MovieChat Forums > Holes (2003) Discussion > Many legal plot holes

Many legal plot holes

posted 11 years ago by ztarlow
10 replies | jump to latest

When he was first arrested for suspicion of stealing the shoes, he was not provided a public defender. Under the law, "you have the right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, the court will provide one for you."

Also, after he was found guilty, he was sentenced far too harshly. The reason for his harsh sentence was because the shoes were valuable and because the shoes were being donated to a charity. First of all, the shoes have very little intrinsic value, so thus he should have only been charged with 'petty theft' rather than 'grand theft' since the intrinsic value of the shoes was basically zero. Second, theft is punished by the intrinsic value of the item, rather than where it was stolen from.

Finally, at the end of the movie when Stanley finds the chest, it is declared to be his because it had his name on it. There are so many problems with this, but the main one is that having identifying information on property does not prove ownership. Under property abandonment law, property is considered abandoned when it is left on public property for more than fifty years.

I am aware that very few people reading this forum even care about the law, but I like to show off my knowledge whenever possible.

[–] xaznxsneakx 11 years ago

Another legal plot hole is the fact that the evidence against Stanley appeared to be mostly circumstantial.

[–] MarblesLove 10 years ago

Exactly. It was like they said "Ok, you have the shoes, so obviously you must have stolen them. Lets not even try to see if there is a plausible explanation or proof, like did anyone see you at the shelter (or whatever it was) on the day the shoes were stolen?"

But I think it's like someone else said. It's a fable.

This is my signature.

[–] MtnMan13 9 years ago

Circumstantial evidence can still be strong enough to convict someone. Laymen think "circumstantial evidence" means that it's flimsy or weak, but let me give you an example:

Someone is caught breaking into a building, and he's charged with "breaking and entering with intent to steal". But he didn't actually steal anything. All he did was break a window and attempt to climb through it. Wouldn't a burglary conviction be based on circumstantial evidence? Certainly, but it would hold up in court every single time.

[–] timmy_501 11 years ago

The shoes are valuable memorabilia, having belonged to a famous athlete.

The idea with the chest was that he wanted to claim it was his all along and the warden wanted to claim it was actually hers all along, not something that either of them had just found in a hole. It wouldn't make sense for her to own a chest with his name on it. She probably could have sued him over it if she was willing to reveal the true nature of her camp.

This post brought to you by the yoyodyne corporation

[–] AtheistRevolution 10 years ago

The shoes were from a famous athlete or something. So they would be valued like a painting. Based on how similar items have sold in the bast,right? And prosecutors have attached more crimes when you commit a crime in certain places.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] JaeBianca 10 years ago

All of your points are correct, however the entire story is founded on literary magical realism. This means that one must suspend disbelief, otherwise the entire story loses it's meaning, coherence and most importantly, symbolism. Essentially,it's a fable, so real world rules don't apply.

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

It's simpler than suspension of disbelief, as far as the story goes the men in his family are cursed. That's why nothing went his way.

[–] highlandpercussion 9 years ago

Thank you for bringing up this very simple point. I've been trying to rationalize the film to myself for a while, and your outlook makes perfect sense!

[–] krushawayne 9 years ago

To your third point, they used a nifty plot device to tie the entire story together. However, you can break the law down in that way, but there are more issues there. Like for instance... The property isn't abandoned... It's stolen. So you can certainly poke holes in the "abandonment" issue there

[–] Chefeetaboopers 9 years ago

I could have sworn besides having his name on it, the Yelnats family gets to lay claim to the treasure because Kate Barlow stole if from Stanley Yelnats, so wouldn't it still be theirs? I know they'd probably have a legal dispute or something with the government or the warden over who owns it and probably wouldn't get it right away, but I'm sure they would eventually have gotten to lay claim to it.