what prompted Carl Lee to take matters into his hands because he felt his family would never get justice because of the prevailing racism in society even though the Sheriff is an African-American which serves to underscore the apparent racial equality in the community.  Jake made this known to the court when he said, until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices.  The bottom line is the idealistic aspects of justice defined by the rule of law and religious beliefs is impossible to apply in the reality of the imperfect world where they can be distorted and altered to suit the needs of the ones who subscribes to them.

Utilitarianism
This theory was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  Both men emphasized happiness and pleasure as the ultimate goal of those who subscribe to this notion. Mill goes further in stating that with regards to justice, Mill explains the social utility of justice which he breaks down into two essential elements which are punishment and the violation of the rights of another. Punishment is the product of revenge and collective sympathy in a society. By itself, revenge has no moral component that can make it justifiable, and collective social sympathy is equal to social utility.  Because of this, social utility is the only reason society should take responsibility in protecting its members.  In applying this notion to the film, Carl Lee, seeing the assailants punished would be the only way to redress the hurt and pain inflicted on his family.  Since he knew that racism is very strong in the county and there was no way they will get justice, he took matters into his own hands by killing the assailants and not feeling guilty nor remorseful when questioned by Buckley if they deserved to die.  It would be easy to conclude that Carl Lee was driven by revenge but looking at it from his own perspective, it could be said what he did was justifiable because the society that was supposed to protect him or give him justice (for his daughters fate) failed him.  Furthermore, Carl Lees actions won a substantial number of sympathizers as well which also included the Sheriff and even the wounded deputy even though they had to arrest Carl Lee for what he did.  This can also be said of Jake Brigance whose role as defense attorney is to save Carl Lees life from the death penalty and he used every ounce of skill and savvy he has in carrying it out and in doing so help restore Carl Lees faith in the justice system.  By carrying it out, he has achieved some measure of gratification as well.

Kants Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative is a key concept in Immanuel Kants moral philosophy.  According to him, individuals have a special place in order of creation, and morality can be surmised in one ultimate commandment of reasoning, or imperative, where all obligations stem. He defined an imperative as any notion that calls for a certain action to be required.  This categorical imperative is said to be akin to the Golden Rule of reciprocity (Do unto others as you want others to do to you). But Kant emphasizes this was not entirely true as there are limits to how far reciprocity would go. In applying it to the film, this is once again applied to Carl Lee when he took matters into his own hands in killing his daughters assailants.  He felt that he has been aggrieved and it is only appropriate that proper action should be taken and knowing that justice is impossible to attain for someone like him, an African-American.  Something had to be done and this gave him the impetus to act since he felt nothing is going to happen.  His daughter suffered a very cruel ordeal and he felt that the two assailants should get their just desserts because he felt they were not human at all.

John Rawls Justice as Fairness
Rawls came up with this concept based on the philosophies of Mill (utilitarian) and Kant.  According to Rawls, personal biases and prejudices could not be totally eliminated.  He considered this the veil of ignorance.  He further argued that the next best thing short of coming up with something perfect would be fair principles considered safe in the sense that it would be generally acceptable by everyone and reasonable.  In order to do that, Rawls stated that one has to adhere to two rules  The first one, Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others or the Liberty Principle.  The second rule states that Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both a) reasonably expected to be to everyones advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all or the Difference Principle. In applying this to the film, Brigances most formidable foe was not Buckley, but the racism of the community.  He knew that Carl Lee had no chance if racism alone would be the basis of determining his fate.  In his closing statement, this led him to challenge the jury to put themselves in Carl Lees shoes to gain a better understanding of what he had to do.  Because of his ability to make the jury empathize with Carl Lee, he was eventually acquitted.  He got justice because the jury fully understood his actions and it can be inferred that they would have done the same thing had it happened to them as well.

Communitarianism
Communitarianism is a relatively new ideology that seeks to distance itself from liberalism or even socialism as a new form of collectivism with a democratic twist.  It is based on four values the sacredness of the individual, the central value of solidarity, complimentary association, and the idea of participation as a right and a duty.  These values are nothing new nor are they American in origins.  The advocates believe this concept dates back to the time of the Ancient Greeks.  In applying this to the film, the challenge was to apply this principle in a community where racism is prevalent, particularly the first one.  The problem here is that because of racial prejudice, African-Americans tend to be marginalized and are deprived of that dignity such is the case of Carl Lees daughter who was brutally assaulted and her assailants even felt proud of their deed which is an affront to human dignity.  During the trial, Brigance is trying to uphold the dignity of Tonya Hailey and (successfully) got the jury to shift their focus from Carl Lee.  Furthermore, Brigance was able to get them to act together as a community by enjoining them to do the right thing in acquitting Carl Lee on the account of his daughter by using the emphatic approach (again) and virtually challenging the jury on what they would do if the same situation were to happen to them.  Such a society would not condone such brutal and inhumane acts and Brigance was able to make them act wisely rather than be blinded by the rule of law as given by Buckley.

Altruism
Altruism is considered an act of selflessness.  Usually heroes are often characterized as altruistic because they exhibited acts of sacrificing themselves, sometimes at the expense of their lives, for the greater good of others.  Such individuals are the ones willing to forego their personal needs and desires to see to the betterment of others.  Christianity shows one best example in Jesus Christ who died on the cross to redeem mankind.  Contrary to what people may think, justice can be altruistic, not selfish.   In applying it to the film, both Carl Lee and Brigance showed altruism.  When Carl Lee took it upon himself to deal with his daughters assailants, he was not thinking about himself, but his daughter whose dignity must be restored and he felt killing those assailants will do, regardless of the consequences he would later face.  The same can also be said of Brigance who risked harassment and persecution but his need to see real justice served overrode his self-preservation instinct and both men won in the end.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be said that Carl Lee did the right thing if one were to look at it from the different ethical principles presented.  The rule of law, though fair, is not perfect as it is made by people and is subject to many interpretations.  The same can be said of religious teachings whose concept of justice is not uniform.  In this case, it is easy to understand why Carl Lee did it and why he was justified in doing so.