Question

1. What did the lawmakers in the congressional hearing shown in the Hot Coffee movie, regarding caps on damages in civil lawsuits, say about how the issue in the civil cases compares with allowing juries to freely decide on death penalty cases?

Answer 1

SOLUTION

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING SHOWN IN THE ''HOT COFFEE MOVIE''

Hot Coffee instead tells the tale of something far less sudden but far more important than the fate of a French financier or the future of Orlando's most (in) famous citizen. As its heart, the movie chronicles the demoralizinng results of one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in modern American legal history. Its a tale of how corporate interests, and their dutiful tribunes in political office and on the bench, have stripped the American jury of much of its authority to dispense justice to civil litigants.The title of the documentary suggests the film is about the famous MC Doland's '' hot coffee ''verdict two decades ago. But the narrative includes three other strong and sad legal stories, each showing in its own way the modern-day marginalization of the American jury. Essentially, the stories merge into one theme: to avoid big jury awards, and to close the doors of courthouses on tort plaintiffs and others, corporate groups have bought and paid for like-minded politicians and juries who, in turn, have enacted or endorsed pro-businesses, anti-plaintiff, anti-jury legislation.

It's easy to blast juries over a specific case, especially when jurors, who have given up their lives for weeksor months on end without adequate compensation in the service of their country, don't give us the result we want. The job of the juror is one of the hardest and most solemn jobs a citizen ever may have in a democracy. Each day, all over the country, the jury's delibratoive work is the embodiment of the few inherit powers of the governed over governing.Because of this political and legal dynamic, because of the bond American's still have for their juries, the forces of ''tort reform'' decided to long ago that they would gain better traction in the court of public opinion if they blamed instead for their litigation defeats greedy plaintiffs or better yet, their grreedier trail lawers