First of all, the heroine was convicted, but the film does not tell us whether he filmed because he was coerced or voluntarily filmed. If it was coerced into filming, then the heroine herself is also the victim of the fire that burned the girl, and she was forced to participate in the heinous crime. Then it is very likely that she will suffer significant psychological trauma as a result. If it is a voluntary filming, it means that the heroine has at least a good psychological quality, and will not cause any problems due to the filming, and it is likely that she still enjoys it. So this brings up a question, is it a sin to see death and not save it? The heroine did not directly commit crimes against the girl, she just filmed the process of a person being burned to death. If she was innocent, then she should not have been treated as the trial that followed, and so were the gardeners who supposedly tried him. If it is a crime to see death without saving, then the heroine should be tried, and the people in the garden are also guilty, and the heroine commits the crime of seeing death and not saving once a day, trapped in the store and smashing the door with a fire extinguisher, there are obviously three people You can go forward together to subdue the gunmen, but the heroine watched a very rare stranger who helped her and the gangsters get entangled with each other and ran away with no life and death. Unless there is an occasion to point out the target if you see death or not, then it doesn't matter even if you see death and refuse to save a convicted prisoner like the heroine. In addition, there is a third situation. The boyfriend did not coerce her, but she herself was worried that it would be dangerous if she did not shoot, so she pretended to be willing to shoot. Is this voluntary or coercive? I don't know, the film doesn't tell us at all, so whether the heroine is guilty still needs more evidence.
Even though the heroine is guilty, she has lost her memory. From the point of view of memory constituting her personality, she is no longer the guilty heroine she used to be. Her body may be guilty, but her personality and spiritual mind are no longer guilty. However, the punishment was still carried out over and over again. Every night, she was forced to experience those terrible things again. In fact, at this time, she herself was very resistant and afraid of the terrible burning incident. It is clearly wrong to impose a daily trial and punishment on a woman who at least looks good in the film. Its only function may be to educate the public, telling the public that anyone who is convicted will suffer such an endless cycle of catastrophe.
From a contemporary liberal point of view, the rights of everyone must be protected, even criminals. The people in the play don't treat criminals as human beings at all. They are watched, played, and lost their memory. This is beyond the scope of punishment, and it has completely turned into a game of public carnival. The public did not come to judge the heroine, and they did not gain pleasure from justice. They are simply in the name of justice, in that fictional society, legally and reasonably abusing a person and enjoying the joy of playing together. They are not indifferent, they are even enthusiastic, and they are enthusiastic about the company of everyone who can be "justly" abused. From this point of view, everyone in the play is guilty, so nature has given us the calamity of endless reincarnation as punishment, so that human beings always suffer from various man-made disasters in cycles. Humans are neither great nor humble at all.
As an aside, the argument about using violence to control violence or punishing the devil by means of the devil will eventually become the devil. I am quite opposed to this assertion, because this assertion is purely a philosophical belief without any evidence to support it. Personal speculation, perhaps this belief is more out of fear of the state apparatus, so it is necessary to cut off the power of the state apparatus to interfere with individuals. From a game-theoretic perspective, the best strategy in the prisoner's dilemma to promote cooperation while reducing betrayal has so far been a tit-for-tat strategy. Trust each other at first, and whenever the other party betrays me, I will betray him too, until the next cooperation. Human nature is selfish, and at the same time everyone is in a limited environment, so in this limited environment everyone makes a decision on a certain issue, from the perspective of the length of life, it can be regarded as a simultaneous occurrence. In other words, everyone's environment can be regarded as a multi-person prisoner's dilemma, so at present, only an eye for an eye strategy can best ensure the interests of all those who are deep in the prisoner's dilemma. Besides, what means to use to punish is only defined by the purpose and function of punishment. On this basis, even if the murderer is killed and the rapist is raped, I don't find it strange. The murderer may not be afraid of being killed or raped, the rapist may not be afraid of being raped, but afraid of losing his freedom. If he wants to be punished, he should be punished in the way he fears the most. , let him also suffer once the sin he committed is effective. So the key is to look at the purpose and means of punishment. Maybe in the future, with the development of science and technology, we can have more gentle punishment methods, such as brainwashing, so that rapists can be directly washed into people who will not rape. However, when we try to educate by means of punishment, no one actually has any hope that a person who has been in prison for decades will be rehabilitated. If the punishment method of the state machine really has such a good educational effect, if everyone goes in and out is a good person, maybe we should worry again, whether the state machine already has technological means to make us all become slaves. So people don't feel that the role of punishment will be enlightening at all. They just want to keep convicted people away from normal society so that they won't be violated.
Assuming that we treat the convicted person as a human being and respect his rights, should we respect the fanatical criminal impulse in his head? Of course not, the protection of individual rights must be premised on not infringing on the rights of others. So should we brainwash this person into a good person? Wouldn't this infringe on the freedom of thought and at the same time commit a confession of thought crime? Then what should we do? It seems that there is no more humane way than isolating him from human society forever. Therefore, the current punishment methods are isolation, that is, imprisonment, the most practical, the lowest cost, and the best method for both individuals and society.
No matter what the screenwriter of this film wants to express, what I see is the animal nature of human beings, who like bloody and violent enslavement, as long as it is not me who is enslaved by bloody violence. People are just selfish to dig out the bird's nest, catch the bugs, and gradually go to the crowd selfishly, shoot video, smash tomatoes, not just for fun, playing with your life and my morals.
View more about Be Right Back reviews
