William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe is a documentary that follows the life of a radical-leftist attorney. However, the captivating and incendiary film is also based on the tragic form of liberal guilt. The movie revolves around the numerous cases that Kunstler was involved with until his demise. The film depicts William Kunstler as the passionate defender of the American people’s civil rights, earning him the reputation through defending a majority of the controversial defendants during the 20th Century. In Kunstler’s profession, he defended the American Indian Movement, Chicago 8, the Attica Prison rioters, the Freedom Riders, and numerous additional groups which he believed were mistakenly indicted. Kunstler functioned as the American Civil Liberties Union’s director for close to a decade before establishing a Center for Constitutional Rights ("William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe"). The distinct style utilized by Kunstler of using media to disclose the stories earned him the status of being among “the most loved and most hated” lawyers through history. William Kunstler’s quote describes the flawed system of America though past trials where people were prosecuted without concrete evidence. Furthermore, the quote raises essential questions regarding democracy, justice, and dissent.
In the film, the directors attempt to explain William Kunstler’s journey from the middle-class family man, to a well-renowned lawyer, to becoming a respectable hero and also considered as among the most loathed lawyers of the United States. The feature-length film depicts the famous legal cases that involved the anti-war and civil rights activists, accused murderers and terrorists. The movie contends that William’s stardom was actually a form of side effect that he ended up enjoying. For instance, Kunstler’s public embrace of John Gotti and recurrent appearance on talk shows establish the rise to stardom. The dishonor that was linked to defending the criminals, such as Nosair and the African American teenager who was a suspect in the Central Park rape hearing interested Kunstler ("William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe"). Kunstler was respected for taking his cases to help people rather than for fame, according to, Elizabeth Fink, who was his colleague.
The argument on fame happens to be convincing. However, as observed in the film, Kunstler was morally and perilously compassionate concerning his profession. In the film, there is the anecdote regarding Kunstler’s decision to search for the slain Japanese soldier’s the family who were charging at him with knife in WWII. Kunstler portrayed the individual as a hero to the parents. Based on the quote, Kunstler shows that social justice was the center of his legal philosophy. The daughter narrate that Kunstler attempted to instill in them, the notion that the majority of white people practice racism naturally. The white people possess all the American influence, and the laws are utilized against the minorities and less fortunate. Viewing the non-white individual in distress, he offered them the automatic benefit of doubt, despite the situation at hand. The logic of liberal guilt changed Kunstler. It is like he desired to punish himself for the sins of his forefathers.
The film shows that the majority of us believe in the constitutionally protected right of dissent as being a right to speak what we believe. However, the free speech happens to only be among the three linked rights that are safeguarded by the First Amendment. Kunstler tries to show the people that they do not have to accept every law that is passed by Congress and conform to it. He believes that people have the right to petition and to a fair trial no matter the severity of the crimes committed. Congress is restricted from passing laws that abridge the freedom of speech and the law gives the people the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Administration for the amends to grievances as observed in Martin Luther King’s case. Altogether, the right to assemble, free speech, and the explicit rights of expressing grievances to administration constitute the expansive rights of dissent that is preserved in Bill of Rights.
Regardless of the clear protections, the administration or the justice system appears to ignore its constitutionally obligated directive of protecting the rights of the citizens to dissent. Actually, it is the right that an administration, whether it is the local, federal, or state, has naturally directed for suppression, particularly during the times of the claimed emergency. Most of the time, the state, federal agency, and city administration, during instances of both relative latency and war, attempt via observation, penetration, and restrictions on the protests as a way of suppressing the dissent. A majority of the repressive attempts have eventually been beaten back, however, it happened after individuals had been incarcerated, and usually not until impacts of claimed “emergencies” that supposedly warranted the limitations had dissolute.
The American government has often suppressed the movement on social changes that appear to test the norm, the power ranks, and the unfairness practiced in the criminal justice system. In the movie, we can identify with Kunstler’s desire to change the views of society where we are expected to follow every law enacted and every decision that is made by the courts. The suppression practiced by the government has polished and decreased due to several features, which include the popularity and strength of the movement ("William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe"). Regardless of the extensive signaling of the rights of the First Amendment, the History of America shows numerous instances of the government authority using criminal prosecutions as an attempt to suppress the dissent and the public countenance. The target of groups and people looking for political and social changes includes numerous forms, which include incarceration and character assassination. The movie shows that the government went to extreme lengths when they were determined to dissolve an organization or an individual, such as the Chicago eight and Martin Luther. As such, Kunstler wanted to protect the rights of such individuals or groups to avoid their illegal prosecution despite the circumstances.
According to Ron Kuby, Kunstler’s former partner, his representation of the detested clients and causes often regarded the struggle that was between personal integrity and the group morality, the rights of individuals and the idea of police power and security “the notion of the liberation of humans against dictatorship.” The parameter of the group morality showing what is accepted in the society changes with time. The representation of the people that evaded the draft during the 70s was dangerous both politically and socially; the representation of the American Muslim today that is indicted for the contribution of money to the “terrorist organizations” might be worse. As such, the quote shows that the society has been made to believe that there are certain people or groups that deserve bad treatment by the law such as terrorists, rapists, and murderers. The collective effects of the contemporary media is manufacturing the social hysteria regarding the types of ills that were considered non-controversial—sections of display of the normal social crimes and issues that the society once normally achieved. The accused criminals, especially the ones that fall in taboo or the socially disgraceful category, are often treated ill as individuals with no rights.
As such, concerning specific kinds of crimes, people are expected to not side or support the accused criminals as one will be regarded as siding with a “monster” and additional objectionable traits that are painted outside human families. Therefore, the practitioner often risks the disgust of their families, friends, and the society when they represent such an individual. In addition, the lawyer risks not getting any more cases in the community when they decide to defend such clients. As such, such an individual faces being incarcerated without being given the chance to get a good lawyer to represent them as the society has already branded them criminals and placed judgment on them. The lawyers are judged less harshly when they choose to not represent the client compared to when they represent the client.
The legal system is founded on the erroneous human behavior model. The society had no method of identifying what drove individual’s views, insights and movements in the criminal field. Hence, the society established institutions on what was present: the unapproved postulation regarding what dishonesty looks like, the ways in which memory works and when there is a merit to the punishment. As much as there are dangerous criminals, not all of them are usually guilty of the crime. While numerous individuals are charged with crimes annually following their identification from the police lineup, studies have established that the witnesses select innocent individuals approximately a third of the time. The memory of a person could fail them due to fear. They could be changed by the detective’s word choice or they could be corrupted through the previous crimes done by an individual. Prosecutors usually attempt to gain confessions through overstating the strengths of proof and to play down the severity of the crime could force individuals to confess to awful things that they did not do. Even apparently impartial forensic examination is corruptible.
With psychology’s assistance, there is proof that there is an entire host of apparently inessential forces that influence behavior and produce the systematic distortion. However, they are still hidden since they do not fit to the familiar legal narrative. It is often assumed that the specific texts of law are crucial to if an individual has been incarcerated for rape, however, studies establish that the detail of criminal codes — if it comprises the “force” necessity or reasons the “rationally mistaken” thought of consent — is not relevant. Most of the time, it is the beliefs imposed on society that lead to stereotypes. For instance, when an African American is incarcerated or shot, the implicit bias, instead of the explicit racism, is usually the reason behind the occurrences. Certainly, the biggest dangers that is posed to the black men might not be the hate-filled police officer, but the well-intentioned officer subjected to prevalent, damaging stereotype that associate the notions of violence.
Similarly, the American people were sold the myth of two types of judges, the activists and umpires, and that the unbiased nature is a matter of an individual’s choice. However, the fact is that every judge is persuaded by the countless force past the conscious control or awareness. This establishes that the judge could sentence an individual just because they have a bad history of criminal behavior or just because they are expected to be associated with a specific group. Most of the time, the decision of the judge is hailed rather than scrutinized when they are dealing with dangerous criminals and terrorists. It is for this reason that Kunstler chose to defend such clients to ensure they had a fair ruling.
Furthermore, the reality is that the jury does not actually know if the defendants committed the criminal activity. In numerous situations, the prosecution also does not know. The instance is due to the pressure from the media which leads to the public outcry; such a case becomes the same as a circus act. The officers and the prosecutor falls under pressure since it their job guarantee that the person pays for the crimes. As a result, a prosecutor who is mean spirited and belligerent could claim that all number of things occurred and they utilize all means presented to them in gaining the belief. What is essentially annoying concerning the circumstantial evidence cases are that it has a legal capacity of convincing the jury that the innocent defendants are guilty.
Usually, the rights of the defendant are significantly compromised by the manner in which the diverse states put the limitation on their disclosure rights. The majority of the states often do not permit the disclosures in the criminal cases. Hence, it could obstruct the actual justice since if the defendants were allowed the disclosure rights, they could have rights of deposing the witnesses that are planning to testify against them ("William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe"). Furthermore, Kunstler showed that it could permit the defendant to meaningfully collaborate with the lawyers and it can significantly assist the innocent defendants in proving their innocence. As such, Kunstler believes that every criminal should be given the right to a fair trial despite their crimes.
William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe is a film that is based on the tragic form of liberal guilt. William Kunstler’s quote describes the flawed system of America though past trials where people were prosecuted without concrete evidence. Kunstler believes that sentencing criminals without the chance of giving them a fair trial and immediately judging a criminal based on the group they are associated with. According to Kunstler, that is an unjust practice that deeply undermines the value of the justice system. To maintain the shared value of fairness, redemption, and rehabilitation, there must be reforms in the justice system.
Works Cited
"William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe." YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch? v=u1OWP6le6Dc
