The Movie Fracture

Fracture is a movie about a murder mystery. Ted Crawford is arrested for attempting to kill his wife due to her infidelity behavior with Robert Nunnally (lieutenant detective).  Police officers, including Robert Nunally, arrives at the scene and addresses the issue.  Crawford is taken to the court, and  the  deputy public attorney Willy Beachum, who  is about to leave the job and work for Wooten-Sims private law firm as a private attorney,  handles Crawford's case (Malok, 2017).  Beachum reviews the case and gives the defendant right to counsel and rejects further preliminary hearing.  Beachum perceives the case as a winning case and believes that Crawford will become a winner. This is a moral failure since the public attorney is greedy.  He breaks the law with his selfish plans and fails to secure justice for the victim (Malok, 2017). The attorney claims that Crawford was under duress or in other words, he was forced by the lieutenant to accept that he committed the offense. For this reason, the defendant's confession is perceived as under duress and thus, it cannot be viewed as evidence. 

In the movie, there is a lack of integrity and honesty. Note that attorneys should maintain honesty and integrity in the legal profession. However, the attorney dismissed a case and puts his administrative assistance into an ethical paradox for selfish gain.  Nunally violates the legal ethics by presenting false testimony that Jennifer is his wife (Malok, 2017).  He looks for revenge and he also wants to prove that Crawford is guilty.  These examples relate to the fifth constitutional amendments. This amendment is applicable to the case since the public attorney violates the procedural due process by failing to follow fair procedures. Under the Fifth Amendment, the attorney is subject to civil liability by violating the substantive due process that would protect the legal procedures and rights (Rutledge, 2019).  For example, the attorney uses interrogation practices by asking his administrative assistant unjust moral questions to ‘shock the conscience'. The attorney also violates the grand jury under the Fifth Amendment (Rutledge, 2019). Police presented the matter as well as adequate evidence to prove that Crawford is guilt, but   the attorney who is highly paid dismisses the case.

 In the film, the police violate Crawford's constitutional rights by entering into his house to search and collect the gun. The Fourth Amendment can apply in this situation to benefit the suspect/criminal. According to the amendment, citizens are protected from unlawful searches and seizures (Obasogie & Newman, 2019). The constitutional rights would benefit the suspect since he would be under a high degree of protection.  If the police would comply with this law, they could not have entered into his house to search for evidence and put him under arrest without a search and an arrest warrant.  Thus, to benefit the suspect, the court should consider the 4th amendment since the police officer conducted an unlawful search.  According to Obasogie & Newman (2019), the court should hold the police accountable due to police brutality.  Note that the citizens cannot see the efficacy of the criminal justice system unless the police who violates the law face legal repercussions. The author states that the lack of legal accountability makes the public develop frustration and anguish, and protest and riots. As a result, the public creates police mistrust. The latter will not only arise due to the failure to hold police accountable but it will also arise to the police racial discrimination against people of color (Obasogie & Newman, 2019).  For example, police use deadly force against African Americans than Whites and as a result, Blacks have police mistrust.  For many years, Blacks have demonstrated ‘morally outraged anger' following police violence against Blacks.  In reference to the case, the court should rethink about the Fourth Amendment and focus on police reform and doctrinal reform so that the police, as well as the court, can value dignity and fairness.

 One example in the film that shows there is a need to revisit the constitutional laws to benefit the criminal justice system is that Crawford commits a tort by causing injuries and attempting to kill his wife.  Under the tort law, the man requires legal action because he puts the wife in a harmful situation or in other words, imminent danger.  Simons (2008) asserts that tort laws focus on harmful acts and the compensatory remedy is determined by the severity of the harm.  Tort laws also focus on deterring future torts and reinforcing social norms. Thus, if the court would consider the tort law, the criminal justice system would benefit in that it would judge the defendant's risky behaviors and as a result, it would limit the punitive costs in future, and it would assist the plaintiff in finding justice (Simons, 2008). The criminal court system would also promote distributive justice by requesting the party to give compensation, it would also promote deterrence and efficacy, and prevent rights-violations. Under the tort law, the court should consider the causation requirement to evaluate the defendant's tortious conduct that causes the plaintiff injury (Simons, 2008). The casual analysis will determinate all the contributing factors to hold the defendant responsible and accountable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Malok Boterwasa. (2017). Fracture (2007) Full Movie. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgxoSJV7Mwk

 

Rutledge Devallis. (2019).   2019 Criminal Evidence and Procedure: An Introduction to

Constitutional Principles for Searches, Seizures, Interrogation & Identification. 

LawTech Publishing Group

 

Obasogie, O. K., & Newman, Z. (2019). Constitutional Interpretation without Judges: Police

Violence, Excessive Force, and Remaking the Fourth Amendment. Virginia Law

Review, 105(2), 425–448. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=135941290&site=ehost-live

 

Simons, K. W. (2008). The Crime/Tort Distinction: Legal Doctrine and Normative

Perspectives. Widener Law Journal, 17(3), 719–732. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32871286&site=ehost-live