Reading "88 MINUTES" reminded me of a criminal law class in my sophomore year. The whole class discussed whether the death penalty should be abolished. At that time, I opposed the abolition of the death penalty in China, and I also questioned the specific implementation and social effects of the abolition abroad. Today, my point of view has not changed, but "88 Minutes" inspired me to reconsider more from the perspective of human nature.
A suspect who was about to be sentenced to death hired a young lawyer who had just graduated and used her mental defect to carry out criminal acts such as kidnapping and murder, with only one purpose: to escape. The professor who personally testified the suspect's crime became the target of being framed, and even at the moment when the story intensified, all the evidence pointed to him, and even more ghostly - a voice-changing phone kept calling him: "Your life is still alive. There are 88 minutes...72 minutes...59 minutes...10 minutes".
This is the first proposition of the film. When you are told that you are about to die, will you be frightened, will your body still be controlled by you, and will your spirit still remain sane? What will you do, fight, fight to the death, and whether such fights must comply with social morals and laws, and can there be justice and evil at this time?
Those who haven't been there will never know.
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－The dividing line－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－In
the beginning of human beings, there is no moral concept, and the nature is good and evil. They are all influenced by the environment, herd mentality, and the ability to imitate are all born with lifelong companionship. The concept that has been passed down for thousands of years tells the Chinese that killing people will pay for their lives, so people will have psychological hints before committing crimes. You tell the Chinese people who grew up in such a civilized environment that killing people will not lose the right to life but the right to freedom. Anyone can imagine what kind of thinking changes will occur in society, and who will be responsible for the consequences.
Executing the criminal is a punishment for himself, a warning to the society, a consolation for the relatives and friends of the deceased, and nothing for the deceased. Even if the relatives of the deceased were to personally execute the criminals, it would only be a breath of bad anger in their hearts in a short period of time. In fact, no matter what happens at the moment, the relatives will still feel sad when they think of the deceased after a few decades. The so-called dead are gone. . So why can't we carry out such punishment in a gentler ("humane") way.
The right to life is paramount, and you will be punished if you deprive others of their lives. This is the institutional manifestation of a civilized society with moral constraints, there is no doubt about it. And what kind of punishment should we formulate, which not only punishes the perpetrator, but also warns other people who may commit crimes is a question worth thinking about. Using violence to control violence is also a process of cultural inheritance, and cultural inheritance needs to move towards civilization.
The death penalty needs to exist, and it needs to be done in a gentle way.
And this article commemorates Ms. Shen Dianxia who passed away yesterday.
View more about 88 Minutes reviews
