”A Few Good Men” Movie
- Pages: 6
- Word count: 1368
A limited time offer! Get a custom sample essay written according to your requirements urgent 3h delivery guaranteedOrder Now
I choose to watch the movie “A few good men”. The story line goes as where Tom Cruise is asked to defend two marines who are charged with murder of a fellow officer. During the investigation it was found that the marines were ordered what they call a Code Red. A code red is where disciplinary measure is told to the marine when a member offends against his unit. This marine was beaten, gaged, bounded with tape by his fellow officers because in the squad’s eye he was not standing up to their needs. The two marines argue that they had a direct command from the higher authority to commit such act. Throughout the movie it came out that Colonel Jack Nicholson character had committed a crime and that this was unethical in the law and the United States Marines.
The two marines Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Louden Downy bound, gagged and tortured William Santiago while he was sleeping him later died of bleeding in the lungs due to the assault. Demi Moore an advocate for counsel (Joanne Galloway) believes that the two were only following orders and did not mean to intend for Santiago to die. There are two ethical issues here that I see as far as the movie went. One being the murder was performed and the other is that the code red was ordered of Jessup as a cover up. There was also Kaffee who lies to cover up what Jessup says. He is a young lawyer who comes from a line of lawyer where he has to prove a lot of good. He is a winning lawyer and losing a case to him is not a choice. He also is a plea bargain type of lawyer that doses this on many of his cases. Kaffee is charged to help defend the two marines but say that they deserve to be in prison for the rest of their lives. He knows the marines did something unethical but still stands by his word. In his eyes there is a dilemma and that is of his feelings of people abusing people who can’t defend themselves. So with that he doesn’t want to defend the marines.
The ethical dilemma of Tom Cruise is that he wanted to do his job as an attorney of the marines but yet his personal feelings were that they killed a fellow solider. He knew that being appointed as to up hold the law he still needed to do what was right as by his clients. Demi Moore was the character that also knew from wrong and right. She wanted to appoint to the case but they would not allow her because of her just being with an advocate for counsel. Further in the movie she did get to help with the case and got involved. She seems to think that she had to also defend them as an officer would their own, but knew that the crime was a hard one to battle. Jack Nickloson was the character of hate and did the crime himself but wanted to take down others in his place. He was not doing right by his squad, and had not so good ethical behaviors. He wanted William Santiago dead or hurt because in his eyes William was not holding up on his end of the routines of drills for the whole squad.
With each of these characters I feel that the dilemma was solved in different way but yet somewhat similar. With Tom Cruise he made up his mind that he would do what the marines hired him to do and what he was educated to do and that was to serve and protect rather it be himself or another solider. He knew that his personal feeling could not matter in this and he needed to defended his solider and believe what they were telling him. With Demi Moore she too I feel that the dilemma was resolved by her being able to help to do the research and investigation alongside of Tom Cruise for the defendants case. She was also to in the situation that she felt they did moral wrong but her job was to help defended her clients in need. Now Jack Nicholson the dilemma was solved in his case by him being found to be the person who causes the crime and then getting charged with the crime himself.
Prosecution them filed charges on him. With all these characters in the movie I feel that all was served and all was solve with the courts. The attorneys did get what they wanted out of this case and the right guy will be doing time for a crime he told his solider to commit.
When you are talking about the ethical framework of this case I see it as that the attorneys had a law to follow. They also needed to make sure that all ethics were followed as well. When we see cases like this you always want to do what is right but feelings also get in the way. They knew what was needed in order to make the case and to get their clients a fair trial. They needed to put their feelings aside and do the job that was appointed to them and they took other in doing. When acting out on feelings or what you are told to do as a job you need to follow your ethics and not your feelings. These are two different issues and should not be put together anywhere especially in the court of law. The reason this got solved is because everyone had to do what was ethically right and not what their feeling was telling them to do as a person. The effectiveness of doing what was right I feel was a good thing because in the end the bad guy got what he deserved. Yet he did not do what was order as the code of conduct. Jack was only thinking about getting rid of what I would refer to as a disabled solider and how ever that happen needed to be done.
If I had to predict a different outcome if the frame work was different I would say that the two soldiers would have went to prison for the rest of their lives. The behavior of Jack would have gotten the two soldiers in the brig and no one would have mattered. Seems that the way the movie went it was made sure that the outcome would have been what had happen.
The crime. Seems with movies like these you always want the outcome to be for the good but usually ends up not what you do want to happen. In my opinion legal dramas are something to be desired. I for one didn’t really like the movie of choice and could not get into it. I know I had others to choose from but this one was in my library of movie to watch. I had to keep pausing and asking my husband questions to explain to me what the meant or why did that happen. I feel if the topic is interesting like Roe vs. Wade I don’t have a problem viewing that kind of movie. I’m not a war or military movie person because I have a hard time seeing what are soldiers go through, and can’t stand blood guts and beating someone for that matter. Not that was this movie, all though it did show some beating so I handle it well. I feel that legal dramas like this can help you in real life situations as long as they are right to the laws. Most of the time what is seen in a movie is not always the law. Legal dramas are hard to watch at times but give you an insight of what may be happening rather its true or not. When I pick a drama rather it is legal, personal, real life I try to pick on the topic of the story line. Usually these are not my types of movies but the difference is a good change of entertainment.