In the first scene that we see the judge, a boy is insisting he go to trial and the judge is saying he's a nice boy and should plea-bargain.
Then, Kramer asks the other man what the boy did, and he says he raped an old lady and stuffed her in a garbage can! Surely the judge wouldn't have let him off if that were true?
The judge is as corrupt and self-serving as all the other characters in the story; he represents the U.S. justice system in all its vainglorious hypocrisy and unreliability (think O. J.). The judge's straight-faced plea for "decency" in the climactic speech is the film's most scathing satirical point, revealing the evil inherent in the mask of "deep sincerity". This crucial scene is one of the film's most significant departures from Tom Wolfe's novel. The almost-universal error of taking the judge's deadpan prevarication at face value is, I think, the primary root of misunderstanding Brian De Palma's film.
shareYes, I see what you mean. I suppose it's having Morgan Freeman play the judge that made it difficult for me to see him as corrupt. Morgan Freeman is too nice!
shareI haven't seen the whole film yet (and I may not bother because the first 20 minutes are not very promising), but I have seen the scene the OP describes, where Morgan Freeman deals with the rapist. I think the OP has misunderstood what went on there. When the judge tells the defendant that he will plea rather than go to trial, that does not mean that he will let him off. A pleas means that the defendant will admit guilt for some lesser charge, with the prior agreement that he will serve less time than he would have served had he been convicted on the more serious charge. About 90 % plus of all criminal charges in the US are dealth with this way because we do not have the resources to devote to having all those cases go to trial. If I recall correctly the judge said there were 7000 serious felony charges per year, but they only had the ability to hold about 650 trials, so most have to be resolved through a plea bargain. This way or organizing or criminal justice system can be criticized in many, MANY respects, not the least of which it pressures defendants to give up their right to a trial to have the evidence considered by a jury (as the "nice boy" was demanding in this scene) and simply agree to go to jail without having had a trial. If we assume (which is a pretty safe assumption), that some of these cases are brought against persons who actually are innocent of the crime, then this system coerces those people into accepting prison, despite being innocent, because they are facing a strong chance of getting even more time in prison if they demand a trial. Unless the person can afford a competent lawyer who can devote the necessary time to defend him, he has little chance of succeeding in his defense. On the other hand, this allows serious criminals to receive less time than their crime actually calls for.
shareActually the scene in question was in the book.. Although they combined 2 cases from the book..
share