A TIME TO KILL: THE THIN LINE BETWEEN LAW AND

EMPATHY

A Time To Kill tells a story of a young lawyer Jake

Brigance who took the case of a black man Carl Lee Hailey
who shot the abductors and rapists of his daughter. Defending
the murder committed just a few steps outside of the court
room was hard enough irrespective of the fact that there was
a White Supremist movement in the entire course of the trial.
For murder which is a capital offense, which incident
likewise happened in front of innocent people who were
waiting for the victims’ trial, a decision for acquittal is almost
close to impossible. Practically speaking, the best favorable
decision that Brigance could secure for Carl Lee is a conviction
without death. However, despite the odds, they were able to
acquire a decision of acquittal in favor of Carl Lee.
It was clear in the movie that being a black was
considered as a minority in their State. The discrimination was
apparent based on how the whites interacts with the blacks.
The movie was able to successfully establish the dichotomy
between the two races by displaying just enough amount of
violence that showed how both races tend to abhor each
other. When the victims went into a grocery store owned by
a black merchant, they acted like they owned the place; like
they were untouchable as opposed to the black who were
easily stepped on by these actions.
Even when these victims were arrested inside a bar, one
of them orally attacked the sheriff for being black despite his
reputation and authority to enforce the law. The apprehension
was approached in a peaceful and pacified manner. However,
the victims showed no dread over the fact that they were
being spoken to by a respectable member of the society and
still treated him lowly just because of the sheriff’s color or
race. As a result, necessary violence was employed for their
arrest.
The arrest gave the viewers the feeling of satisfaction to
finally have the rapists under the blind balance of justice.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that the two were possibly be
walking freely despite what they did, it took Carl Lee’s last
strand of sanity forcing him to take justice into his own hands.
The emotions were clearly elevated into a higher level
than where it was prior to the shooting. As accused, the
victims were still clothed with the protection that the
Constitution robes over them; such as the right to be innocent
until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the right his
day in court. As a consequence of their death, they were
clearly deprived of their day in court. Likewise, Carl Lee
judged them guilty of the accusations and decided to do the
punishing instead by bringing their deaths to them. Clearly,
this aroused a strong sensation of empathy towards the both
of the accused.
With this situation taken into consideration, the first step
that Brigance did for Carl Lee was to get a jury that will not
automatically convict him even before the trial has started.
Therefore, Brigance filed for a change of venue which was
denied. Basically, Brigance had to minimize the damage by
meticulously examining the possible juries that would bring
the least negative outcome to their defense. However, the
motion for change of venue was denied. Therefore Brigance
had to meticulously choose a list of jurors that will cause the
least amount of damage on their case.
Brigance’s appeal to the hearts of the jury was effective
because he targeted the human aspect of the court: empathy.
As apparent as the dichotomy between the races that was
shown in the movie, it is likewise evident how wakening other
people’s empathy was their only trump card to ever getting a
favorable decision from the jury. All throughout the entire
trial, the banters thrown by the counsels at each other were
targeted to evoke the jury’s sympathy in their own respective
favor.
The principle of dura lex, sed lex exactly translates to
“the law is harsh but it is the law”. The principle connotes that
the law equally applies to all, without fear or favor. Moreover,
it likewise implies that everybody has the same basic human
dignity and basic human rights before the law. After all, the
people is governed by rule of law and not of men.
Therefore, if the principle on dura lex, sed lex should
strictly be followed, why is there a space for empathy in the
legal system? If the law is to be enforced without favors or
inclination towards a certain race, as in the movie, why are
both of the counsel throwing arguments just to invoke the
jury’s empathy in their favor?
The movie shows that the line between law and empathy
is so thin that it seems non-existent. If the principle on dura
lex, sed lex will be applied objectively, then there will be no
point with enforcing the law when the people to whom the
laws are made to protect will be prejudiced. Therefore, in
order to harmonize it human experience, empathy should be
expended in enforcing these laws.
In Carl Lee’s case, he shot both the victims which caused
their instantaneous death. If the law restricts itself to this fact,
then by no other explanation, Carl Lee should have deserved
the conviction with death. However, in order for the law to be
harmonious with human experience, the law recognizes other
circumstances that might mitigate or justify such human
actions. This is where empathy plays an important role in
humanizing the law.
Brigance painted a clear picture of what happened to
Carl Lee’s daughter in the hands of the victims. By closing
their eyes, they were able to remove the fact that Carl Lee
was black but was only a grieving father on the verge of an
unstable state of mind, who had justified reasons regarding
his action. Empathizing with Carl Lee, the jury acquitted him
of the accusations and was able to walk freely.

Submitted by:
Germaine Suzette C. Austero