john landis-controversial (1 Viewer)

[Mark Oates]

No, I can't accept that argument. You haven't read every piece of evidence presented at any of these trials, examined every exhibit, listened to cross-examinations while watching the witness or the accused a matter of feet away. The legal system isn't perfect (if it was, they'd hang the lawyers), but you can't start questioning judgements without fresh evidence to the contrary. We're all victims of biased reporting. It's terrible here in the UK, where every major court case (usually murders) are reported in such lurid detail and with the assumption of guilt against the defendent that it's a miracle anyone gets a fair trial. But you have to believe that people get a fair trial and that the ultimate judgement is correct. If you can't trust your legal system, where does that leave society? And doesn't a firm belief in your legal system go double for a country where you still impose the ultimate sanction?

 

[chris winters]

I happen to not believe in "the ultimate sanction", if by that you are refering to the death penelty, for a number of reasons, but one definetly being my lack of faith in our legal system to get it right 100% of the time. Im not advocating marching downtown and burning the nearest courthouse to the ground, or even refusing to honor a questionable outcome from a controversial trial. Im just advocating being skeptical of verdicts if you suspect they may be in error, and not being afraid to open a dialogue about said cases; of course while trying to educate yourself as much as possible as to the facts that went into a case before yourself rendering a personal judgement. Also, there may be a descrepensy between what constitutes being legally guilty, as somone may be found after a trial, and simply being responcable for a percieved injustice. In a perfect world the two would go hand in hand, but the law being as complicated as it is, thats simply not always the "case". -Pun intended

 

[Mark Oates]

I am in complete and total agreement with that, Chris.

As for John Landis, he has his conscience to deal with and ultimately his maker. And he'd better have his excuse ready by then.

 

[DanielBH]

Though it is rarely noted, John Landis was instrumental in the creation of Sliders and its magical first season.

In any case, I've never really understood these kinds of discussions. Do we watch entertainment for the ideas or the people behind them? Personally, I watch for the ideas; if the idea is offensive to me, then I no longer watch. However, the person behind those ideas is really irrelevant in my eye (beyond knowing whether or not they usually produce good or bad product)

Just think about it...do we stop using light bulbs because Thomas Edison basically ruined Nikola Tesla's life? Do we stop playing Monopoly because it grew out of a controversial tax policy Henry George championed? Do we stop watching game shows because "Twenty One" was rigged?

It's something to think about. Why do you watch entertainment? Is it about being entertained; or is it more of a social activity related to the people behind it?

 

[Brian Thibodeau]

Well, whatever makes you feel better.

Folks should still try to put as much faith into the tangible - albeit sometimes errant - legal system as they do in invisible - and supposedly inerrant - deities, while hopefully observing a reasonable amount of skepticism about both.

The book "Outrageous Conduct," which can often be found in used book stores and on Amazon.com for a couple bucks, is a far better source for facts regarding this trial than the revisionist article that launched this thread. It's probably the closest anyone could get without reading all the original court transcripts, plus it was written during the trial and published not long after it, so there's less tendency to mess around with hindsight.