He should of still gone to prison

[deleted]

Yes, those rapists should had gone to American supermax, pound-me-in-the-ass prison

Completely apologize for doing this: I posted this earlier in this thread, but things tend to get lost amidst the silly bickering.

I believe it isn't Murder, technically, but Voluntary Manslaughter, which means that in certain instances, a jury might agree that an average person in their right mind would be driven to kill under the circumstances they deem to be understandable (legal terminology certainly defines that more clearly). It's called provocation--meaning he was understandably provoked to commit the crime and his culpability would be a lesser offense than that of murder.

In the case in this movie, I'd say that fits perfectly. The situation is one that most of us agree was ugly enough that we would probably do the same thing. A jury would be free to come to the same conclusion as long as it is agreed that the circumstance was an understandable provocation and that the state of mind of the killer was deemed to be only temporary (meaning they haven't become a killer, per se, just provoked to this solitary act, then, presumably, would recover eventually and return to a normal state of mind).

SO: Not murder, but Voluntary Manslaughter.

Any human that kills another human with full knowledge beforehand that their actions will result in the other person's death is still UNLAWFUL no matter how understandable it is.

Therefore, even if he is not convicted of murder, he most definitely should have been found guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter and done sufficient jail time after the trial.

Even if I agree with everything you just wrote... I don't, but for argument's sake lets say I do. Even if "a barbaric act deserves a barbaric punishment," that punishment needs to be meted out by the courts and not random citizens. That needs to happen for the very simple reason that someone must first be found guilty of a crime before we as a society are allowed to consider them criminals.

In the case of the film it is made clear that they are in fact guilty. But what I would argue, and many others on this board are attempting to argue, is that it is important to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to the community first. Without that joint pronunciation of guilt, there will be anarchy. Tomorrow someone could walk up to your house, under the mistaken belief that you wronged them in some terrible way, and hurt you, and then expect to face no consequences from the law.

We are not saying he is not a sympathetic figure, we are not saying the two criminals aren't scumbags who don't deserve to be punished. What we are saying is that rule of law is a tremendously important thing in our country. A founding pillar of our country. It cannot only work part of the time. In order to be effective, it must constantly be in effect. The legal ruling portrayed by the film not only undermines it, but makes a mockery of it.

And in response to your beliefs on beheading as an effective form of punishment; several studies done in the US show capital punishment fails to provide a deterrent to heinous crimes. I would argue that in countries were beheading is allowed, the truthfulness of that hypothesis is even more evident. Most countries that allow beheadings are far more lawless and have a significantly less effective justice system.

"a Barbaric Act deserves a barbaric punishment"

PRECISELY.

In real life, there's no way in Hades that he would have gone scott free for the outright murder of two suspects and the wounding of a police officer. However, in light of the circumstances, he would have done some time but not have to have served it all and would have had reduced prison time for good behavior. I feel sorry most of all for the wife, because, had he really gone to jail, she would have had to deal with all kinds of losses: the loss of her husband, the loss of her husband's income and the loss of her child's innocence. Although I couldn't have done what he did, if someone close to me or my child harmed her in that way, I would have to kiss her goodbye for a while because there's no way I and that person could co-exist.

Es todo bueno!

Easy there. Let me try to point something out to you.

"or then you may just begin to understand the rationale behind vigilantism, which should be completely 100% legal, provided the accused are convicted as guilty without a doubt in trial."

That is not being a vigilante. Vigilante means to work outside of the law/system. So by definition, legally sanctioned vigilantism is impossible. And by the way, the number one complaint of the people "cheering on criminals" on this board (a fallacy in itself), is that Carl Lee did work outside the system and there was no trial. Those two men were not proven "guilty without a doubt in trial" as you put it. To the courts, those two men were still innocent until proven guilty, meaning Carl Lee should have done time for murder.

Now, as to your misguided intentions of letting the victims choose the punishment, there is a reason we don't allow that, and its called emotionally compromised. Not to mention the fact we don't allow excessive or cruel and unusual punishment in this country. In other words, your suggestions violate the 6th and 8th Amendments of the Bill of Rights. Something generally considered to be a fairly intelligent document.

I will repeat, as everyone that has argued alongside me on this board has repeated, Carl Lee is a sympathetic and tragic figure. He deserves pity, mercy, and aid. He has been dealt a horrible blow and struck out, killing two men he believes responsible. The problem is, we as a community need more to condemn someone to death than the belief of one man, and it was not his place to be judge, jury, and executioner. And I am very glad I live in a society that at least espouses a belief in the previous ideal and attempts to live up to it as frequently as possible. If that makes me a "callous, cruel, and stupid idiot(s) without empathy for the innocent" then at least I shall find myself among the company of men like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and George Washington.