As I mentioned in FINNEGAN BEGIN AGAIN, OUTRAGE! was Robert Preston's last performance on film. He plays Dennis Riordan, a man of quiet determination. His daughter was raped and murdered, and as a result his wife died of the horror and strain of the tragedy. But what made it worse was one of those legal technicalities came up regarding the even handedness of the "fair trial" theory of our law. As a result the perpetrator is released. So Preston, a few months later, tracks him down and kills him.
Preston, of course, is arrested, and would have a perfect defense of temporary insanity. He refuses the suggestion of his lawyer Beau Bridges to use this defense. He knew what he was doing - killing a mad dog who destroyed his family. Of course, in our legal system, that is not a viable defense...or is it?
OUTRAGE! picks at the defects of the judicial system. The perpetrator was not stopped and seized by the police properly. He was grabbed because of a racially chosen reason (he did not racially fit into the neighborhood the police grabbed him in). Had the court not thrown the arrest and the evidence collected out, the perpetrator would have ended up in prison. But it is one of those "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal no-nos, because it is not based on a reasonable, non-biased reason to have suspected the perpetrator. That this view is actually ridiculous under the circumstances does not matter. As Ambrose Bierce points out, in one of his FANTASTIC FABLES, when a Supreme Court Judge allows a man the right to use a boat on a river that sinks and drowns him - the state of the boat was not brought to the Judge's attention! This, unfortunately, is a problem we all share (even, by the way, the criminals - I wish somebody would one day do a film showing a "successful" criminal tied up in knots by the legal system that has previously helped him). Bridges wants to find out why the perpetrator got out, and slowly finds it was a decision by Judge Mel Ferrer (a fine performance of a man who hates having to do such things). Bridges shows that this legal nit-picking is responsible for real loss of respect for the law.
SPOILER COMING UP: Bridges in his summation turns the situation around on it's head. He points out to the jury that what it all came down to was a legal decision for philosophical reasons to throw out important evidence against the rapist killer because it did not seem fair. So, Bridges says, he wishes that if it was up to him, the jury would consider the actual physical and eyewitness testimony against Preston as so much evidence that can be discarded for the same reason. The jury takes the hint, and releases Preston.
Preston's health must have been beginning to deteriorate (he died in 1987). His character has some good moments in the script, chatting with Bridges about the idiocies of a legal system he really can't understand. But he is not as central in the film as Bridges or Ferrer are. Still the film was thoughtful enough to make it a good final film for Preston's career to end with.
Preston, of course, is arrested, and would have a perfect defense of temporary insanity. He refuses the suggestion of his lawyer Beau Bridges to use this defense. He knew what he was doing - killing a mad dog who destroyed his family. Of course, in our legal system, that is not a viable defense...or is it?
OUTRAGE! picks at the defects of the judicial system. The perpetrator was not stopped and seized by the police properly. He was grabbed because of a racially chosen reason (he did not racially fit into the neighborhood the police grabbed him in). Had the court not thrown the arrest and the evidence collected out, the perpetrator would have ended up in prison. But it is one of those "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal no-nos, because it is not based on a reasonable, non-biased reason to have suspected the perpetrator. That this view is actually ridiculous under the circumstances does not matter. As Ambrose Bierce points out, in one of his FANTASTIC FABLES, when a Supreme Court Judge allows a man the right to use a boat on a river that sinks and drowns him - the state of the boat was not brought to the Judge's attention! This, unfortunately, is a problem we all share (even, by the way, the criminals - I wish somebody would one day do a film showing a "successful" criminal tied up in knots by the legal system that has previously helped him). Bridges wants to find out why the perpetrator got out, and slowly finds it was a decision by Judge Mel Ferrer (a fine performance of a man who hates having to do such things). Bridges shows that this legal nit-picking is responsible for real loss of respect for the law.
SPOILER COMING UP: Bridges in his summation turns the situation around on it's head. He points out to the jury that what it all came down to was a legal decision for philosophical reasons to throw out important evidence against the rapist killer because it did not seem fair. So, Bridges says, he wishes that if it was up to him, the jury would consider the actual physical and eyewitness testimony against Preston as so much evidence that can be discarded for the same reason. The jury takes the hint, and releases Preston.
Preston's health must have been beginning to deteriorate (he died in 1987). His character has some good moments in the script, chatting with Bridges about the idiocies of a legal system he really can't understand. But he is not as central in the film as Bridges or Ferrer are. Still the film was thoughtful enough to make it a good final film for Preston's career to end with.