Although it looks cool in the middle, the beginning is really unreasonable. 1. These two criminals really don't seem to have such an IQ that people can't find any evidence, especially this Darby (typing his name makes me feel sick) 2. The fact that the male protagonist saw with his own eyes cannot be Considering valid evidence, the confession of one of the criminals is valid? Darby's accusation of his accomplice of murder, can it be used as valid evidence? Does he have to admit it is himself? The mutual accusation of the two accomplices is driven by personal interests, right? I accuse you and you accuse me, and then only listen to one side? What is the logic?
However, despite the various loopholes, it still caused a lot of thinking.
The presumption of guilt and the presumption of innocence, which one is more capable of upholding judicial justice? Suppose there is really no evidence for a murder case, and a suspect is finally convicted, and the victim's family has an account, but what about the wrongly convicted party. Should we kill 10,000 people by mistake and not spare any bad person, or should we rather let 10,000 bad people go without wronging any good person?
I think people who work in the legal system have become too accustomed to one tragedy after another, and the victims who are unable to cry have gradually become numb. They gradually quantify each individual into a number. They have no time or inability to pay attention to whether justice is really being served, and they cannot truly empathize with the victims. Only when their own interests and safety are threatened, do they begin to increase their vigilance and begin to introspect.
A series of big actions of the male protagonist are also reminiscent of some events in today's society. When you moan alone and no one cares, you go to the Internet to incite the power of the media, and your event will be noticed and spread. The fire of a single spark cannot start a prairie, only the fire of a single spark can start a prairie. Maybe the social machine is too big and we are too small. We have been taught to abide by the law since childhood, but when I am violated, can I guarantee that the offender will receive the punishment it deserves? When will we be taught to repay grievances and injustices, we are taught to repay grievances with virtue, and at the same time we are taught that good will be rewarded with good and evil will be rewarded, right?
I really hate this kind of story where a good guy ends up committing a crime because of a bad guy and gets punished by the law. Why can't the law punish bad guys more? I saw a news before saying that many of the felons in women's prisons killed their husbands against long-term domestic violence. Such a thing is so powerless. I just wanted to do my job, the law couldn't really protect me, I tried to keep myself safe, and I went to jail.
In any case, everything will get better and better, and the legal system will become more and more perfect. Even if it cannot guarantee absolute fairness and justice in the end, we still have expectations and awe for it.
View more about Law Abiding Citizen reviews
