Does the legal framework account for the layers of moral and psychological complexities that define
Isidore says in his Etymologies: “If law is based on reason, everything founded on reason will be law.” (SUMMA THEOLOGICA, THOMAS AQUINAS - LAW ST I–II, QUESTION 90)
In the gripping legal thriller "Primal Fear," an egotistical lawyer finds himself defending a man wrongly diagnosed with multiple personality disorder. The case serves as a darkly illuminating lens through which we examine the complexities of human reason within the legal system. Traditional jurisprudence assumes that the law is a function of reason, implying that human beings, endowed with the ability to reason, can be held accountable for their actions. But what happens when this premise is upended?
In "Primal Fear," the defendant manipulates the system, capitalizing on its reliance on human reason as a basis for moral accountability. By feigning a lack of reason—in this case, through a misrepresented mental disorder—he evades culpability for a heinous crime. The film compels us to confront uncomfortable questions: What is reason, and who truly possesses it? How can the law accurately measure reason when it can be so expertly feigned or manipulated?
The plot comes to a chilling conclusion with the realization that the defendant, far from being incapable of reason, is actually a calculating manipulator. He is released, not because the system worked, but because it was flawlessly exploited. "Primal Fear" serves as a haunting critique of a legal framework that, while rooted in the concept of human reason, fails to account for the intricate layers of moral and psychological complexity that define us. It leaves us questioning whether reason is a reliable cornerstone for a system tasked with delivering justice.