黑狱风云

故事以一次越狱事件开始，当然，男主角亨利并没有迈克尔-史高飞的本事。所以越狱以失败告终（告密者告密），男主角更被丢进阿尔卡特兹监狱的单间牢房“hole”，受尽了3年笔墨无法叙述的痛苦折磨，最终近乎成了一个“非人”的生物，一个不敢渴求人之欲望的生物，一个宁愿死也不愿回阿尔卡特兹的生物。

影片如果冠以“悲惨人生”的片名的话，我估计还是十分贴切的：亨利（17岁时）只是为了和自己相依为命的妹妹能填饱肚子而偷了5元钱即被抓入了监狱，后因越狱而被狱长格伦“密切照顾”，经历了3年生不如死的单间禁锢，褪脱了一切人的梦想和希望。

从“hole”出来后不久，亨利在饭厅杀死了告密者。与其说是因仇恨所至，不如说是因绝望而自寻死路，想因一级谋杀罪而被处死。（电影中此段情绪表现得很到位）

新晋律师詹姆斯被指派为亨利辩护，詹姆斯很快发现了发生在亨利身上的事情。青年的热血加仗义，詹姆斯状告了阿尔卡特兹和整个美国监狱系统，引起了一场全国性的风波...

在法庭辩论进行的同时，詹姆斯也由“在法庭上滔滔不绝，那对我（亨利）没有任何意义。”式的只顾法庭诉讼的心理，逐渐变为了同情亨利，想要帮助亨利找回人的希望和信念的心理。并且最后帮助亨利完成了自我的救赎—从对阿尔卡特兹和特伦入骨的恐惧中挣脱，勇敢地面对并指责“他们”。

影片最后以亨利勇敢面对格伦，挺直身体走进“hole”结束，虽然亨利在上诉前死在了“hole”中，但他的上诉引发的对阿尔卡特兹和特伦的审判却宣告了他的胜利...

由于影片是对真实事件的改编，给人的感觉还是挺阴暗和压抑的。虽然亨利最后是得到了“胜利”，但一个人的一生就这样过去，太悲惨，太绝望了...

影片对情绪的处理很出众，如这些片段：开始时亨利在“hole”中身心受到折磨；格伦用剃刀割断亨利的脚筋；亨利杀死告密者；亨利最后走向“hole”等。

亨利曾这样感叹：“你在外面能听收音机，却不知道棒球比赛的得分”，“如果我没有偷那5块钱，我也许就和你一样了（詹姆斯）”。我也不禁感慨：人生无常，珍惜当下啊

个人认为这是凯文.培根演技发挥最好的一部片子。

I watched Murder In The First these days, this movie is based on real events. Here are the mainly plot: Henry was sent to prison at a young age for stealing five dollars, he tried to escape from the famous alcatraz prison, but failed after being betrayed by a fellow inmate. The warden of the prison, Glenn, hated Henry for threatening his position, so he put Henry in a sealed dungeon for three years, where there were numerous beatings, and Henry was mentally and physically devastated. The first thing he did when he left the dungeon was to kill the prisoner who had betrayed him with his dinner spoon. Henry was charged with first-degree murder and put on death row.

Lawyer James who had just left the school gate was ordered to defend for Henry, Henry almost lost the ability to communicate after years of torture, James did not give up any opportunity, gradually close the distance between the two people. But in the process, James encountered resistance from many sources: the judge and jury, Henry himself, and the American prison system. But he did not give up, uphold the persistence of justice, found many suspicious points of the case, in the court he directed against the inhumane prison side, exposed one appalling prison scandal after another. In the end, he won -- Henry was convicted of second-degree murder, and the alcatraz jail was ordered by a jury to open an investigation.

What struck me most about the film was the soliloquy at the end of the film by lawyer James: “That was the last time I saw Henry alive. His body was found in the dungeon the day before the appeal session. Under his body, he wrote a word on the ground on a rock: victory. Henry taught me the meaning of the word. He is the only person I know who gives more than he asks for. All he wants is a friend. I regard him as one of my best friends. Unlike others who lived longer, Henry did not die for nothing. In the end he was not afraid, he lived and died in victory. If only we could all do this.”

It’s true that Henry's body is like a worm, vulnerable to the power and the unsound system, but with his own weak, hit the stone, even if shattered. After Henry's death, humane management of American prisons was taken seriously. Although it was Henry who began the trial, but it was the prison, the dark system, that ended it. So Henry died, but he actually won.

The film takes aim at the dark side of the American justice system, especially inside prisons. The prisoner, the lawyer, the warden, form the main thread of the story. Although this is the 1940s, it still has a strong cautionary message today.

After watching the whole movie, my view is as follows:

First of all, Henry was sent to prison for stealing only five dollars. I'm somewhat mystified is that did the five dollars meet the criteria for filing a theft at that time? There was a sharp contrast, James stole five dollars from his brother as a child, but his brother only educated him. Henry, on the other hand, went straight to prison for stealing five dollars from the post office, with no chance to defend himself. And the life in prison was inferior to death, so did this conform to the principle of punishment? Can it really have the effect of cracking down on crime and civilizing criminals? I deem that was overpunishment. China's criminal law is to follow the principle of adapting to crime and punishment, the most significant thing is that it comprehensively considers that the penalty should not only adapt to the nature of the crime, but also to adapt to the circumstances of the crime and to adapt to the personal danger of the offender, so that the punishment will not be excessive or even unreasonably illegal.

Second, Henry had spent three years and two months in solitary confinement, in a dungeon it was not supposed to use -- a gas chamber left over from the first world war. At the time, the law limited a person to a maximum of 19 days in solitary confinement. So was it a loophole in the law? It was clear that Glenn's practice was seriously illegal, but no one supervised. And the dark reality of lawyer James's boss, fearing he would find out the truth to win a trial, even wanted to disqualify him from representing Henry. Similarly, the film was full of beatings and endless brutal torture. Is the law only intended to deter criminals with cruel punishment rather than guide them through a combination of moralization and punishment?

In the end, the crucial point of the case is whether Henry really did commit first degree murder. The criminal statutes of most American states grade murder according to the different types of murder and the severity of the penalty imposed. Generally, murder is divided into two levels, namely, first degree murder and second degree murder. The main difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is: there is no intention to kill and premeditated murder. First degree murder generally has the following categories: first, premeditated homicide due to negligence and cause the death of most people. Second, murder in the course of committing other felonies, such as arson, rape, robbery, burglary, and kidnapping. The second degree murder is that the perpetrator has no premeditation to kill, not in the course of the crime to kill, but a temporary intention to kill.

Therefore, I do not believe that Henry is guilty of first degree murder in this case. A closer examination revealed that on the day of his release from solitary confinement, Henry had only come to dinner. But there was a person deliberately taunted to provoke him, he killed that prisoner was a temporary intention rather than premeditated murder. Therefore, it does not meet the constitutive requirements of first degree murder. Also, I deem it's debatable whether Henry's killing was murder. The law states that an intentional killing upon “great provocation” and “in the heat of passion” constitutes the crime of voluntary manslaughter. In applying the test of whether an intentional killing was upon great provocation and in the heat of passion, the question is put to the jury, or to the judge in non-jury cases, as to whether the accused reacted as a “reasonable person”. Therefore, at this time, the role of the jury or the judge is relatively large, which requires a higher comprehensive quality of the jury and the judge. Though James eventually won the case, was justice still justice?