I’m not going to bother with spoiler boxes, as the movie is 16 years and wildly famous. But I am going to provide a little mouseover space just to be nice.
Great
Pallas,
but
do
I
love
Gwyneth
Paltrow
in
this
movie.
That should do it.
In David Fincher’s movie Se7en, a pair of detectives – David Mills, played by Brad Pitt, and William Somerset, played by Morgan Freeman – pursue a serial killer whose murders are themed to the seven deadly sins. Mils and his lovely wife Tracy have recently moved to the unnamed large city in which the story is set; this is his first case after the transfer. During the the investigation, Mills & Doe discover victims whose sins are Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, and Pride. At this point, the serial killer (portrayed by Kevin Space, and referred to only as John Doe) surrenders himself to them and agrees to plead guilty to all the five crimes they hvae discovered and lead the police to the bodies of an additional two victims, but only if Mills & Somerset take him to the location. Doing so, the detectives receive a box take contains Tracy’s severed head. But she is not one of the theme victims, but only collateral damage: Doe is trying to provoke Mills into killing him, so that Mills will embody Wrath and punish Doe for Envy. Horrified by John Doe’s description of Tracy’s last moment, Mills does so, and last appears on screen being driven away from the scene of Doe’s murder.
Okay, tha’t’s the sitch. Now for the poll question. Let’s assume that the district attorney in the unnamed city is a soulless hardass and charges Mills with voluntary manslaughter. You are on the jury. Do you vote to convict?
Imho, perhaps brought upon by too many TV dramas, I would think that the DA would think long and hard about bringing a case against a cop who killed a serial killer who had just murdered his (the cops) wife and delivered her severed head to him in a box. More likely, the impulse would be to make it seem that Spacey was killed “attempting to escape” and have it buried under the rug. I f you had to charge him, you would go for the lightest charge that you could swallow…
However, in the trial, I would likely vote to convict. Pitt killed Spacey, knew what he was doing was wrong/immoral/illegal, and still did it anyway.
ETA: Were there “dozens of witnesses”? If so, the “attempting to escape” ploy may not work… it’s been a while (since first run in theaters) since I’ve seen this movie.
It’s your privilege to believe that Mills’s actions were immoral; I don’t buy it. And even if I did, I’d never vote to convict him of anything more serious than discharging a firearm within the city limits (assuming such a charge is applicable wherever the hell they were). It’s simply not reasonable to expect any mortal to exercise self-control under such a circumstance.
Well, it’s not a “privilege” - the act of murder is considered abhorrent/immoral in most cultures. Spacey’s death may have been justified, but part of the price of living in a modern society is the forswearing of personal revenge.
It was only in front of Somerset (Freeman’s character); the confrontation was in the middle of nowhere, and even the delivery guy had left.
I’d have to vote to convict, were I on that jury. Skammer raises a good possibility, depending on the laws about “temporary insanity” in that jurisdiction. I could probably buy that.
I agree that under the law, he’s probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter, but I also think this situation goes well beyond the type of case that that law is intended to encompass. It’s not like he walked in on his wife cheating on him, his wife and, up to that point unknown to him, unborn child were murdered by a serial killer in cold blood and it was dropped on him in such a way knowing that he couldn’t resist. The killer had been messing with his head for much of the movie to manipulate him to react that way. My view of the scene wasn’t that he was considering whether killing him was right or wrong, I think he was more fighting over whether avenging their deaths was worth making his point in completing his masterpiece.
Either way, I simply couldn’t vote to convict in that case. I don’t think he acted right, but I think this is one of those cases where the law just doesn’t have the resolution to appropriately handle a case like that.
His tortured expressions prior to the shot was his malicious aforethought. He was debating with himself whether or not to kill the man… and he decided, after thinking about it, “yes, let’s put a cap in his ass.”
IANAL, but I don’t think you have to have “malicious aforethought” to be charged or convicted of a felony…
Pretty much my thoughts… this will be handled quietly, through back channels. The press will be lied to, and Mills will be exonerated and likely be convinced to “retire” from the force, with full bennies.
Of course it’s your privilege to believe a given thing. I’m not contesting the assertion that murder is illegal (that’s a tautology, anyway); I’m constesting the assertion that what Mills dead qualifies as murder. Not every killing of a human being is murder, after all.
It doesn’t matter if malice aforethought to be convicted of a felony. You have to have malice aforethought to be convicted of murder. I don’t think Mills can be expected to have enough capacity for rational thought to form such when he’s learned only a minute or so previous that his wife has been tortured and murdered and her severed head is a hundred meters away.
Too late to edit: I suppose that jury nullification could be used, if the jury thought he DA was being a bastard and didn’t think that anyone should be able to deal with that situation in any other fashion.
(Doe was totally right, though; Mills was a perfect candidate for Wrath.)
Anyway, as I said, IANAL and the legal definition of murder (as it applies to the end of the movie Se7en) is not something I’ve the training to argue or convince.
The point of a jury is to allow society to decide what is or isn’t right, beyond the letter of the law. Otherwise what’s the point of a jury? I’ll allow that it attempts to prevent corruption in the form of one person deciding everything, all the time, but if it were merely a matter of evidence, a jury wouldn’t be necessary.
If the jury decides to vote ‘Not Guilty’, for whatever reason, that’s society’s deciding what it wants.
And of course I’m not a lawyer. I’d love to say ‘letter of the law at all times’, but I don’t honestly believe that to be the best course in specific cases.
I don’t think that was his internal debate. I think he was struggling with the idea that killing him would make him win. I don’t think the idea in his mind was that killing him was wrong but he really wanted to. It was that he “needed” to kill him, but if that need was enough to give in and let him win.
Either way, I could convict someone of voluntary manslaughter in a situation where he walked in on his cheating wife or whatever, but in a situation where the guy’s been messing with his head, and he finds out that his wife was pregnant only because he’s just found out they were murdered in cold blood by a serial killer… not even in the same league. If it did get that far, I’d really hope for a jury nullification, and I suspect that that idea would probably be slipped in their minds by the defense.
This is exactly how I’d have hoped it would be handled. They would tell the press that Doe was shot while trying to escape, supposedly his plot to bring them out there was just an attempt to make it easier. Yes, there were cops in the helicopter, but they really couldn’t say much about what was being said, they could only testify that it looked like he was shot on his knees from afar. Their whole case would revolve around his partner’s testimony, and I don’t see that character turning on him in that situation, and I think the situation is too far out there that even knowing the truth they wouldn’t try to work something out to keep him out of jail.
If I were on that jury, I would probably buy temporary insanity. If that wasn’t presented by the lawyers, well than I would probably vote for the lowest possible conviction.