Just Mercy review

Just Mercy review

From the movie “Just Mercy,” I have learned that injustice can happen to even the most innocent person. In the film, Walter McMillan alias Johnny D was convicted to death by the court of Alabama for a murder he had never committed. The law enforcement officers assumed that he was the person who murdered Ronda Morrison. Despite there being tangible evidence and even eyewitnesses who provided testimony in favor of Johnny D, he was still incarcerated. He suffered emotional and mental torture, knowing that he had not committed any crime, yet he was given the worst of all punishments; death sentence.

From viewing the movie, I learned that racial discrimination is still an issue in the United States. In the whole investigation process, the police were convinced that the only person to commit such a heinous act could only be a black person. The police disregard the testimony of Johnny D’s family and friends who placed him at a different location during the time of the murder. The cops still chose to ignore their statement. The police also decided to ignore the fact that Walter McMillan did not have any criminal record and, therefore, the likelihood of him committing such a crime is limited.

Moreover, the police’s only witness was a testimony from a convicted felon Ralph Myers. Ralph Myers was a white man who agreed to testify, and in exchange, he got a lighter sentence in his trial. The fact that police ignored the testimony of Johnny’s friends and family indicate the prejudice that the police held Johnny with.

According to Kant, for a choice to be considered a moral one, it has to be rational. From the movie Just Mercy, the decision to prosecute Johnny D is not ethical. The decision made by the police does not stem from any principle of good policing. I assume that for a police officer to reach the verdict of proposing prosecution of a person on murder charges, there should be concrete evidence that the person committed that crime. The onus is on the investigating officers to ensure that there is no shred of doubt or any testimony that provides a different version of account other than the one they have. Had the investigating officers made a rational decision, without the racial biasness, they would have been able to point out the glaring problems in their case. Although the officers were doing their job in arresting and charging Johnny D, their method did not uphold the moral rights of Johnny.

Just Mercy helps in bringing out Kant’s formula of the law of nature. In Kant’s argument, there are a few steps in achieving a moral decision. The first stage is taking a specific action. In Just Mercy, the response I am dealing with here is Bryan Stevenson’s decision to represent Johnny D in appealing the court case. The second argument in Kant’s formula is a person needs to ask themselves what is the guiding maxim behind the action they have taken. They guiding maxim, in this case, is solving an injustice that has been met to a person who does not deserve it. Kant’s third argument is that a person has to think what the maxim would be like were it to be a universal rule followed by all and sundry. In this case, I believe if any person fought injustice in their area of expertise, the world would be a beautiful place free of prejudice, wrongful deaths, and convictions.

Lastly, at the end of the movie, Bryan Stevenson gets Johnny D acquitted. Despite the prosecution doing everything in their power to ensure that Johnny stays in prison, Bryan still won the case. Bryan had to defend Johnny’s relative, who had agreed to testify on behalf of the defense. The prosecutor, however, decided to press perjury charges on him. The charges were meant to intimidate him, which they did, for he refused to testify. The circuit in Alabama also declined to hear the appeal, but Bryan using the moral code decided to seek help from members of the public, which was a rational move. The move enabled his client to get an appeal and the Supreme court and later acquitted. Had the police and the prosecution followed Kant’s theory, an innocent man would not have been in prison. Taxpayers’ money would have been used elsewhere and adequately.

From the movie Just Mercy, I have understood that in business, like in the justice system, prejudice might end up being costly. Although the repercussions might not be felt at the moment, they will still find their way home. I have also learned that break down a problem and always eliminating all possible scenarios and factoring everything that favors my outcome might be very helpful in helping me come up with the right decision. I have learned that I should not be quiet when injustice happens. I should stand up and be counted among the few who spoke against it. Finally, I learned that although legal systems are in place to protect the use, the people in those systems might not be there to protect us. As such, when injustice happens, I should be courageous enough and ask my fellow citizens for help in fighting crime.