M (Film: Kangaroo Court (M)

718 Words 3 Pages
In the movie M, the criminals themselves captured the culprit for the murder of the children and they are holding a “criminal’s court” or “Kangaroo Court.” In this trial, the audience can see no matter what the circumstances are procedures and trials are important. Despite that these people are criminals; they are still holding a trial to convict the murderer and to punish him for the crimes that he committed. However, they did not employ the full extent of the law (procedures). Criminal law is a system of law that has to do with punishing those who commit crimes. The court role is to uphold the rules of the law, provide a forum to resolve doubts and find the truth, and to enforce the law in a fair, accurate, and rational way. They also …show more content…
The prosecutor’s argument was based on that revelation. He talked about the statement that the perpetrator made and he interpreted that the perpetrator could not help himself, therefore he has to murder. In addition, the prosecutor argued that a “compulsive murderer… must be wiped out and eliminated.” If the perpetrator was not murdered, the prosecutor pointed that there is no guarantee of a cure, an asylum may release him as harmless, he may escape, and if he is cured, there is a possibility for the compulsion to return thus beginning the same cycle of the man-hunt all over again. In conclusion, paragraph 51 (granting him asylum) is a waste of time and it does not solve the problem, therefore the only way to serve justice is to kill the perpetrator for his crimes. The defense attorney challenged the prosecutor’s credibility by pointing out that he is wanted for three murders. He argued that his client’s “irresistible impulse” and “obsession” cleared him as well as released him from the responsibility of his crimes. He stated that “nobody can be punished for something he can’t help.” The defense attorney claimed insanity for his client- “this man is sick. A sick man should be handed over not to the executioner, but to the doctor.” He also argued that the state should foresee this man’s case and that the state should have the responsibility to assure that the perpetrator is no longer a danger to society. He demanded that the perpetrator get the protection of the laws and that he is released to the authorities. In conclusion, the criminals had no right to play judge, jury, and executioner and the perpetrator deserves a fair trial under the full extent of the law by the

Related Documents