黑狱风云

在我看电影的同时，儿子偶尔拿着他的乐高从我身边跑来跑去。在看到一个赤身裸体的人在受到虐时，他的表情有点恐惧，“妈妈他怎么了？他为什么被打？”我说他在监狱里，他在受惩罚，他越狱了。又过了一会儿，他又过来了，“妈妈都演这么半天了，他怎么还在监狱里受罚？他有很重的罪么？”我说不是，他没有犯很重的罪，但他在监狱里受到了不公平的对待，他们把他关在黑黑的没有窗没有床没有厕所的小屋里三年多。“那他太可怜了……”看到结尾亨利抬起头和监狱长不卑不亢的说：你可以打我但拿不走我的胜利果实！儿子又不知什么时候站在我身后了，我说你是不是没看明白？他点头。那你还总过来看？他说这犯人好像变厉害了！

小孩子看不懂电影，但有时他们说话，就是很在点儿上……无论电影有几分真实几分虚构的艺术创作成分，它依然有它要传递的信息，依然能让我在看完之后有被触动。

我只告诉儿子，有信念有思想能坚持，是件很难的事，但希望你能成为这样的人。

亨利最开始连说话都不愿意，但最后他有了朋友，有了支撑，他强大到可以说出自已所愿所求，可以去反抗，可以成为颠覆司法的一个起点，真的很了不起！

人的一生，没有几个一千天，怎么过都是过，但我还是希望能过得更有宽度，更珍惜阳光和拥有的一切。

如果我们转过头去看那些好的法律片，好的庭审戏，那么会发现它们有一个本质共同点，那就是对所谓“正义”和“真实”有清醒的认识。

对人来说，“真实”其实只是一种判断，一种两个事物是否一致的判断。如果b是人认定的真相，本质，那么当a与b相符的时候，人就认定a是真实的。而所谓的真相b，只是人心中所认定的真相而已，他们或许来自直接的亲身经历，或许间接地来源于某些传闻。所以说，b其实有强烈的主观性。

好的法律片很清楚这一点，因此他们在设计整部影片时一定会考虑，影片中的真相到底是什么？观众将如何接触到这真相。

如“刺杀肯尼迪”，全片就是一个带领观众重新走进历史的迷雾，对历史资料的再次梳理，引导观众去发现真相。

如控方证人这样的电影，则始终在玩味观众与真相之间的关系。它不断地引导观众去相信某个真相，一会儿又将其推翻，出现新的真相。观众的视角和所能知道的，完全在创作者的设计之下，其目的在于惊奇或者使在反复的推倒重来中使得观众对所谓真相产生怀疑。

而像一级谋杀这样的电影，一开始就让观众用最“真实”的方式，用双眼见证了真相（电影的特权）。这种方式并非不行，“飓风”也是这样。但是当你选择了将真相放到前景的时候，你就不能再将探讨真相作为重点。一级谋杀没有犯这样的错，但为何它让我感到没有任何惊喜？因为当影片将焦点放在监狱对于人的摧残上的时候，影片没有对摧残进行任何深入的刻画或探索。仅仅一个从害怕到反抗是远远不够的，仅仅一直展示鞭打折磨黑暗是不够的。因为当亨利被折磨的画面被直接展示给了观众，观众心中早就清楚亨利会胜诉。导演意识到了，加了一个亨利在众目睽睽下（包括观众）杀人的情节让亨利真的有罪，但是这还是不够，因为在观众眼见到受到那样折磨的亨利后，他的报仇显得理所当然，甚至是快意的，所以这不至于让观众觉得他真的有危险。

因此，真正地去展示和揭露折磨，或者监狱这个体系的内部是必要的。不论是从监狱中找出愿意作证的罪犯，狱警，还是用潜入或回忆的方式进入内部。这才是深刻的来源，也是做好庭审戏的本质和来源，只有对facts的仔细考察，才会给庭审辩论带来更丰富的内容。

当然，辩论技巧，话术这些是每一个好的庭审戏所必备的，但这些技巧只是附属作用，真正重要的还是在于考察的深刻。

影片两大主旨：反思司法制度与监狱管理（量刑不当、虐囚）；实现人生价值，赢得胜利。

胜利是多重的，James首战告捷，Henry克服心魔，James努力让Henry找到人生意义并最终认可这份友谊又何尝不是胜利。

1941年，迪马吉奥（Joe DiMaggio）连续56场比赛击出安打；伴随着两侧囚犯的敲击声，Henri昂首走入地牢，无人能夺走他胜利的果实，于是他刻下“victory”一词，从容死去。Henri之死意料之外，情理之中。回归地牢，再一次陷入黑暗，他可能仍会害怕，但如今他有朋友，妹妹生活幸福，与他境遇相似的人可能不必遭受他所经受的折磨。Henri或许永远克服不了对幽闭空间、对黑暗的恐惧，但他不再惧怕残暴的狱长、不再惧怕 Alcatraz 、不再惧怕死亡。活下来是胜利，带有尊严的死去也是胜利。

回归现实，1963年，Alcatraz关闭。2019年，关塔那摩监狱虐囚图震惊世人。如果历史不断重复，那无数先驱心中企盼的理想社会只会成为空想。

I watched Murder In The First these days, this movie is based on real events. Here are the mainly plot: Henry was sent to prison at a young age for stealing five dollars, he tried to escape from the famous alcatraz prison, but failed after being betrayed by a fellow inmate. The warden of the prison, Glenn, hated Henry for threatening his position, so he put Henry in a sealed dungeon for three years, where there were numerous beatings, and Henry was mentally and physically devastated. The first thing he did when he left the dungeon was to kill the prisoner who had betrayed him with his dinner spoon. Henry was charged with first-degree murder and put on death row.

Lawyer James who had just left the school gate was ordered to defend for Henry, Henry almost lost the ability to communicate after years of torture, James did not give up any opportunity, gradually close the distance between the two people. But in the process, James encountered resistance from many sources: the judge and jury, Henry himself, and the American prison system. But he did not give up, uphold the persistence of justice, found many suspicious points of the case, in the court he directed against the inhumane prison side, exposed one appalling prison scandal after another. In the end, he won -- Henry was convicted of second-degree murder, and the alcatraz jail was ordered by a jury to open an investigation.

What struck me most about the film was the soliloquy at the end of the film by lawyer James: “That was the last time I saw Henry alive. His body was found in the dungeon the day before the appeal session. Under his body, he wrote a word on the ground on a rock: victory. Henry taught me the meaning of the word. He is the only person I know who gives more than he asks for. All he wants is a friend. I regard him as one of my best friends. Unlike others who lived longer, Henry did not die for nothing. In the end he was not afraid, he lived and died in victory. If only we could all do this.”

It’s true that Henry's body is like a worm, vulnerable to the power and the unsound system, but with his own weak, hit the stone, even if shattered. After Henry's death, humane management of American prisons was taken seriously. Although it was Henry who began the trial, but it was the prison, the dark system, that ended it. So Henry died, but he actually won.

The film takes aim at the dark side of the American justice system, especially inside prisons. The prisoner, the lawyer, the warden, form the main thread of the story. Although this is the 1940s, it still has a strong cautionary message today.

After watching the whole movie, my view is as follows:

First of all, Henry was sent to prison for stealing only five dollars. I'm somewhat mystified is that did the five dollars meet the criteria for filing a theft at that time? There was a sharp contrast, James stole five dollars from his brother as a child, but his brother only educated him. Henry, on the other hand, went straight to prison for stealing five dollars from the post office, with no chance to defend himself. And the life in prison was inferior to death, so did this conform to the principle of punishment? Can it really have the effect of cracking down on crime and civilizing criminals? I deem that was overpunishment. China's criminal law is to follow the principle of adapting to crime and punishment, the most significant thing is that it comprehensively considers that the penalty should not only adapt to the nature of the crime, but also to adapt to the circumstances of the crime and to adapt to the personal danger of the offender, so that the punishment will not be excessive or even unreasonably illegal.

Second, Henry had spent three years and two months in solitary confinement, in a dungeon it was not supposed to use -- a gas chamber left over from the first world war. At the time, the law limited a person to a maximum of 19 days in solitary confinement. So was it a loophole in the law? It was clear that Glenn's practice was seriously illegal, but no one supervised. And the dark reality of lawyer James's boss, fearing he would find out the truth to win a trial, even wanted to disqualify him from representing Henry. Similarly, the film was full of beatings and endless brutal torture. Is the law only intended to deter criminals with cruel punishment rather than guide them through a combination of moralization and punishment?

In the end, the crucial point of the case is whether Henry really did commit first degree murder. The criminal statutes of most American states grade murder according to the different types of murder and the severity of the penalty imposed. Generally, murder is divided into two levels, namely, first degree murder and second degree murder. The main difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is: there is no intention to kill and premeditated murder. First degree murder generally has the following categories: first, premeditated homicide due to negligence and cause the death of most people. Second, murder in the course of committing other felonies, such as arson, rape, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping. The second degree murder is that the perpetrator has no premeditation to kill, not in the course of the crime to kill, but a temporary intention to kill.

Therefore, I do not believe that Henry is guilty of first degree murder in this case. A closer examination revealed that on the day of his release from solitary confinement, Henry had only come to dinner. But there was a person deliberately taunted to provoke him, he killed that prisoner was a temporary intention rather than premeditated murder. Therefore, it does not meet the constitutive requirements of first degree murder. Also, I deem it's debatable whether Henry's killing was murder. The law states that an intentional killing upon “great provocation” and “in the heat of passion” constitutes the crime of voluntary manslaughter. In applying the test of whether an intentional killing was upon great provocation and in the heat of passion, the question is put to the jury, or to the judge in non-jury cases, as to whether the accused reacted as a “reasonable person”. Therefore, at this time, the role of the jury or the judge is relatively large, which requires a higher comprehensive quality of the jury and the judge. Though James eventually won the case, was justice still justice?