MovieChat Forums > Arbitrage (2012) Discussion > The Criminal Justice Aspect

The Criminal Justice Aspect

posted 11 years ago by PrickWithAFork
4 replies | jump to latest

If I ever commit murder in New York, I hope these guys investigate me. There was so much wrong with what they did, and with the procedure in this movie. I'm not just being pedantic as someone who has spent my life in the Criminal Justice system - this was basic stuff.

In no particular order:

1. (Not so much a criticism, more a query) - What gave Gere his blinding flash of inspiration on the bed, when he decided to check out the photographs? Or did he just decide he was going to fight?

2. The photograph, as presented, was not evidence. So it looked different - was it done on a different printer? The printer would have to be produced in evidence. Yes, it was obviously a fake - but that would have to be proved in court by something more than just "it looks different".

3. How stupid was the detective, thinking he could get away with that? Presumably he had to involve other people, lowly played City employees in the toll-booth department or whatever who didn't even KNOW him, all of whom risked losing their jobs and going to prison?

4. As it turned out, all that happened was that a judge swore at him. A judge who knew that a serious criminal act had been committed (the creation of a fake photo), told the detective so, but just swept the whole thing under the carpet? Now the JUDGE is involved, and could also go to jail!

5. The detective's behaviour before that: having an "off the record" conversation in his car with Jimmy then refusing to let him out - it's called unlawful imprisonment and is a criminal offence. ANY off the record harassment like this would have got him taken off the case, fired and, more than likely, have the case thrown out.

6. In the first appearance before the Grand Jury, the prosecution "ambushed" Jimmy with the toll booth photo. Would this be allowed? I thought there had to be disclosure beforehand. The reason for disclosure being to give people a chance to formulate a defence - ideal for Jimmy in this case as the photo was a fake, and he would have had time to get it investigated.

There's so much more that I can't remember, but can I now seemingly contradict myself and say that this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while? All the above criticisms aside, it was brilliantly written and I had a knot in my stomach for Gere all the way through.

I'm a Prick With a Fork.

[–] gabby_bm 11 years ago

1. (Not so much a criticism, more a query) - What gave Gere his blinding flash of inspiration on the bed, when he decided to check out the photographs? Or did he just decide he was going to fight? I think it was Jimmy, being adamant about it not being his car- and that he had followed Gere's instructions about no toll booths.

2. The photograph, as presented, was not evidence. So it looked different - was it done on a different printer? The printer would have to be produced in evidence. Yes, it was obviously a fake - but that would have to be proved in court by something more than just "it looks different". I think the judge's idea was that he didn't WANT it presented into evidence as that would demonstrate a corrupted system in his election year. There was enough for the judge to consider that evidence tampering may have occurred and that the detective was responsible. These are not things he would want brought to light, i would think.

3. How stupid was the detective, thinking he could get away with that? Presumably he had to involve other people, lowly played City employees in the toll-booth department or whatever who didn't even KNOW him, all of whom risked losing their jobs and going to prison? i guess that falls under the category of the "huge favor" he called in.

4. As it turned out, all that happened was that a judge swore at him. A judge who knew that a serious criminal act had been committed (the creation of a fake photo), told the detective so, but just swept the whole thing under the carpet? Now the JUDGE is involved, and could also go to jail! Like i said, he seemed to prefer that none of that see the light of day and would prefer it all to go away. By tossing out the case against Jimmy, any reference to it in regards to Miller's case would likely be ruled as immaterial. Yes, the judge was being complicit in a cover-up. But buried before it becomes a problem usually makes these things go away. Everyone left the room content with the results.

5. The detective's behaviour before that: having an "off the record" conversation in his car with Jimmy then refusing to let him out - it's called unlawful imprisonment and is a criminal offence. ANY off the record harassment like this would have got him taken off the case, fired and, more than likely, have the case thrown out. Agreed. Unlawful detainment was the first thing that struck me as well. In fact, if it were "off the record" and a friendly conversation, there would be absolutely NO reason why Jimmy was placed in the back seat rather than sitting in front with the detective.

6. In the first appearance before the Grand Jury, the prosecution "ambushed" Jimmy with the toll booth photo. Would this be allowed? I thought there had to be disclosure beforehand. The reason for disclosure being to give people a chance to formulate a defence - ideal for Jimmy in this case as the photo was a fake, and he would have had time to get it investigated. Again, i agree. Although I'm not sure about procedural law in grand jury inquiries -vs- criminal trials. I don't know whether the laws regarding disclosure are different for these proceedings or not.

Overall, I do think the writers took some liberties with the judicial system in order to move the story the way they wanted. Still, it was a fun movie.

"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3

[–] defcon79 11 years ago

You make some good points, but none of this is far fetched or even unlikely. Law enforcement routinely gets away with this type of behavior, bullying suspects, fabricating evidence etc. And judges always favor the police and let them get away with almost anything. As for the unlawful detainment, its Jimmy's word against the cop - who's going to believe him?

[–] proteus122 11 years ago

I agree with you wholeheartedly. In this country the Supreme Court has even said they can legally lie to obtain a confession. NEVER talk to the cops! It will only end up making it more difficult for you. They aren't trying to be your friends. They aren't rooting for you. They don't want to help you. Their only objective is to secure evidence against you. Once again, NEVER talk to the cops. Be polite, be firm and request a lawyer. If they start beating on you...and this isn't all that rare an occurrence...you'll have to decide what to do. It's a tough call, no doubt, but weighing it against a trumped up prison sentence...

Also what the hell was with the plate photo. The registration would reveal the owner but would it not also reveal the make and model of the car? In this country it does but perhaps things are different in the States.

[–] rlb1957 11 years ago

The photo being faked was the first thing I thought of when they showed it. I've seen it before. Cop fabricating evidence is
totally true and has happened many times. You must be young and niave. Taking a person in a car for a talk is done all the time. Especially to poor people who can't assert there rights. The only ones who really get away with stuff are rich people who have a lawyer beside them to protect them.
I was also on a grand Jury and we were not shown any of the defendants side. We just heard the cops side and then voted and there were about 20 people. They only needed 12 so almost every case went to trial. It was ridiculous. It was not like they showed. But I am in MA.