1
A Few Good Men is a movie that centers on the trial of two Marines,
Lance
Corporal
Dawson
and
PFC
Downey,
who
have
been
accused
of
murdering a colleague, PFC William T. Santiago, ostensibly because he
did not fit in well with accepted Marine standards, culture and norms.
When
Naval
Investigator
JoAnne
Galloway
comes
across
this
case
she
suspects that the Dawson and Downey may have been pushed into their
actions. She wants to defend them but the task is given to Lieutenant
Kaffee, a young, Navy lawyer who specializes in plea bargains in order
to avoid the trouble of arguing a case in court. In his usual manner,
Kaffee prepares to settle for a quick out of court arrangement. After
being shamed by his clients for his cynical attitude, Kaffee works hard
to mount a very strong defense. His task isn’t easy because his clients
admitted to torturing PFC Santiago and the details of the events that
led to his death are shrouded under military practices, cover ups, and
privileges.
The
focus
of
his
attention
is
Colonel
Jessup,
the
Commanding Officer of the Naval Base, a highly decorated but extremely
arrogant
officer.
Jessup’s
Executive
Officer,
Lt.
Col.
Markinson,
reveals a lot of incriminating information about the goings on at the
Naval Base, but, in a time-honored military tradition, takes his own
life
rather
than
having
to
testify
against
Jessup,
his
superior
officer. In the end, in a bold move, Kaffee is able to play on Colonel
Jessup’s
superior
attitude
and
show
that
he
not
only
encouraged
a
culture of straightening out less effective soldiers in his base by any
means necessary, but actually ordered that the sacred “code red” hazing
procedure be carried out on PFC Santiago to teach him a lesson. The
extent to which power breeds arrogance, contempt, and entitlement is on
clear display when Jessup exclaims, “you can’t handle the truth” and
defends his actions almost as a reward for the “blanket of freedom”
that he provides to his country. Jessup is arrested and Dawson and
Downey are convicted of “conduct unbecoming of a US Marine”.
Consider
first
the
ethical
dilemma
from
the
perspective
of
Colonel Jessup first. As a viewer it may at first seem that there is no
dilemma
given
his
arrogant
and
head
strong
attitude.
Yet,
if
we
consider him more deeply, we understand that in his position Colonel
Jessup cannot afford to be in a position of conflicting perspectives.
He is in charge of keeping a nation safe and must be clear, decisive,
and unwavering in his thoughts and actions. People who have attained an
elevated
position
and
stature
such
as
Colonel
Jessup
are
very
2
intelligent by nature. They are able to resolve their dilemmas quickly
using a few guiding principles. In case of Colonel Jessup, protecting
his
country
determined
was
of
within
paramount
the
scope
importance.
of
this
All
of
framework.
his
actions
Physical
and
were
mental
weakness in any person in his unit was not tolerable in his operational
framework. That he would have ordered a code red on PFC Santiago in
entirely understandable considering the manner in which he treated his
Executive
Officer,
Markison.
What
we
refer
to
as
ethics
was
incompatible with his way of thinking as in his view it would lead to
softness and ultimately an inability to stand up to an enemy.
From the perspective of Lieutenant Kaffee the ethical dilemma is
much worse. He has to reconcile between challenging a highly decorated
military officer in Colonel Jessup and defending junior Marines who
ended up in trouble for following orders. On top of that he carries the
baggage of a rich military family history and the responsibilities as a
lawyer of having to defend his clients without regard to whether or not
he feels they were right or wrong. It appears that Lieutenant Kaffee’s
preference
for
out
of
court
settlements
is
an
indication
of
his
inability to resolve this dilemma for himself. Plea bargains seem to be
an easy way out where everybody goes home happy, and it an acceptable
legal outcome. This is a major contrast to Colonel Jessup’s clear and
firm approach to handling such internal conflicts. From a story telling
perspective it is common for a hero to have to come to terms with such
ethical conflicts, whereas the “anti-hero” has a very clear line of
thought.
Next
Downey,
we
the
consider
victims
in
the
perspective
this
story.
of
Their
the
Marines,
dilemma
must
Dawson
and
have
been
particularly hard on them. Dawson and Downey were simpler people, in
the sense that they did not have the background or experience as their
superior officers or lawyers. They were comfortable buying into the
military ethic of following their chain of command. That was their
simple way of life and a very desirable credo in the military. Yet they
found themselves in trouble, for doing what they were told to do. Did
their ethics let them down? Possibly yes. But again, ethics are best
not interpreted in a strict literal framework. In this case, as Dawson
understands at the end of the movie, their ethics called for a higher
line of thought than just following orders. What was needed of them as
soldiers
was
to
protect
the
weak,
like
Santiago.
Although
the
two
3
Marines were found guilty, their ethic of honoring their duty was not
tarnished.
The ethical framework used to resolve the dilemmas faced by the
various characters was based on the precept that actions that lead to
high moral standards and human virtues should always supercede actions
of convenience or actions minimally conforming to legal limitations.
Colonel
Jessup’s
approach
of
running
a
tight
military
ship
was
commendable and fruitful for him and for his country but only in a
narrow framework of convenience. If everyone in his unit conformed to
his standards it would make Jessup’s work that much easier. In pursuing
this he forgot that Santiago was a human that needed help, and one of
the
military’s
framework
works
higher
purposes
may
for
Lieutenant
be
to
Kaffee
fight
as
for
well.
the
His
weak.
The
approach
had
previously been to take the path of least resistance, without stepping
outside
legal
boundaries.
Plea
bargains
are
convenient
and
legal.
However, in the case of Dawson and Downey, Kaffee realizes a higher
purpose in helping them to keep their honor and dignity. Jessup acts in
a
manner
that
is
inconsistent
with
the
framework
of
high
moral
standards and loses everything. Kaffee is able to surmount his dilemmas
and conform to this ethical framework and ends up as a hero.
An alternate framework would have been to take a moral rights
approach. This line of thinking that each of us has a basic human and
moral
right
to
decide
what
is
best
for
ourselves
and
that
right
supercedes others’ desires to use any of us for achieving different
ends, even if it is for the greater good. Under this framework, Jessup
would have allowed PFC Santiago to leave his unit. His concern of
course would be that doing so would set a precedent that would be
ultimately
harmful
for
his
unit.
This
premise
may
not
be
entirely
valid. Rather it can be argued that the situation that occurred in
Jessup’s
base
was
caused
by
faulty
recruiting
processes,
which
if
improved would lead to a better solution than Jessup’s approach of
trying
to
straighten
out
his
soldiers
using
“code
red”.
The
drama
potential of this framework would possibly not be as engrossing as the
one used in the movie.
Legal
dramas
and
dilemmas
always
make
for
interesting
entertainment because they reflect our individual experiences. We can
relate
to
the
dilemmas
and
feel
immersed
in
the
battle
between
different forces. For every incident described in the story we find
4
parallels in our lives. We take sides, and we form opinions. Every
point of view and argument expressed in these stories is familiar to
us. We ride the ups and downs with the characters of the story. The
outcome of the story may not always be the same as what each of us has
experienced,
but
that
makes
it
more
meaningful,
because
either
way
these stories challenge us to examine our ethical frameworks. Whether
the outcome is a happy one that fits nicely within our framework or
goes against it, we ask ourselves if it could have been different, and
if yes, what could we have learnt. It is this learning from the self
examination that silently happen during these stories that makes them
so interesting.