A-Level Essay On Runaway Jury For Free Use

The film Runaway Jury presented ethical dilemmas among the main characters Dustin Hoffman (Wendall Rohr), Gene Hackman (Rankin Fitch) and John Cusack (Nick Easter). In the movie Celeste Wood sought the help of Wendall Rohr, a lawyer to represent her and file a case against Vicksburg Firearms, a gun manufacturing company, for the death of her husband Jacob Wood, who was one of the victims in the massacre that took place in a brokerage office. Gun manufacturer and owner Garland Jankle, played by Stanley Anderson hired the services of a brilliant jury consultant Rankin Fitch to help him win the case. The role of Fitch is to ensure that defense attorney Durwood Cable played by Bruce Davison will win the case. Part of the duty of Fitch is to exhaust all the sources and modern techniques including electronic surveillance during the jury selection to receive favorable decision. On the other hand, Rohr used his instinct and worked with freelance consultant Lawrence Green, played by Jeremy Piven to help him prepare for trial. Both the prosecution and the defense are not aware that juror, Nick Easter, played by John Cusack concocted a scheme to extort money from both parties.
The movie presented two ethical dilemmas which are: 1). Deontological Normative Theory, and 2.) Utilitarianism Normative Theory. The first theory holds that the moral worth can be considered as an intrinsic feature in human actions that can be characterized and identified through formal rules of conduct. In effect, the deontologists believe that the moral obligation is mainly dependent upon duty, without the need of any reference to the practical consequences or effects of the chosen actions. The second theory or Utilitarianism Normative Theory believes that the human conduct may either be right or wrong due to the tendency to produce favorable or unfavorable outcomes that can affect people.
The movie Runaway Jury presented two ethical dilemmas that resolved on the main issues that were presented throughout the film. The first dilemma was encountered by the character of Rorh, as the lawyer of the widow, who has to decide on whether or not file a case against gun manufacturers and hold them accountable for the death of innocent of people like Jacob Wood. The second is the moral dilemma that was faced by Rohr to decide on whether or not to take the offer of Nick and Marlee (Rachel Weisz) who promised him that they can sway the outcome of the trial and give them a favorable decision for a fee of ten million dollars. The first and second dilemmas of Rohr fall under both the deontology theory and utilitarian theory. The character of Nick shows that he himself holds a personal vendetta against Rankin Finch, the consultant of the gun company, and he wanted to make Finch lose the case, and at the same time earn money out of it. This situation falls under utilitarianism theory since the action taken by Nick will produce a favorable or positive outcome for him by making Finch lose and at the same time, Nick will generate money out of it. Nick wanted to see Finch and destroy his career which now becomes a negative outcome for Finch.
One the legal issue that was tackled in the film was the action taken by the gun manufacturing company Vicksburg Firearms Company, after using money to sway the jury to dismiss the case filed by the victims of the school shooting incident. The company sought the help of Finch to settle the case and escape liability from paying off the victims of the school shooting case. For the second time, the company hired Finch to again settle the case and free itself from any liability for the death of Jacob Wood, who was one of the victims of the massacre that took place in a brokerage office.
The ethical dilemma that Vicksburg Firearms Company is facing is whether to pay the victims of the families who died during the massacre that took place in a brokerage office. The gun manufacturer was more concerned in earning profits that it tried to escape liability by hiring the best juror consultants and lawyers to avoid any accountability for the death of the victims. It shows that the owner Garland Jankle, failed to fulfill his moral responsibility by denying the victims their right to claim for damages. It was the same action that was taken in the school shooting incident in Gardner, Indiana, where one of the casualties was the sister of Marlee. Marlee’s identity was soon revealed and her real name turned-out to be Gabrielle Brant, who only disguised herself as a fixer for the jury to seek justice for the death of her sister who was one of the victims of the Gardner shooting.
It was shown in the movie that Vicksburg Firearms Company could have avoided the case if they already entered amicable settlement with the victims of the massacre that took place in a brokerage office. From the beginning, the company refused to pay the victims and wanted to fight it out in court. The company would rather pay off millions of dollars to hire the best lawyers and jury consultants just to avoid any liability to the victims.
Vicksburg Firearms Company made unethical decisions by escaping liability for the victims of the school shooting incident and the massacre that took place in a brokerage office. The company could have avoided losing more money if they initially settled the case by helping the victims. This could have avoided the full blown trial, hiring lawyers, paying them attorney’s fees and paying off the bribe to the jury to have a favorable decision. Towards the conclusion of the movie, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and the gun manufacturing company was ordered to pay damages to the victims. The ruling of the court ordered the company to pay Celeste Wood the amount of $110 million for damages. The company suffered more losses due to the unethical and immoral dealings of its consultant Finch and lawyers rather than admitting their accountability and owning up to their mistakes for the death of victims. However, the film showcased several persuasive speeches against the gun industry and their harmful effects of guns to society. The company should have taken full responsibility for its actions and not resort to immoral schemes to escape liability. The gun manufacturing company’s actions clearly show that it will do everything within its power to get the court’s favorable decision and protect its name at all cost. The company shows that it lacked moral propensity by giving in to its evil motives by escaping liability for the death of the victims.
However, the film did not address the moral and ethical issues behind illegal schemes used by Nick to earn a favorable verdict for the plaintiff. It was clearly shown that Nick manipulated Finch in order to extort money from him, which later turned out to be given to the victims of the school shooting incident in the Gardner, Indiana. This clearly shows that that Nick resorted to immoral schemes in order to force Finch to give him the money he asked for and later given to the victims of Gardner shooting incident. Although it appears that Nick will not benefit from the $15 million dollars that he extorted from Finch, the fact remains that he resorted to illegal machinations to get the money. Thus, the end did not justify the means. He used illegal and manipulative schemes to ensure that Finch will give in to his demands. Even if Nick was only trying to raise money for the victims of the school shooting incident in Gardner, the fact remains that the schemes that he used are illegitimate and prohibited under the law.