Runaway Jury Ethics paper
Virtuous Revenge?
Is it ethical, for any man or woman, to swing a juries decision? The opening scene of the movie defines the trail that Jury will sit in on. A man walks into a New Orleans brokerage firm and opens fire on everyone inside. He kills one of the higher-ranking employs, Jacob Woods. The movie then immediately jumps two years ahead in time. We meet Nicholas Easter, played by John Cusack. He opens a letter to find out he has been summoned for Jury Duty. The case is none other than Celeste Woods, the woman whose husband had been shot two years prior, vs. Vicksburg Firearms, the company that allowed the gun to get into the killers hands. As Nick is walking away from his mailbox, someone is taking pictures of him. This is where the main ethical dilemma is revealed. Rankin Fitch, played by Gene Hackman, has already begun to gather information on all the possible jurors that could work the trail. He plans on getting the jurors that would vote for his client, Vicksburg Firearms. Wendell Rohr, the attorney that represents Celeste, also decides to hire a jury consultant like Fitch. He chooses a man that came down from Philadelphia, named Lawrence, to do the job. In the midst of the movie unfolding, we also find out that Nick has been chosen as Juror #9. When Nick arrives home later that night, He greets Marlee, and we learn that are trying to sway the jury as well. They are trying to make money by selling the Jurors votes to the highest paying side.
There are 3 different sides working this trail, each wanting to win for their own reasons. Is this idea of swaying a jury ethical? The three theories of ethical behavior that most apply to this movie are Rights Theory, Utilitarianism, and Justice and Fairness. I will apply these separate theories to try and answer this question.
The first theory I want to take a look at is Justice and Fairness. The whole trial is about
Is it ethical, for any man or woman, to swing a juries decision? The opening scene of the movie defines the trail that Jury will sit in on. A man walks into a New Orleans brokerage firm and opens fire on everyone inside. He kills one of the higher-ranking employs, Jacob Woods. The movie then immediately jumps two years ahead in time. We meet Nicholas Easter, played by John Cusack. He opens a letter to find out he has been summoned for Jury Duty. The case is none other than Celeste Woods, the woman whose husband had been shot two years prior, vs. Vicksburg Firearms, the company that allowed the gun to get into the killers hands. As Nick is walking away from his mailbox, someone is taking pictures of him. This is where the main ethical dilemma is revealed. Rankin Fitch, played by Gene Hackman, has already begun to gather information on all the possible jurors that could work the trail. He plans on getting the jurors that would vote for his client, Vicksburg Firearms. Wendell Rohr, the attorney that represents Celeste, also decides to hire a jury consultant like Fitch. He chooses a man that came down from Philadelphia, named Lawrence, to do the job. In the midst of the movie unfolding, we also find out that Nick has been chosen as Juror #9. When Nick arrives home later that night, He greets Marlee, and we learn that are trying to sway the jury as well. They are trying to make money by selling the Jurors votes to the highest paying side.
There are 3 different sides working this trail, each wanting to win for their own reasons. Is this idea of swaying a jury ethical? The three theories of ethical behavior that most apply to this movie are Rights Theory, Utilitarianism, and Justice and Fairness. I will apply these separate theories to try and answer this question.
The first theory I want to take a look at is Justice and Fairness. The whole trial is about