Moral Issues in Film: A Time to Kill Joseph Fusaro Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Moral Issues in Film: A Time to Kill The film A Time to Kill takes us on an arduous journey of moral and ethical proportions. The movie, based on the book of the same title by author John Grisham, tells the captivating story about race, equality, vengeance and justice. The story begins with a young Southern attorney that acts as defense lawyer for a black father who kills two white men for raping and nearly killing his 10 year old daughter. Carl Lee Hailey is a Mississippi mill worker whose life gets flipped upside down when two racist hillbillies abduct and brutally rape his 10 year old Tonya. Shortly after grieving for the loss of his daughter’s innocence, Carl Lee seeks counsel with the lawyer Jake Brigance.
Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices? " The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies, although not with the same percentages around the globe.  The experiments were also controversial and considered by some scientists to be unethical and physically or psychologically abusive. Psychologist Diana Baumrind considered the experiment "harmful because it may cause permanent psychological damage and cause people to be less trusting in the future.
Bundy was a necrophiliac who admitted to beheading 12 of his victims. Biographer Ann Rule described him as "a sadistic sociopath who took pleasure from another human's pain and the control he had over his victims, to the point of death, and even after". On June 7, 1977, after being convicted for his crimes Bundy escaped jail and was on the FBI’s top ten most wanted fugitives. He was later found and put back on death row where he admitted to his crimes and took full responsibility for his crimes. Ted Bundy was executed on January 24, 1989 in
In 1937, Malcolm was taken from his family by welfare caseworkers. By the time he reached high school age, he had dropped out of school and moved to Boston, where he became increasingly involved in criminal activities. In 1946, at the age of 21, Malcolm was sent to prison on a burglary conviction. It was there he encountered the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, the leader of the Nation of Islam, whose members are popularly known as Black Muslims. The Nation of Islam advocated black nationalism and racial separatism and condemned Americans of European descent as immoral "devils."
To make it worse his parents weren’t always the best. His parents were very abusive as a verbally and physically. As the mobster killer began to get older his temper and the way he seen things were changing for the worst. His anger began to arise at the age of thirteen exceeding to his first murder. Kuklinski went from a child who knew no better to killing people because of his temper that made it to a contract killer.
Similarly, direct action by a person who has no special authority is not properly called punishment, and is more likely to be revenge or an act of hostility.” http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5144_Banks_II_Proof_Chapter_5.pdf When using a theoretical approach to the question of why we punish criminals, the same source raises the issues of: • They deserve to be punished. • Punishment will stop them from committing further crimes. • Punishment tells the victim that society disapproves of the harm that he or she has suffered. • Punishment discourages others from doing the same thing. • Punishment protects society from dangerous or dishonest people.
Ancient Chinese and Egyptians thought abnormal behavior was a form of punishment from GOD and exorcisms was the outcome to rid of evil forces. The Romans and Greeks understood abnormal behavior was an imbalance of the four humors and resolutions was draining fluids from the brain. The Europeans assumes abnormal behavior was also a casualty of evil spirits and made attempts of exorcisms as well; however, if these procedures did not work then torture was the European attempt to release evil spirits from his or her body. These practices sustained well
Psychoanalysis Project John Kim In the case of murder of John Lennon by Mark Chapman, a former Beatles fan that worshipped Lennon, his behavior of shooting Lennon could be explained by the psychoanalysis theory in several different ways. After the Chapman was arrested by the police and was examined, it was found that he used to be quite a worshipper of John Lennon, but was infuriated at the several statements later on by him. Such ones were about denunciation of God, Heaven and Beatles made by the John Lennon, simply stating that he didn’t “believe” in it. And later when he was reviewed by the psychiatrist, he had said he thought that the murder of John Lennon would turn him to some kind of Guardian Angel or Savior that was to protect children from falling. This behavior now could be explained in part with the psychoanalysis theory because Sigmund Freud, the founder of the psychoanalysis theory, argues that the conscious beliefs and thoughts can be understood in channeling of unacceptable impulses via the defense mechanisms.
Firstly, we frame the question, and the question will be “Should Carl shoot the two rapists?” then create the maxim, for Carl’s situation will be “When my daughter was raped then I want to see the justice be done, then I kill the men, otherwise they may just get few years in jail only.” Then, the interesting point is universalizing the maxim, so if Carl kills and everyone can kill. Moreover, we should think about the Carl intention. I think this is really unusual thought about killing and justice connection. So think about the universalizing the maxim for two boys’ action if two boys rape people then everyone can rape others without the guilty. Maybe Carl’s situation in Kantianism is more understandable because intention matter not consequence.
Douglas Fields, a professor of Cognitive and Neurosciences at the University of Maryland, stated in an article, “the incessant repetition throughout recorded history and in prehistoric times of murder and war among all cultures of human beings has its roots in our evolutionary stalk” (Fields, R. Douglas. Humans Are Genetically Predisposed to Kill Each Other). His theory is that of many; human beings are still hard-wired to kill, due to the habits of their predecessors from long ago. Homo sapiens, in their early stages of existence, were accustomed to killing members of their own species in order to gain access to resources or simply to survive. If an individual felt threatened or endangered by another, it was not uncommon to get rid of them by way of murder.