THEME: Vigilante Justice
1.0 HYPOTHESIS
Movies involving violent crime often position the viewer to sympathise with the victim who enacts the revenge by killing, thus establishing the premise that revenge killing is justified.
2.0 SYNOPSIS
2.1 The way society views vigilante justice and the ideology that it is acceptable are the primary issues in three of the following American films, A Time To Kill, Sleepers and Eye For An Eye. These three films were tested in comparison with the hypothesis that states that the viewer is positioned to accept the revenge killing, thus establishing a premise that vigilante activity is justified. In A Time To Kill, a black father Carl Lee Hailey, is put on trial after murdering the two white men who brutally attacked and raped his daughter. Hailey's lawyer, Jake Brigance, through his incredible "story telling" ability, is able to convince the jury to reach a "not guilty" verdict. This outcome seems to support the idea that the murders are acceptable, therefore insinuating a sense of justice, when in reality yet another injustice has occurred.
2.2 The killing of Sean Nokes in Sleepers is a perfect example of revenge being carried out in cold-blooded murder. The movie unfolds the dreadful story of four boys' lives and the abuse they incurred at the Wilkinson Home for boys under Sean Nokes command. Now men, and at the crossroads of life, two of them murder the guard in a bar, promoting the act of revenge killing as being equitable.
2.3 Eye For An Eye is a film that establishes the premise that the legal system often fails, which consequently creates a situation that implores justice to be served in an illegal manner. Perhaps, it could be considered the most disturbing example of vigilante justice as both the sociopathic killer and victim's vengeful mum are engaged in a dangerous game of provocation, intimidation and retaliation.
2.4 The issue of vigilantism in each of the three movies has proven the hypothesis to be true, with each of the films positioning the viewer to accept the killing and to sympathise with the victim as if they are the only wronged party. The philosophy that says revenge killing is a form of justice is constantly depicted to society through films such as the above. However, in essence the film makers carry an unseen responsibility to the viewer to unveil the moral issues that ari...
... middle of paper ...
... or test. Films recreate reality for many reasons, primarily as a means of engaging the audience so that they will buy another ticket or induce someone else to purchase one. If this is the case, then the mantel of responsibility to depict a moral and just view of any issue rests solely on the film industry. By advocating vigilante activity and positioning the viewer to accept this idea in films, society cannot be expected to trust the judicial system, instead they may resort to violence and even murder as if it were the proper resolution to crime.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 A greater effort at presenting the moral dilemma and ethical bewilderment faced by parties in films that deal with vigilantism is needed. This would create a more genuine assessment and capture the seriousness faced in many real life situations rather than simply simulating a specific situation.
8.2 Filmmakers need to establish a greater awareness of other relationships within modern films. Therefore, delving into the idea that revenge killing does not produce a purely idealistic result, but many times increases the pain and prolongs the healing process of family members and friends associated with the victim.
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it. Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with numerous images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by means of force. Thus, indoctrinating a nation of individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems can be resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating the fact that we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for individuals to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an individual strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period of time, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the ...
A society that presumes a norm of violence and celebrates aggression, whether in the subway, on the football field, or in the conduct of its business, cannot help making celebrities of the people who would destroy it, (Lapham, 1985). Unfortunately, such acts of rampage have become a prevalent factor in the Canadian culture. As a result of endless media coverage, Canadians now are constantly bombarded with countless images of violence. Many of which often portray a victim avenging their opponent by force. Thus, indoctrinating individuals to believe that it is only through aggression that problems are resolved. Rather than being punished for acts of violence, those who commit such offenses are often praised for their “heroism”. In addition, the success of films like The Godfather, Gladiator, and Troy further aid in reinstating we live in a society that praises violence. Furthermore, this ideology allows for people to partake in violent acts with little or no backlash from ones community. However, when an person strays away from the “norm”, they are likely to then be viewed as a deviant. Such cases of rejection within a society, are often seen in the portrayal of serial killers. Although our society tends to condone violence when it is directed towards a specific individual(s), it does not allow the killing of innocent bystanders. Instead, crimes that are targeted against a number of people over a long period, entail the harshest forms punishments under the law. Sadly, in executing the law for said crimes, those in charge often face much public scrutiny. Such occurrences were apparent in the faulty murder investigations of Canada's most notorious serial killer Robert Pickton. This is due to the fact that, the negligence of the Vancou...
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty,” published in the New York Times Magazine is an essay that focuses on convincing the reader to donate their extra income to charities. Singer's solution suggests that every American should stop using their money to buy luxuries but rather donate that money to charities, including UNICEF and over sea aid organizations. The opening of the piece starts with a hypothetical scenario, where Dora is put into a situation where she can choose between gaining extra cash verses saving a child’s life. The essay continues to another scenario where Bob, who is also put into a critical decision making choice, has to choose between saving his valuable car and saving a child’s life. Singer then ties together these scenarios and how
However, three ethical decisions that this learning will make after viewing the film is to always assist individual to the best of your ability, despite personal issues with loved ones or friends; next, always report crimes, no matter the consequence they may have; and last but not least, stand up for what’s right, even if it leads to misfortune. The pros of each of these decisions is peace within yourself. However, one of the cons is dealing with negative pressures. For example, when you report a crime, you may be summoned to court, and have to deal with the negative criticism.
This article also makes referral comparison to another genre of film “Unlike in other genres (detective, thriller), there is usually neither sympathy for the victims of Evil nor admiration for heroes opposing it.”(Kord, 2016) Violence is what triggers the guilt in the audience and what starts to make them speculate of their morality. “Violence may well be the horror film’s way of hacking away at its audience to engage with guilt. Admit who you are. Admit what you did.” (Kord, 2016) The author questions other theorists with an ample amount of valid research from validated
Singer starts with the base of assumption that suffering and death from lack of the essentials of food, water, shelter, and proper medical assistance are bad. I find no problem with accepting this assumption as it is consistent with most widely accepted moral theories. Singer continues by stating “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it”(Singer, Pg.231). Like his first statement, this one is easy to swallow. No moral code, save for maybe ethical egoism or nihilism, would attempt to refute either of his premises. His final conclusion is that if it is in our power to stop suffering and death from lack of the essentials, without sacrificing anything of comparable moral worth, we are morally obligated to do so. This essentially removes the current definition of charity, making giving money to famine relief, not a supererogatory act, but a moral duty of all people who have the ability to do so. Singer admits that this would drastically change the way people live their lives. Instead of living with any disposable income, people would be giving money to those who are living under bad or unsurvivable conditions. But wi...
Revenge is defined as harming someone for the wrong doings that they commit. Revenge is the key ingredient to hundreds of the most loved and action packed movies, books, and shows of today. Because of the fact that there is so much vengeance played out in entertainment media, society encourages revenge as necessary to those seeking retribution. Works of art such as Kill Bill and “Killings” are prime examples of stories that are about revenge.
“If you live in a society where the rule of law is weak, revenge provides a way to keep order. But revenge comes at a price. Instead of helping you move on with your life, it can leave you dwelling on the situation and remaining unhappy, psychologists' research finds. Considering revenge is a very human response to feeling slighted…,” (Price). Revenge is a natural human response that we think will help us; however, many times it ends up hurting us. Based on my findings, revenge is viewed as acceptable, but experts say it can also be detrimental to those seeking retribution.
' God, I've never done anything. Help me, help me, help me! God, why is this happening? Help Me!'; Robert Violante screamed as the Son of Sam's .44 caliber bullet tore through his temple (Mitchell p.15). At this moment Robert Violante must have asking himself why this was happening, what could cause someone to do something so atrocious? This paper examines issues related to the definition and study of serial murder. It probes the minds of some of the world's most infamous killers all the while asking the question WHY. It examines methodological issues such as problems with the FBI's so called serial murder profiling system: the fact that the serial killer stereotypes does not necessarily stand true. This paper argues that the killer is not the only one to blame for his/her actions. Together we will probe the minds of killers such as Charles Manson and John Wayne Gacy. I ask you, 'Are they Murderers or Victims?'; I personally have come to the conclusion that they are both murderers and victims.
Knowing who will be inspired by a movie meant for entertainment and go on a killing spree is highly unlikely and until then copycat acts of violence will continue to baffle society. But in the minds of a few already unstable minds the violence that some movies depict will take on a reality of their own. Then, regretfully there’s one fact that can’t be denied, it does happen. When an unstable mind is influenced by a movie the results the results can be devastating. Movies do influence society’s view on violence and in some rare cases it will motivate some to violence.
But incidents like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting are predictable; they are not a random act of brutality because such violence is a learned behavior. Americans glorify violence and this attitude is illustrated through the tolerance of violence portrayed through the media. And although distinguishing between violence as pure entertainment and violence as social criticism is important, good intentions can still lead to terrible outcomes. The effect of viewing violent films has been insufficiently considered, yet plays a significant role in encouraging aggressive behavior.
In his article, the author Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to encourage people to reevaluate his or her ability to contribute to the underprivileged people of the world. Singer is addressing this article to any person with the ability to donate. The author makes it clear that nearly everyone has the ability to make a difference is others lives. Additionally, in “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, the author explain that we have a duty to give, but he is not stating whether it is a duty of justice in Narveson’s sense. He is not stating if would be morally correct for anyone to force us or impose to us to give to the needy. This author is trying to persuade or convince people to give voluntarily. The author is not enforcing to do something, this is contrary to Narveson’s position “enforced fee”. “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” addresses the urgency for a more generous world. Peter Singer presents valid points within his work in a way that provokes one to question their morals and ethics. He rationalizes the gift of donation in an unconventional but motivating manor. The main purpose of “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is to
Revenge is considered part of human nature because it is a survival instinct. Humans are inclined to commit acts of savagery because people are delicate beings. The Oxford English Dictionary defines revenge as, “the action of hurting or harming someone in return for an injury or wrong suffered.” Two good examples involve Montresor from the Cask of Amontillado and the unknown narrator from the Tell- Tale Heart. Montresor murders a fellow wine connoisseur because he insulted Montresor in a manner that could not be exonerated. The narrator of the Tell-Tale Heart enacts revenge by murdering an old man for provoking the narrator’s worst fears in the form of a “ vulture eye”. In both of these works by Edgar Allen Poe, the need for revenge consumed their internal fears and insecurities to perform those cruel acts. In the end though, both of the people discussed showed signs of remorse that in a way formed the character.
So in conclusion, revenge may be justified for some, but rarely does one achieve a feeling pleasure when other negative outcomes are associated with the act. As laws have been established and enforced to provide a sense of order, the need for revenge is no longer justifiable nor soul cleansing because some people thrive on vengeance, some people thrive on old prejudices, and others are hero seekers which does not achieve the desired end result. Following peaceful resolutions as espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may best serve righting of any wrongs in society and managed by those that can handle the responsibility.