question:You are an AI assistant that follows instruction extremely well. Help as much as you can. Answer the following question: Suggest a movie title for the following movie plot: In Toms River, New Jersey, the Marshalls — Rob (Urich) and Maria (Kerns), and their three sons, 18-year-old Roby (Barry Gray), 17-year-old Chris (Jay Underwood) and 12-year-old John (Johnny Galecki) — are an apparently happy family living the American Dream. But in September 1984, Maria is shot and killed, and Rob claims she was murdered by a robber while he was changing a flat tire. When the police commence their investigations, however, they discover unsettling truths about the Marshalls: Rob has secretly accumulated an enormous debt and has secured a second mortgage of 100,000 in Maria's name, and is having an affair with a married neighbor, Felice Richmond (Robin Strasser). Maria had known of the affair, and had considered divorce but decided to work on their marriage shortly before she was killed. Felice gives the police a statement that Rob wanted to get rid of his wife to collect on her life insurance, and he immediately becomes the prime suspect. At first, Rob's friends and sons support him. But they begin to notice that he does not seem to be in mourning over Maria's death, and Rob's best friend Sal (Joe Spano) is angry that he is more interested in building a future with Felice. Rob is advised by his lawyer not to contact Felice because it could influence his image; this troubles Rob, who is deeply in love with her. Meanwhile, the police have expanded their list of suspects to include Andrew Meyers (Jake Dengel), a Louisiana shop clerk who had contact with Rob concerning his financial problems, and Arnie Eggers, a rumored hitman. As all evidence seems to point to Rob, Felice breaks off their relationship, which leads him to unsuccessfully attempt suicide in a motel. By this point, Chris admits for the first time that he suspects his father might in fact be guilty. Roby and John are both shocked to hear this, strongly believing in their father's innocence. Rob admits to Sal that he hired Ferlin L'Heureux (William Forsythe), a private detective, on the night his wife was killed to find out how he... Answer:

question:Short general knowledge question: when did sanchez leave usc?

question:You are a helpful assistant, who always provide explanation. Think like you are answering to a five year old. Write an article based on this summary: – Talk about holding a grudge. Five lead tablets buried in the grave of a young Greek woman about 2,400 years ago bear curses against four tavern-keepers in Athens, LiveScience reports. Apparently, burying the tablets was thought to put the curses closer to gods who could fulfill them. "Cast your hate upon Phanagora and Demetrios and their tavern and their property and their possessions," reads one, against a husband-and-wife pair of tavern owners. The curse-writer then threatens to put Demetrios "in such a bind ... as strong as possible," and "smite down a kynotos on [your] tongue." Now Jessica Lamont, who teaches at John Hopkins University, has written about the 2003 find in an academic journal—and casts light on the phrase "kynotos on [your] tongue." Meaning "dog's ear," the kynotos was used in gambling as "the name for the lowest possible throw of dice," says Lamont. "By striking Demetrios' tongue with this condemningly unlucky roll, the curse reveals that local taverns were not just sociable watering holes, but venues ripe for gambling and other unsavory activities in Classical Athens." Lamont says someone "in the world of the tavern" may have hired a professional curse-writer to place the tablets—which are pierced by an iron nail—into the grave so that "chthonic" (or underworld) gods would act on them. A 1,700-year-old lead curse tablet found in a Roman mansion in Jerusalem is no less ominous: "I strike and strike down and nail down the tongue, the eyes, the wrath, the ire, the anger, the procrastination, the opposition of [curse target] Iennys," it reads, per a 2013 article in Discovery.

question:You are an AI assistant. You will be given a task. You must generate a detailed and long answer. Select the correct sentiment of the following review: To fight against the death penalty is a just cause. Everyone who is sane in Europe would think so. In the USA everything is different. The film seems to demonstrate in a first stage that justice can be won against the racist bigot death penalty craving American justice. A young man is freed from death row thanks to a law professor who went back to defense counseling for this particular case. But the film has a sequel. Justice in the USA is entirely governed by the aim of vengeance. Miscarriage of justice is just the same governed by vengeance. One person in the local Public Attorney Offfice has a young man prosecuted on false charges. This Public Attorney's officer drops the charges after a while and the young man walks out free. But he loses his college scholarship and he is castrated by some vengeful people for whom there is never any smoke without a fire. He hides his shame and swears to get his vengeance. But he also needs to satisfy his sexual needs which are more mental than hormonal for sure but even stronger because mental and no longer hormonal and he can only do that with little girls. He apparently teams with another serial killer who is after the same kind of preys. One day the local cops follow their intuition, guided by some vague circumstantial elements in the assassination of a young girl, and they arrest the young chap we are speaking of. They beat him up and interrogate him for 22 hours with nothing but blows and blows and telephone books and guns and Russian roulette. He confesses. Sent to death row, he asks his grandmother to go get the law professor in Massachusetts who is the husband of the Local Public Attorney's representative that had him falsely prosecuted some years ago and the vengeance is on the rails. It will fail but it shows that as soon as one in the line of justice, police work and other security forces steps off the line of absolute legality, some unjust act is done that can ruin even the best accusation case and that can nourish the worst deepest imaginable thirst for vengeance. To charge someone on circumstantial elements is just as bad as to let circumstantial elements ruin the work of the police or of justice. The best intentions on the police side are ruined by some personal involvement and vengeful intention, just as much as the life of a person can be jeopardized by circumstantial elements inflated to the size of evidence, which in its turn will jeopardize the whole case by being just circumstantial, hence easily discardable, with a good lawyer. The film then is a deep reflection on the necessity to respect standards and regulations all along the police and justice line if we don't want to make a mistake, which in its turn of course does not justify the death penalty since anyway it goes against the deepest belief Americans are supposed to have: "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (Declaration of Independence) Life is an unalienable Right that was given to man by his Creator, which means no one but the one who gave it can take it away. Only God can take the life of a person away. The death penalty is the arrogant appropriation of a power that we do not have. Even if we do not evoke God, we cannot justify the death penalty except as an act of vengeance, and here the film shows vengeance is the worst possible motivation in the rendition of justice and in the establishment of public peace. If vengeance is pushed aside there is no other justification for this death penalty. And there can always be a mistake in that pursuit not of Happiness but of vengeance. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID OPT: 1). negative; 2). positive;