Murder most foul?
Fans of Stieg Larsson’s Millenium series will no doubt be flocking to see the film adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Whilst waiting for the film to screen I saw the trailer for Michael Caine’s latest film: Harry Brown. Both films raise some questions about our attitudes towards murder.
We are accustomed to see murder treated as a terrible crime. In conventional murder mysteries we encounter a hero or heroine who doggedly brings the perpetrator to justice. Whether we are reading a La Plante or Rendell, a Deaver or Rankine murder mystery there is almost a pious belief in the sanctity of the judicial system; there is no room for the jaundiced view of the judiciary that pervades the work of Dickens. There is no Kafkaesque rejection of the fairness of the judicial system. Yet Caine’s Harry Brown and Larsson’s Millenium trilogy invites us to question whether or not there are times we are justified in taking the law in our own hands.
I am opposed to the death penalty yet I sometimes wonder what my attitude would be if I were in a position where I knew the identity of a killer but also knew that the laws of evidence are such that the killer would probably get off. In the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo I found myself cheering at some of the more outrageous ways in which our heroine gets equal. Seeing the trailer of Harry Brown I could rejoice at seeing Harry attempt to set the world straight. Yet I also know that to take the law in your own hands is a sure way to ensure that the social order unravels and yet….

Yet Baygon, consider the Dexter series. I have been surprised by the popularity of that series of shows and wonder what it says about society's changing values.

Dexter is a sociopathic serial killer who is also a forensic scientist working for the good guys. He is a vigilante of sorts because he targets murderous others that the law can't touch. The audience becomes acquainted with his character by being privy to his private thoughts. He has no genuine emotional connection to anyone.

I think most of us could understand how The Death Wish (Charles Bronson) gained popular approval; but Charlie wasn't someone who enjoyed killing. The story spent some time building the rationale that might drive a moral and law abiding person (he was a pacifist too) over the edge - doing a task that formal social institutions fail to do.

So - how is it that people relate to Dexter ?

"So - how is it that people relate to Dexter ?"

Do people relate to Dexter? Most people would easily be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Hollywood's poetic justice and other forms of 'justified' retaliation might be entertaining and sometimes wishful (no, not really wishful more fantasy) but like fantasy sex, no-one will ever believe anyone who claims that 'The movie made me do it'.

Admittedly some films evoke more emotion but there is a gulf between cheering on the (unisex) avenging jock in a movie and doing the same in real life. Few urban-living Australians would have enough 'bottle' to butcher a rooster for Sunday lunch.

Are we ever justified in taking the law into our own hands? Cripes, with the exception of NSW, the home invader has more rights than the home owner and even a suit wearing office worker of pale and puny frame can and probably will be arrested for having a Swiss Army knife on his possession in the Mall. That dangerous apple peeling 60mm blade and shock, horror, in the media two Swiss Army knives could represent an 'arsenal'.

The government finds great offence in ordinary law-abiding citizens being 'armed' with anything more dangerous than a banana (not peeled though) and the penalties are severe. Criminals? Well criminals need their weapons to go about their usual business and when (make that if), caught they have RIGHTS. Anyway YOU made them do it (your short skirt for a start), it isn't their fault (it society's fault you ninny), those %$$#*&*^& cops are fascists who should never be armed well enough to take in a determined criminal and the Courts should never listen to the cops anyhow and a smack on the wrist is enough.

Yes, it is easy to see why ordinary people fantasise about standing up for themselves and of criminals getting their just desserts, but neither is going to happen. What does happen with increasing regularity though is ordinary people copping a penalty for interfering with a criminal in the conduct of his business. Dads should be especially careful:
http://www.news.com.au/national/father-gets-longer-sentence-than-daughters-rapist-after-punching-attacker/story-e6frfkvr-1225847716849?from=public_rss

BAYGON,
Since when is a discussion about a film 'News and Current Affairs'?

Banjo - popular culture helps shape our moral compass; the discussion is not about the film but about the values portrayed and the way these values reflect our society.
Just consider the way the Jon Venables Story is being treated; the Carly Ryan murder and the GLenys Hayward murder.
I am not drawing the naive link that films cause murders but they influence the way we think about issues of crime and punishment.
Here in South Australia we have a government that ran election advertisements arguing that the Parole Board was wrong to give parole to certain offenders and that its intervention saved the community. An attitude that suggests that the legal system is the problem implies the right for people to take the law in their own hands. (even though the judiciary administers the laws passed by parliament.) That same attitude towards the law is reflected in some of these movies.

Baygon wrote:

"(even though the judiciary administers the laws passed by parliament.)"

Do they?

I know the theory, but do they in practice?

Does the executive branch? In practice?

I think very often the answer is "no". Hence the problem.

What of the laws themselves? Supposedly the legislators are responsive to the will of the people?

Are they?

I suggest herein lies another problem, another cause for dissatisfaction