Law Abiding Citizen: A Bloody Mess?

It's easy to sympathize with Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler). Bad men assaulted his wife in front of him and killed his little girl. He, if anyone, deserves justice. But the attorney trying the case (Nick Rice, played by Jamie Foxx) made a deal--primarily to ensure his good conviction record--that essentially put a man to death while giving the real evil behind the crime an easy sentence.

Clyde, naturally, wants to strike out against not only the man who put a knife in his belly and killed his daugther, but also the system that gave this man a lenient sentence.

After all, we see it all the time. Trivialities determine the outcomes of legal cases. Bad guys go free. We all think back to O. J. Many of us remain convinced that he got away with murder.

As just an aside, I will note that in the American psyche, getting away with murder is an extraordinary--and terrible thing. If you watch Discovery Channel or CourtTV with any regularity, however, then you sometimes wonder how anyone gets caught. Getting away with murder--at least for extended periods of time--seems to be a rather easy accomplishment.

Kurt Wimmer and F. Gary Gray (the writer and director of Law Abiding Citizen), it would seem, would have you believe that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. Certainly, the whole idea of making deals to get a conviction is just wrong. The problem is, the deal that we see unfold in Law Abiding Citizen is flawed. Sure, it COULD happen, but it takes a leap of logic to accept that it actually WOULD.

Law Abiding Citizen is one of those wish-fulfillment movies that aims to give the audience what it wants. What it thinks we want is for all the guilty people to be punished in a manner that matches the crimes they've committed. Rupert Ames gets his comeuppance with the execution of his death sentence. Instead of the allegedly painless chemical death, he suffers an exceedingly painful one, wracked with spasms that send many from the room.

Certainly, when any of us imagine what we'd like to do to Clarence Darby (the actual perpetrator of the atrocities), we see the acts Clyde commits. That's the wishful thinking that resides deep within our psyches.

But Clyde is not lashing out at a villain who has trespassed against him; he's lashing out at a system that he feels has betrayed him. That means punishing the criminals, the attorneys, the cops and the judges as well.

Yes, we have to acknowledge that our system isn't perfect. The personal and political ambitions of the individuals involved certainly skew the objectivity of the outcomes of many legal trials.

But is an explosive, cell phone shot to the head an appropriate punishment to the judge who presided over a flawed case?

Is a fiery car bomb justifiable for an aspiring attorney who was part of the case?

You can't watch the death of Sarah in the film without wondering at the justice Clyde is dispensing. Her car-bombing death is the clarion call that what the film depicts is not justice.

Yes, we get it! The American legal system is seriously messed up!

But is it broken to the degree that we should ignore the basic civil rights Americans accept should be granted to every citizen? That's the real question.

The fact the film ignores is that innocent people are convicted all the time based on questionable evidence. False confession is far more common than people realize.

The fate of Clyde's cellmate springs to mind. The audience has no idea what this man was guilty of. Yet we're supposed to accept his death at Clyde's hands without question. The basic assumption seems to be that he was in jail; he must have been guilty of SOMETHING. Did he really deserve to be treated to a nice meal and then a knifing? That's the question I pose to the audience. The objective answer is, we don't really know.

I grant that the political ambitions of those involved are problematic in our legal system. Such ambitions can certainly skew the motives of those involved. The protections are afforded for a reason--to ensure that every individual--regardless of race or social status--has an equal chance to defend himself against whatever legal charges are brought to bear.

Do people beat the system? Sure.

But the problem is that far more than those who evade justice are punished for crimes they didn't commit. That is the idea that this film ignores or refuses to believe.

I keep thinking of the fate of Sarah, an innocent attorney, who was caught up in this plot and suffered a fiery death. Sure, it's easy for me to sympathize with her because she's young and pretty, but, in any event, she seems to be the most innocent victim here.

The final lesson is not to make deals with murderers. It's easy to agree with that basic idea, but the reality is far more complex.

The ultimate goal is the truth. The real question is, how do we get there?