There are many different strategies used by the state and the defense in A time to Kill. The defense make themselves quite clear that the crime committed, was the acts of the defendant, in this case of criminal law. Instead of focussing on only that aspect of the whole thing, they started to focus on the state of mind of the defendant, and if that makes him account for what he did. In spite of all of this, they of course start arguing for an insanity defense, and how the defendant had not been diagnosed with any sort of illness like that.
This movie has lots of things to say about revenge, in this case of the rape and murder; it seems like the right thing to do for Carl Lee. The movies title is from Ecclesiastes 3, and the whole morality is based on the old testament. During the movie, Carl Lee says that he does not trust the court system, and he ends up not giving it a chance, and takes things into his own hands. All of his actions during the film are viewed as heroic, at least from everyone in the town that is not part of the KKK. The movie portrays the question that one of the reasons you would justify what Carl Lee did was because himself and family are black. …show more content…
This is the point where the movie starts to go backwards on it’s own moral logic. It begins arguing against one moral to the other, favour to another and revenge killing. After the murder occurs, it sets a cycle of violence for the rest of the movie. One of the brothers of the men that Carl shot, starts up a new chapter of the KKK clan, with casualties adding up. The whole movie at this point seems to be unaware of the irony that is taking place. Carl Lee’s own lawyer, the defense attorney is adamantly pro death penalty, the only problem that he states wrong with it, is that it is not used
This movie has lots of things to say about revenge, in this case of the rape and murder; it seems like the right thing to do for Carl Lee. The movies title is from Ecclesiastes 3, and the whole morality is based on the old testament. During the movie, Carl Lee says that he does not trust the court system, and he ends up not giving it a chance, and takes things into his own hands. All of his actions during the film are viewed as heroic, at least from everyone in the town that is not part of the KKK. The movie portrays the question that one of the reasons you would justify what Carl Lee did was because himself and family are black. …show more content…
This is the point where the movie starts to go backwards on it’s own moral logic. It begins arguing against one moral to the other, favour to another and revenge killing. After the murder occurs, it sets a cycle of violence for the rest of the movie. One of the brothers of the men that Carl shot, starts up a new chapter of the KKK clan, with casualties adding up. The whole movie at this point seems to be unaware of the irony that is taking place. Carl Lee’s own lawyer, the defense attorney is adamantly pro death penalty, the only problem that he states wrong with it, is that it is not used