The Justice Game
Those who control the spread of information control the truth. Composers have ultimate control over the “truth” in their texts. Composers of texts have the ultimate control over the “truth” in their text - through the use of techniques to shape meaning, they can construct the reader’s opinion. Geoffrey Robertson in The Justice Game crafts many textual elements in his book about the legal system, the cases and about himself. Other composers also set their own agenda, and these biases cannot be overlooked.For example, in the Trials of Oz Robertson exercises supreme authority to decide who is guilty or innocent. He uses language to describe the defendants as “honest young men” and to characterise Oz as a “harmless coffee-table magazine for the revolution that would never happen”. Robertson also uses language to construct the reader’s disapproval of Justice Argyle, whom Robertson casts as extremely “conservative” and “out-of-touch”. The judge cannot pronounce “cunnilingus”, and is unaware of the famous musical “Hair”. Robertson uses this as evidence Argyle is an old crone, willing to bend the rules of law to convict the defendants. Robertson crafts language to present him in a most undignified manner . . .
Michael is undeniably guilty of murder, but Robertson uses language to soften the reader’s opinion of him: “The man the State of Trinidad wanted to kill was not the same man who ruthlessly killed another. Jim Anderson has an on-screen diatribe against the “adversarial justice system” because “since each side exaggerates their side of the case, the truth isn’t likely to come out”. ” Taken literally, this statement is an outright lie. Yet the accusations that Robertson himself is publicity seeking is silenced - why isn’t he representing a more modest client? Even Robertson’s efforts to save Michael fail, perhaps hastening his execution. In Robertson’s book The Justice Game, this statement is silenced, because it runs counter to Robertson’s argument in the Afterword and elsewhere that “the adversarial justice system is the fairest means for trial”. Robertson uses graphic description to construct the revulsion of his readership towards capital punishment. Michael X was the same man who had killed Joe Skerrit: if he wasn’t, he would be innocent. However it is in the screenplay of the Trials that Robertson’s power to shape the truth is revealed. Robertson controls the spread of information in The Justice Game and it is obvious that he (and other composers) when constructing their version of the truth, do not often tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (So help him, God). Once again we can observe the divine role of the composer crafting information to cast himself in the best light. Robertson describes himself as a “fearless and romantic lawyer” on the back covers, with a “long and distinguished career”. Bush in his Texan State of the State address represents capital punishment differently - “if administered swiftly and justly, it saves innocent lives” - the language “swiftly and justly” implies the absolute guilt of the perpetrators. Here again we see that those who control the information or the text controls the representation of truth. Yet the arguments in favour of capital punishment are silenced, much as any pro-punishment proponent would silence the opposite side of the case. There is more evidence of silence in Robertson’s text - in Michael X on Death Row, he criticises the American “celebrity lawyer” William Kuntsler for blatant “publicity seeking” in the Michael X trial, deriding his “starring role” as a failure.
Common topics in this essay:
William Kuntsler, Justice Game, Joe Skerrit, Texan State, Death Row, Hair Robertson, Trials Oz, Telling Truth, Oz Robertson, Jim Anderson, justice game, capital punishment, control truth, robertson language, ultimate control truth, robertson exercises, written robertson, representation truth, sordid description, readers opinion, trials oz, michael death row, adversarial justice system, |
Acceptance Essays
