It was probably a cultural issue. The reasoning part was vague. I didn't understand the passengers' surnames, Christian names, middle names, etc. until the end.
In the plot part, the detective finally decided to let the 12 people go according to the simple plot, which surprised me.
I have always felt that the murderer has no right to enforce the law, even if the crime is monstrous. Judicial punishment of criminals is justice, and individual punishments are private fights.
But seeing the final conclusion of the detective here, the 12 innocent and upright victims were spared. I think the idea of blindly opposing the execution of lynchings is also debatable?
I have always opposed the victim punishing the murderer, simply because it is difficult for the victim to sentence the murderer from an objective point of view.
But if the victim can reasonably sentence the murderer, is it possible to skip the judicial step in some very special cases?
For example, in this case, the murderer deserves the death penalty, skipping the judicial process and punishing it by 12 stakeholders, which I think is reasonable.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
