That's somewhat interesting, but I'm not sure the article is really telling us anything. As the author says, these sorts of films are about getting the "bad guys." Thus, revenge films can be cathartic even for people who have completely different notions of just who the "bad guys" are. I don't think we learn much from this, except that not everyone is perfectly content with the state of the world. And that's not news.
To me, this is partially an example of how desperate most writers/journalists are to find political relevance in whatever it is they have to write about.
Anyway, I don't know if we can call this a trend yet, but even if it is, the conclusions are premature. The entire article is predicated on the assumption that people are interested in these movies. But what if they bomb? If audiences don't respond to them, then we've only learned about the mindstate of a handful of screenwriters and studio executives. And I'm pretty sure we already knew what they thought about world affairs.
I dunno--Hollywood makes a lot of films about judges and police and even private citizens getting revenge on criminals that our apparently inadequate justice system turns loose. But if the punishment of criminals really were a major issue, if Americans were really mad over that, I think we'd be seeing protests outside of bail bondsmen's offices just like outside of abortion clinics.
In years of covering crimes and criminals through the police beat and the courthouse beat, I've seen defendents who I was sure would--or should--be convicted walk free, and I've seen trials in which the prosecution had no case at all, from what I could see.
Anyway, there have been cases in which the police and the prosecuter put in loads of time and work in hopes of getting a conviction of someone who had a long arrest record, only to see him (or her) convicted of a lesser charge or go free. And I've discussed this with prosecutors, judges, police and jurors. Jurors for the most part appear to take their responsibility seriously and try to do their best to come to a reasonable decision if there is no reasonable doubt as to the person's guilt. I've had jurors tell me, "We wanted to convict him, but the prosecutor just didn't give us anything to work with." And I've heard judges say their sentences when someone pleads guilty are limited either by the plea agreement the prosecutor okayed, or else is aimed as close as possible at the average sentence juries have decided in previous cases. As one judge told me, "If I get a reputation for giving tougher sentences than a jury does, no one will ever plead out in my court--everyone will select to go to trial." And as everyone in the legal system knows, if everyone accused of a crime takes their right to be tried by a jury, the system would soon be so bogged down that everyone would be waiting years for their day in court.
As for prosecutors and police, the ones really in the trenches in the war against crime, I've asked both, "Doesn't it just burn your butt to see a case you've worked so hard on and a defendent you're convinced is guilty get a walk?" And generally their replies were along the lines of "I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. We'll get another crack at him some day on a new charge." See, they know the criminal is not gonna change; he will commit another offense, he will get caught, and maybe another judge or jury will convict him next time. And I've seen it work out that way quite often, especially if a felon is released on parole. Police and prosecutors figure it's just a matter of days before somehow, someway a parolee will violate the terms of his probation and be found with drugs, booze, or associating with known criminals, such as a person who has pleaded guilty to prostitution. Catch a parolee talking to a hooker and you don't have to take him to trial on any of the crimes you suspect he's committed. All you got to do is have a short hearing before a judge on violation of his parole and he goes straight back to prison to serve the rest of his term. So it all evens out.
There also are times that police and prosecutors use the system for an easy solution to a case. Many years ago when I was working the courts up in Lubbock, Tex., a migrant farm worker from Mexico picked up a double-bladed ax and killed two of his fellow migrant farm workers, also from Houston. Now in the 30-plus years I've been a journalist, we have always said to each other on slow news days, "Boy, I wish we could get a double ax murder!" And now for the first time in my life I actually had one to write about!!! I was really looking forward to that trial--until the next day when I went by the sheriff's office and learned my killer had been released without charges! Turns out he was an illegal immigrant, as were the two men he killed. So instead of filing murder charges against him, they just turned him over to the border patrol and he likely was already back in Mexico before I found out. The sheriff's explanation: "He's a nut case, probably too far gone to go to trial and would just be committed to an institution. Why should the state pay for all of that when we can just send him back to Mexico and they can lock him up down there?"
Reply to Topic
