|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
In reading A Civil Action, many questions come to mind. Not only are they questions about the story itself, but also they are about what the story says about our legal system. It certainly takes more than one instance to change a person’s entire system of beliefs, but it does not take more than one instance to question those same beliefs. It is my belief that the system will provide a fair and just opportunity in resolving a conflict. Clearly, even this general concept is questioned after reading the book. Specifically though, I question the partiality of judges, the role money plays, and the overall value of the system. In looking at the first topic, my perception of judges is fundamentally questioned. I had previously believed that their point in the courtroom is to make sure the trial or proceedings proceed in a manner unbiased toward either side. In A Civil Aciton, I wonder if this is really true because the trial clearly goes on even when the judge obviously favors the defendants in the courtroom. In setting up the trial to take place in different parts, the system is skewed toward the defense in this case. Without being able to look at all the facts at once, it sets up a problem. Furthermore, in looking at the judge’s rulings on objections and motions, he repeatedly seems to help out Facher and Cheeseman. A good example is when the two sides are discussing how the trial should proceed, Skinner completely accepts Facher’s proposal. He then references to his earlier decision to keep the same trial date, as if this new decision is partially or wholly to make up for it to Facher.
Approximate Word count = 1089
Approximate Pages = 4.4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|