Bridge Of Spies

I actually enjoyed the movie Bridge of Spies, even though I never heard of it. It is funny how on one side we as people wanted to make sure the book was thrown at Mr. Rudolph for being a spy but we send spies out to do the same thing yet when they are caught we want them freed and return home safe and sound. Mr. Donovan was the only person who put his personal believes to the side and focused on the case through the eyes of the law. He know and wanted to address from the beginning that the evidence found was fruit of the Poisonous tree because there was an arrested warrant but no search warrant.

Is it difficult for you to see both sides of an issue?
No, it should not be difficult seeing both sides of an issue. I believe it is a good thing to see every case from both sides. Seeing every case for
I don’t believe that it would be hard for me to make arguments in support of positions in which I personally do not agree with. The support of the positions comes from a legal standpoint and not my personal beliefs. I don’t agree with everything that is law but nevertheless it is still the law.

How will you overcome this if it is a problem?
If there is a problem with supporting an issue which I personally don’t agree I would first remove all my personal, religious, and traditional views. Then I would take the time to focus on the legal issues at hand and just apply the laws and statutes while reviewing the case.

If it is not a problem for you, how do you approach writing such arguments?
The difference between the approaches is whether that analysis is expressed objectively or persuasively. [1] “The goal of objective writing is to inform and predict using a neutral point of view, with careful attention to OBJECTIVITY (as in an objective memo), while persuasive writing is aimed at creating a desired outcome with a specific AUDIENCE (as in an appellate brief)”.