The very concept of law rests on the notion that the perpetration of every crime must be followed by an appropriate punishment, in order to prevent people from considering the perpetration of similar crimes in the future. Therefore, the concept “punishment follows crime” lays at the very core of jurisprudence, as legal science. In its turn, this implies the purely technical essence of the process of appropriate punishment being applied to evildoers.
The only reason why police officers are being issued with guns and put in the position of exercising a legal authority out on the street, is because we, as members of society, have re-delegated to them our civil right of insuring our safety with whatever means necessary. However, if police officers fail at executing their professional duties (during the course of L.A. racial riots in 1992, LAPD officers were being given orders not to intervene, even while witnessing people being dragged out of their cars and killed on the spot), then it becomes up to citizens to actually protect themselves. What is important is to assure that punishment finds a perpetrator of the crime – the question as to who applies such punishment is secondary in importance. This thesis will serve us as a guiding light, while we assess the semantic message, contained in 2007 movie “Death Sentence”.
However, before we embark on the task, we will need to point out at movie’s main conceptual inconsistency: Billy Darley’s gang is shown as practicing “initiation killing” and yet, being “multicultural” at the same time.
This could not possibly be the case, because “initiation killing” is a crime associated solemnly with ethnic gangs (Black, Hispanic, Vietnamese). Producers had no choice but to present Darley’s gang as “multicultural”, because otherwise, the movie’s message would have been little too obvious to be ignored by censors of political correctness – law-obeying and hard-working White people hardly benefit from the dogma of “celebration of diversity” being showed down their throats, because it is not only that they fall, victims, to “initiation killings”, perpetrated by members of ethnic gangs, but that they often realize that their attempts to seek legal protection are futile, simply because the color of their skin.
There is one memorable scene in the movie, when state persecutor tells Nick Hume that if murderer of his son gets sentenced to 3 to 5 years in jail, then Nick can consider himself lucky, as he is only the eye-witness to the crime. Persecutor tells Nick to consider possibility of defender asking him a question: “What do you have against the inner city youth? Are they forced into initiation killing because otherwise they would face execution themselves?”, while implying that no good answer can be given to this question by definition, given Nick’s racial and social affiliation. Even before legal proceedings take place, Nick realizes that he has already been deemed as “unreliable witness” by the very fact that, while living in safe White suburbia, he does not appear to be very committed to the idea of “celebration people’s ethnic uniqueness”, as his foremost priority.
Therefore, the premise that “character Nick Hume went from victim to victimizer” is improperly formatted – Nick can be referred to as “victimizer” as much as police officers who raid the houses of suspected criminals, while being forced to return fire. When Nick identifies his son’s murderer, detective Wallis (Black lady, who clearly prefers giving people “morality lessons” as opposed to protecting them from criminals) calls the identified criminal “animal” and “beast”, which means she is quite aware that it is only the matter of very short time, before he would strike again. Yet, it is not an undercover police car, which follows the released murderer of Nick’s son, but Nick himself.
Had cops done it, they would be able to discover the whereabouts of Darley gang’s drug factory. Yet, police officers featured in the movie (detective Wallis) simply strive to conceal their professional inadequacy by indulging in pseudo-sophisticate rhetoric that: “everybody thinks they are right in the war”, “violence must stop”, “no need to take law in one’s hands” etc. Moreover, Wallis takes the side of Darley’s gang by advising Nick: “Do everything they tell you”.
It is not Nick’s inability to cope with the death of his son, which causes him to embark on his crusade (he grieves Brendan but not to the point of loosing his mind), but the fact that the basic principles of law and order have been violated before his eyes in most blatant manner, with police proving itself incapable to do anything about it. As at appears at the end of the movie, Nick’s “murderous rampage” had resulted in physical elimination of Darley’s gang and in destruction of gang’s drug factory – it other words, he did something that police should have done a long time ago.
Therefore, it would be wrong to think of Nick’s deeds within a context of “retaliatory violence by victim”, because he appears to have been driven by his desire to reestablish justice (by administering punishment to evildoers), rather by his irrational lust for revenge. The dispassionate way Nick inserts bullets into the guns, after having shaved his head, suggest that seeking emotional satisfaction out of taking revenge, was the last on his list of priorities. After having realized that he could not rely on police, within a context of applying justice to the members of Darley’s gang, Nick decided to do it on his own. However, in order to be able to effectively combat evil, he had no choice but to adopt evil’s external identity, while never ceasing to remain what he always used to be – a loving father and a husband.
It is important to understand that the distinction between victim acting within a context of “self-defense” (appropriate) or “perpetrating retaliatory violence” (inappropriate), can only be discussed, when assumed that the very notion of justice (as such that always prevails) is self-evident category, which cannot be interpreted at will. Unfortunately, the realities of living in multicultural America point out to the fact that it is no longer the case.
This is because the very basic concepts of British common law, upon which American justice system is based, imply the existence of racially and culturally homogeneous society, as it is only within such society that their application makes sense. While living in White suburbia, Nick thought that his family could never be affected by the process of America being turned into Third World slum, thanks to “celebration of diversity” policy.
Even after such his assumption was proven wrong, Nick still expected the law to take his side, because deep inside, he continued to believe that American legal system is still being ruled by reason. However, it did not take him too long to realize that he was mistaken. Upon realization of this fact, Nick decided to address his life’s challenges in the way they deserved to be addressed: “This gun is gonna make you feel a whole lot better about whatever is bothering you”.
By doing it, Nick was actually striving to re-establish an authority within basically a lawless society, where murderers can get away with murders (O.J. Simpson), where cops are being forbidden to enter “hoods” (not to provoke racial tensions), and where gangsters are being sentenced to only a few years in jail for killing people, because they claim their “initiation killings” to be a part of them exploring their “cultural heritage”.
Mao Zedong once said: “Law comes out of gun’s barrel”. Nick’s “rampage” substantiates the validity of this statement. In order for the law to be respected, potential criminals must associate it with swift and effective punishment. If police cannot guarantee this, it is only natural for ordinary citizens to take the matter of insuring justice into their own hands. Therefore, even though that, according to the American criminal code, Nick’s actions can be qualified as manslaughter, according to American Constitution, the same actions may very well qualify Nick for Purple Heart.
Bibliography
Death Sentence. 2007. The Internet Movie Database. 2009. Web.
Seper, Jerry “Illegals Targeted South Carolina Sheriff as Gang Initiation”. 2008. InfoWars. Web.
Watson, Joseph “Racist Mexican Gangs “Ethnic Cleansing” Blacks In L.A.”. 2007. Prison Planet. Web.