Reversal of Fortune
Alan Dershowitz was ill and unable to attend the post-screening discussion about the film in which he is portrayed as a crusading law professor, aided by his students, seeking to overturn the conviction of attempted murder of their client before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Annette Insdorf, a distinguished film critic, author and the head of the undergraduate film department at Columbia University, and my loyal and longtime friend, filled in ably and honorably. Annette explained how the director of the film has always been drawn to dark and morally shady characters, not unlike Claus Van Bulow, the morally compromised protagonist of the film. But from a legal perspective, the film is interesting in the way in which a lawyer, and his students, are more interested in the due process of law, challenging the government to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, than in the actual guilt or innocence of their client. Legal process trumps truth.
November 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
shanequaSays:
I overall feel that the film was interesting.I think that it gave many viewers a different perspective on lawyers and how they react to different cases in the criminal justice system.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
LucySays:
As said in the description of the movie here, “legal process trumps truth.” Dershowitz and his students are predominantly interested in the law and how to challenge the courts rather than to solely concern themselves with Van Bulow’s guilt or innocence. Is it morally right of them to only focus on the criminal justice system in this way? Also, is it morally wrong of them to have accepted this case? For instance, in a case where the attorney is almost certain that his/her client is guilty, decides to represent them anyway. Is that morally wrong? Wouldn’t it be more morally wrong if the attorney turns down the client? Even though the client may be guilty of a crime, he/she still deserves the proper representation. This sounds more like I am an attorney. However, everyone is entitled to representation, regardless of whether it is obvious they are guilty or not. It was never revealed in the movie whether Clau Van Bulow was truly guilty. However, he provides a part of the “backstory” that may fill the gaps necessary in order to understand the crime.
November 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Nikaurys PerezSays:
The film Reversal of Fortune represents how morally obscured the criminal justice system is in the United States and how it “trumps the truth”. If our legal system relies so much on a victim’s physical injury, then why was it that Claus von Bulow was able to get away with attempted murder after leaving Sunny von Bulow in a vegetative state? I know that the criminal justice system values the body more than the soul but in the case of Sunny, even though she was left as a vegetable, she was still ill represented. What worse form of physical injury can one endure to get justice. I believe this film portrays everything the criminal justice system should stand for and what it actually is. This film shows the manipulation of the legal system and how Sunny’s “backstory” as Rosenbaum would call it was used against her. If the legal system in our contry continues in the path that it’s in when it comes to victimization, people will never be able to know the truth because everything will be relative. What Sunny’s case needed and what the legal system lacks is a legal option in which to grieve.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:36 am
chantellSays:
I do agree with Lucy that everyone does need representation, but it doesn’t have to compromise your moral character though. As an attorney you have the right to pick and choose your clients, therefore trying to pick clients that wouldn’t compromise your moral and ethical identity. You are your own representation, you make people know the type of attorney you either want to be or the attorney you really are by who you represent or try to represent.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:49 am
LucySays:
But doesn’t it compromise your moral integrity by refusing to represent someone? How is it morally right if you refuse someone else their representation based on your own personal beliefs? I do agree with you. It is the lawers choice and if they feel that it is not morally right for them to represent the client, they have the right to refuse. I think it is just a difficult choice between your own beliefs as a lawyer and the defendant’s rights.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:56 am
ingridSays:
that is how the legal system works. if the lawyer refuses toi work on a specific case due to personal beliefs, then there is no point. he is not abiding by his legal laws and his job. the lawyer is not there to be biased but to give proper legal representation. so, Lucy has a point.