The Man Who Sued God: Film Analysis

The court of public opinion is as just as the court of law and perhaps more effective and time efficient. The film The Man Who Sued God will be used in reflection to oppose the intent of the court. The court of public opinion holds no procedural fairness, no rule of evidence and the beliefs which underpin our laws in the standard court of law do not apply in the court of public opinion. Throughout the film the trial results in a respectable outcome for the plaintiff however, the fact that justice seems to have been received we should perceive this case as a minority given the wider sever and negative implications that a system based on public opinion can have. The court of public opinion overturns the very concept of the rule of law, so it is no wonder that the court of public opinion is often described as little more than a modern lynch mob.

The consideration of what is just requires a strong meaning of the justice. The differential meaning between procedural justice and substantive justice is that substantive justice examines the outcome of the dispute and seeks that the correct outcome has been reached. Comparatively procedural justice as discussed in Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and Behavioural Engagement by Tyler and

Our current system of substantive justice, under the rule of law does not guarantee that individual cases will be decided upon in accordance with an individual 's conceptions of justice. However, the system of procedural justice can guarantee that a plaintiff will have a fair opportunity to present their case and it will be decided upon by an impartial judge and the court of public opinion will make none of these guarantees. Whereas if the court of public opinion was in place the plaintiff would be able to gain the sympathies of the public, something which has nothing to do with