A Time to Kill读后感100字
《A Time to Kill》是一本由John Grisham著作，Dell出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：USD 13.00，页数：528，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《A Time to Kill》精选点评：
●legal noval
●精彩！
●米国人还真是喜欢法律fiction...
●the story is simple,but you can see these people like they are standing in front of you.you sink in this story
《A Time to Kill》读后感(一)：This is Grisham
其实这本小说更像是关于美国法制制度的生动写照。很庆幸的是，在之前看了林达的《历史深处的忧虑》，所以对美国的政治法律制度有点了解，不然看这本原版的英文估计十分困难；
美国的律师行业十分发达，通过这部小说可以充分体现，随随便便一个普通人在生活的不同阶段都可能需要找个律师。他们的律师是各有行业特长。
陪审团是审判最后决定被告是否有罪的主要角色。陪审团其实挺悲剧的，在审讯期间不能离开集体安排的住所，与外界信息完全隔绝，避免受公众影响。但是陪审团又是美国公民的义务，掌握着生死大权，被告是否有罪是他们说了算，不是控告官，不是法官，甚至政府都无法干预。a time to kill里Buckley是代表密西西比州政府的，但是他仍然要经历及其漫长的控告程序，经过千辛万苦，最后被告还是无罪释放气得他七窍生烟。
书里对法庭程序的描写十分生动
这本书还让我想起了一部美剧《法律与秩序》，90年开播以来算是很经典的一部了，到底是law在前呢，还是order在前？这是一个问题，在这本书里也经常有体现。有兴趣的人可以进一步研究下。
另外这本书还有很多体现当代普通美国人的种种思想，比如他们的提前消费观，住好房子，开好车。比如Jake被问到有没有犹太朋友，他持比较开放的态度，被问到对同性恋的看法，他又持点保守的态度。
《A Time to Kill》读后感(二)：A Time to Kill
此书乃John Grisham的处女作，看了他的很多作品后，还是最喜欢这本。
以下是我对本书的感慨：
本书很有哈伯·李的《杀死一只知更鸟》的影子，这本1961年出版的经典小说至今仍遭受各种人的口诛笔伐。想必本书受这本名著的影响颇深。
先提一下John Grisham，美国著名庭审罪案惊悚悬疑作家，是Stephen King和谭恩美的好友、他曾是一位极富正义感的律师，一位阿肯色州小镇的建筑工人的儿子。在密西西比就读深造和生活，他是一个地道的南方人。
在当律师时他见了太多的法庭内外的纠葛和人情冷暖、各种悲欢离合、光明正派以及下流龌龊的事情。这深深激起了他为弱者伸张正义的良知，决定从事写作来为世界做点什么。
他现在是一位极富正义感的作家。他作品中的人物始终都是社会中的那些最普通人和底层的弱势群体，从他们所遭受所处的种种不公正的境遇中折射深刻的社会现实问题。其作品和翻拍的影片可看性极强，并且值得人们深思。
美国有了这样充满道德力量和社会责任感的作家，社会和人民的心灵才会得到净化，思想才会得到解放，体制才会得到改善，国家才会强大！
他的这本书，是他的第一部作品，涉及的不光是种族间的价值观念、意识形态的冲突，而是法律在人的眼中的立场，人在所谓法律社会中所扮演的角色。法律是因无情而公正吗，不会偏向任何一方？真的是这样吗？但是，许多法律的立场其实就是人的视角，这样又怎么会有正义？法律难道真的难免根植于人的情感和价值吗？
法律面前，人人平等。正因为如此，不管一个人是否有罪，他和其他人一样，是平等的。
可我不相信改过自新，我只相信证据与科学！
而我更相信的是正义和人的良心以及道德的力量！！
支撑着整个家庭的穷苦黑人Carl Lee Hailey在法院大厅里公然用M-16枪杀了残忍殴打、强暴并试图谋杀他的小女儿的两个白人青年，他用自己在越战时使用过的武器把这两个人渣（毒贩、强奸犯和无可救药的暴徒）的血肉打碎，他们碎肉内脏因此被涂在了神圣法院的墙壁上。他固然有罪。但又有谁想过，他也是受害者……
如果我是那个父亲，如果我的亲友、我爱的人被那样伤害和凌辱，我也会那样做！
当然，那时的社会形势和如今的不同。当时虽不是六十年代的嬉皮时代之美国的种族矛盾的风口浪尖，但在八十年代作为后里根时期/冷战时期的美国，人们的思想乏力，精神生活苍白，而种族矛盾依旧，尤其是在书中的封闭保守的南方小镇。如果换做现在，那么Carl Lee肯定会被判两项一级谋杀、非法使用违禁枪支、公开使用致命武器、危害他人安全、严重破坏社会治安以及藐视法庭等重罪）
全由白人组成的陪审团之所以判处复仇的绝望父亲Carl Lee无罪，一方面是因为他们被Jake Brigance设身处地的超越辩护范畴的感人言辞动容了；另一方面就是为了不想激起更多的次生分歧和冲突。
作者这么给情节布局和设定人物为的是什么？归根结底是为了激发读者的思考和正义感。
什么是真相？什么是正义？不光要用我们的眼去看，用脑去想，还要用心去问自己。
《A Time to Kill》读后感(三)：Killing the killer.2
Then the time moved on to last April. When the judge was still deliberating Yao’s murder case at the end of his first trial, the angry question took on a new appearance:
“Why the hell does it take such a long time to find a filthy rich and socially privileged little punk worthy of death penalty？ There must be some shady business in play.”
y “such a long time”, it means a good 6 months from the actual brutal murder was committed, and less than one month the judge began to hear the case.
ut it a little bit insensitive, the body of the victim wasn’t completely cold and the outrage against the suspect showed no sign of settling down and still posed an enormous threat to corrupt the sense and reason, which we should have used in bringing the suspect to justice.
The ruling of the first trial turned out to be sided with the public opinion. So did the Supreme People’s Court judges in June. Seconds after the Supreme People’s Court upheld the first trial ruling, Yao was executed. China, our motherland, keeps running as top player in the game of the biggest executioners in the world.
During these longest and also shortest two months in Yao Jiaxin’s 22 years life, my girlfriend and I had several on-and-off discussions about his case, all ended as the first one, only more peacefully, partly because I, like most of us geeks would do, gave in first by admitting reluctantly that we were just trying too hard to be sensible smartass and we were wrong in being so insensitive to people's lives and feelings, usually on the cues like “You say he’s a boy, and he deserves a second chance. Who’s gonna give the victim a second chance？ ”
《A Time to Kill》读后感(四)：Killing the killer 1
Last March, when the court in Xi'an started to hear Yao Jiaxin’s murder case, the national conversation was dominated by one question:
Why waste taxpayers' money to give a filthy rich and socially privileged little punk a trial？ Isn’t it a no-brainer that you don’t kill some one for nothing？ You have to pay for it, with your LIFE!
(As it turned out later, he was neither rich nor socially privileged. Not even close. Rumor kills. Or at least, rumor asks for killing).
My usually reasonable girlfriend was one of the many questioners at the time.
he got annoyed (one thing to blame was definitely my habitual condescending tone) when I tried to say that it takes a fair trial to make an important decision like the one whether or not to legally kill a citizen. Yao might nonetheless be found guilty in the end, but at least he was entitled to tell the story from his side.
he fought back by saying, “What story from his side？ What he has to say after killing somebody？ She was a mother! With a two years old baby! Why don’t you use a little common sense？ Any part of ‘An eye for an eye’ you don’t understand？”
Riled up, I said, “Oh, sounds like you have personally flied to Xi’an and had a very nice check on the knife he used to kill. May I ask how long is it？ Anyway, I didn’t get the chance to see any evidence whatsoever, so I’m gonna keep an open mind and give him the benefit of doubt.”
To be honest, the “benefit of doubt” thing was just a piece of angry talking crap. There was almost no such thing as reasonable doubt in this case. The guy turned himself in, and gave a pretty touching confession. (I mean he was crying like he had never cried)
What I was trying to say was: just imagine how different you might feel towards this “sociopath” if you were to be presented with this evidence collected from his crime scene (I make this evidence up just to give you a taste of the importance of evidence):
What if rather than some fancy car guessed by Weibo users, the car Yao was driving were a lousy second hand bought by his father using the money the old man had put together by saving and borrowing.
It is true how tough the life is for his family is no reason for justifying his monstrous deed. But my point was before we heard the story told by both sides, it was just wrong to conclude whether Yao was a cold blood bastard worthy of being killed like a dog, or just an irresponsible boy who had no idea what he was doing and maybe, just maybe deserved a second chance.
Although in the end both of my girlfriend and I decided it was stupid to fight over other’s problem, none of us succeeded in changing the other’s mind.
《A Time to Kill》读后感(五)：Killing the Killer 3
This afternoon, I went to Zhenhong’s graduate school attending the lecture on The Theory of Financial Crisis by Eric Maskin.
At Q&A, I asked him whether economists shall be at least partly responsible for the financial crisis because they failed to make their warnings before and during the run-up to the financial crisis more persuasive and convincing.
Agreeing he said, “Economists should have produced more literature on topics like financial crisis. And actually that’s what we’ve been doing since the 2008 but it’s just a little bit too late.”
Trying to draw him out to comment more on that I said, “In my opinion what economists have done since the last crisis is just taking on the condescending tone ‘I’ve told you so, and it’s your fault that you fail to listen to me.’”
He replied, “In the future economists have to write more, not only for other economists, but also for the general public.”
Isn’t that the same case in People v. Yao Jiaxin？
As intellectuals, we picture ourselves as someone who has the insight to identify the problem where others see nothing. However, more often than not, out of some mysterious reasons, we just fail to get that message across.
Why？
Constantly we are frustrated by the fact that whenever we see a chance of lecturing and jump in on it, only to find that there are eyes rolling, “Dude, you’re such a geek. We’re just trying to talk”.
Gradually we learn to back off, give in first, and finally stay away from controversial issues for good.
Maybe, it is our problem: over thinking, full of jargons, always the first one to hop on the moral high horse.
Then even if we want to touch the hot issues, we choose to keep the debate within a tiny little circle, to people who are also geeky like us, so that we can avoid being singled out as the nerd in the room.
One thing led to another. We began to lose touch with the real life. We start to lose track of the way in which “normal” people, people who would go out and drink and talk with strangers, are thinking and feeling.
As a result, we become the real nerds just because of sheer fear of being humiliated, which would never have been felt like humiliation, if we hadn’t regarded us as superior to the others in the first place.
Talking about self-fulfilling prophecy.
As people finding disproportionate pleasures in things other than worldly, we may be able to comfort even pride ourselves by saying “People eat to live, while intellectuals eat to think.” That saves us from the haunting question “Why do we eat and live？”
ut what about that question: WHY DO WE THINK？
That may have been the question Socrates was thinking when Polemarchus mocked him, “You could talk as you will. But what if we refuse to listen？”
Did Socrates feel the same frustration we are feeling on a daily basis？ Did he give in？