Benutzerrezensionen

"Criminal Justice" is a journeyman quasi-docudrama TV flick which takes the viewer step-by-step through the US criminal justice system from crime to punishment. The film breaks down the whole let's-make-a-deal process using a Brooklyn N.Y. robbery/assault case as an example in which the players are Whitaker as the accused; LaPaglia as the public defender; Perez as the victim; and Gray as the Asst. D.A. The film plays no favorites as it takes a didactic and dispassionate look at the problems facing both sides in a case where justice must be dispensed even though no one, including the audience, knows who committed the crime. "Criminal Justice" is an earnest project which is more interesting than entertaining and is worth a look by anyone with an interest in the title subject. (B-)

Dry account of the procedural path from crime to arrest to trial. This made for HBO movie is OK if not totally engaging.

The major fault does not lie in the execution of the realistic portrayal but in the realistic problem of the overloaded court system. It is not overstated or made to be entertaining and so we have a picture as plodding as the procedure.

The ending is bit of a letdown, however, as the stats show before the credits roll, ultimately right on realistic. It is that realism that handcuff this from being any more than a chronological account of an inherently involved process that leaves little to the imagination and a lot to the non-exciting plea bargain processes.

A good primer for pre law students but at best an easy homework assignment for the rest of us.

The ending credits of this movie began with a statement:

"Last year, over 300,000 criminal cases were disposed of in New York City. 58% of the defendants pled guilty in plea bargains. Less than 2% had their guilt or innocence determined by trial."

So ask yourself: of the 58% who took a plea bargain, how many do you think were really guilty and how many just took a deal because they were afraid of the prospect of being found guilty?

"Criminal Justice" is about just that. Jessie Williams (Forest Whitaker) was accused by Denise Moore (Rosie Perez) of robbing her and slicing her face. Jessie demonstrably professed his innocence while Denise stood by her story. Both of these people were terrible clients.

Jessie already had a rap sheet and a very weak alibi, however staunch he was about it. Denise also had a rap sheet and she was smoking crack at the time the attack happened, however sympathetic she would be as a defendant with a huge scar on her face.

The movie really reminds me of the Jodie Foster movie, "The Accused," in which she was a rape victim that used drugs and alcohol. Because she was less than angelic as a victim the prosecutor opted to offer a light plea bargain just to secure a conviction.

"The Accused" focused more on the victim whereas in "Criminal Justice" the focus is on the two opposing attorneys who are trying to build their cases. They know what it takes to win a case and they know what could sink a case. It's not that they don't care necessarily, or that they don't believe their clients, it's just that they are trying to get the best thing possible. And I've used this line before from Jamie Foxx's character in the movie "Law Abiding Citizen":

"It's not what you know, it's what you can prove."

Those who rated it less than 10 perhaps didn't understand it.

This is an educational film that shows the delicate balance that the criminal justice system deals with on a daily basis.

Some girl gets robbed and gets her face slashed in a dark alley. She sees (or claims to see) the face of the perpetrator and makes a very firm accusation. The guy passionately claims he was nowhere near the place and that he didn't do it.

The guy tries to prove his innocence and seems sincere but doesn't have a strong enough alibi to get him out of it. On the other hand, the woman is completely firm in her conviction and credible. In the end he takes a plea deal for about 3 years. If he was innocent, it's a terrible miscarriage of justice that he has to rot in jail. If he did it, then the victim thinks he won't have gotten nearly enough time since he left her with a large permanent scar on her face. Both parties are left dissatisfied.

All the while the lawyers and the judges look at the situation rather callously. The lawyers seem to see it as a game for professional points while the judges just want things to move along as quickly as possible.

Encapsulates the criminal justice system quite neatly and is a perfect example of what an educational movie should be - dramatic but instructive.

Honourable Mentions: Doubt (2008). I suppose Doubt has a similar concept - you never know who's telling the truth. Or at least it was meant to have a similar concept, but actually you get the impression that nothing was ever in doubt anyway. Good movie either way and great performance from Meryll Streep.