Cases Won In 30 Minutes Or Your Pizza Is Free!: Cultural Depictions

Literature, television and film abound with depictions of the archetypal “good lawyer.” From Perry Mason and his laughably implausible and evidentiarily dubious perfect record of criminal defense to the unbreakable moral courage of Atticus Finch standing up for justice and righteousness in the face of unbearable social pressure and nearly consummated threats of violence, the attorney who is willing to rise above the moral constraints imposed the profession has been idealized in countless works of art. Finch in particular stirs grandiose images of virtue and decency, having been named the greatest hero in the history of American film by the American Film Institute and has been cited by both famed civil rights attorney Morris Dees and federal judge Richard Matsch as inspirations in their having become lawyers. In fact, lawyers with severe moral failings in fiction can conform to the “good lawyer” archetype as an act of redemption. When Sydney


Thane Rosenbaum elaborates on Fox News' "Judging Evil"

The question of how does humanity judge and prosecute evil is a tricky and dangerous one, because it presumes that it can’t be done, that punishment is meant only for ordinary crimes, that our statutes never contemplated crimes that are so gruesome and inhuman that they fall off of the charts of anticipated human behavior, and misbehavior.  But that is a tragic mistake, because once humanity names something as evil, it consigns it to a category that is essentially NOT human, NOT like us.  It is comforting to know that some crimes are deemed so incomprehensible, so beyond the scope of human understanding, that we can’t understand it, we will never understand it, and therefore we can’t recognize it as something that is humanly possible, and worse, perhaps also essentially human.  We place it in a separate category, and, in doing so, we abdicate any further efforts to know it,


Thane Rosenbaum on Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

Backlash Grows Over Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Claim BY Michael McAuliff Sarah Palin’s use of the loaded phrase “blood libel” is attracting more attention and condemnation as the day goes on. The former Alaska governor used the words to describe the claims of critics who said Palin deserved some of the blame for the Arizona shootings because of her fiery rhetoric and her target-marked election map that put the sights on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), among others. Read the full article, along with Thane Rosenbaum’s commentary at: Backlash Grows Over Palin’s ‘Blood Libel’ Claim