MovieChat Forums > Prisoners (2013) Discussion > Let us vote: Do you think the torture wa...

Let us vote: Do you think the torture was justified?

posted 10 years ago by John-G
64 replies | jump to latest

Alex Jones, the first suspect who was released by the police, was severely tortured by the character of Hugh Jackman; Keller Dover. It played a trick with my emotions. I usually hate torture scenes, but with this one i seemed to have less problems. I am curious if I am not the only one.

Obvious argument in favor of the torture:
You can say Alex Jones tried to be nominated for a Darwin-award by telling the aggressive father that "they didn't cry until I left them" after he was released by the police who didnt have the evidence to detain him any longer. The father was the only one who knew for sure this really was said. He knew Alex Jones knew more, and it was his child that was taken.

Obvious argument against the torture:
Kidnapping someone and turturing them is simply illegal, we all agree on that right? We like our law system and we wouldnt want people to take matters into their own hands. What if people did this whenever they have a "hunch" and no real proof?

If you know this story happened FOR REAL, and you knew the father as a close friend. Or lets say you were the judge and you had the power to decide on this.

Do you think the torture was justified?

Lets vote! Copy-paste the number of the votes and add your vote by adding 1 to the number behind either option. Only 1 vote per person. Place the votes always at the very end of your post to make the voting clear to track and copy-paste.

Lets start with each zero votes:

In favor: 0
Against: 0

[–] mpboylanjr 10 years ago

I'm in favor of it because he knew Alex knew more than he was telling them but at the same time I've seen this film enough and I beleive Alex was the boy that was kidnapped that the lady watched the tape of so much and so he really didn't deserve it. It was a tight rope Kelker was walking with that. The movie was so frekin awesome

THERES NO ROOM IN MY CIRCUS TENT FOR YOU !!!!

[–] dialixii 10 years ago

Alex put himself up for it by saying that. Yes, laws be damned. When you are a father, you should be all in on helping your kid. If you are unsure, maybe not. But Alex set himself up for it. Retard or not, you have to pursue that lead as aggressively as can be.

[–] bixler45 9 years ago

Just because you're a parent doesn't mean you have any more right to do what's illegal.. This dad hero mindset is off putting.

[–] sprocketthedog 9 years ago

Don't be a idiot. I'm glad you're not my father, and I really hope you don't have any kids.

[–] ChocolateButt 8 years ago

The idiot is you, sprocket.

"What race are you? If you don't tell me I'll just...assume the worst."

[–] triachgul3 10 years ago

People are still missing the point.

Its not about semantics. ITS ABOUT THE RESULT!

He did a horrible thing(s) to another human being, in order to save his own daughter. Since this is a work of fiction, the validity is irrelevant, due to the perpetrator (co-kidnapper) was after all guilty. That means that Keller (Hugh Jackman) did the only thing any man could do, to rescue his daughter.

Would I do the same, if I had the slightest chance to save my own child? Absolutely.
Is it considered morally wrong to torture another human? WHO THE HELL CARES?!
Id rather go to jail and save my child, than to be "morally right" and never know what happened.

Again, this is a highly hypothetical situation and overly simplified.

Now, in the context of current events. A government systematically torturing is plain ILLEGAL and as evidence/statistics show, absolutely useless.

To save a loved one? Would you, or would you not? (YOUR CHOICE)
To wage a covert war against faceless enemies? Absolutely wrong and has 0 RESULTS.

[–] racingdown 10 years ago

I agree with you, but probably not in the way you think.

As viewers we're manipulated throughout the film into thinking that the kidnapping and torture of Alex is justified.

- At the start we think it may be the right thing to do.
- When Bob becomes the prime suspect we're lead to believe it is the wrong thing to do.
- When Alex mentions the maze we realise it might be justified.
- At the end we find out that he himself is a victim of kidnapping.

It's actually only when Joy is returned that the connection to Holly Jones is made.

Holly says she kidnapped the children to make the parents go crazy - and she succeeded. She is driven crazy by loss. he is, and ultimately, the cycle is not broken. By kidnapping a kidnap victim who's obviously traumatised, he becomes as bad as Holly. "Drugging" his wife further implies their similarity.

So when you say it's about the result, I agree because kidnapping Alex achieved absolutely nothing. This is not a film about what we would do in bad situations. Instead it tells us that bad acts cause bad acts, perhaps like a maze you can't get out of.

[–] ValerinAmberz 10 years ago

It's not a manipulation because regardless of the guys guilt or innocence it's illegal and wrong.

It was really frustrating to watch because the story had a disgusting empathy towards incompetent, egoistic and evil people. It reawarded sadistic and other repulsive behaviour.

You ended up caring absolutely nothing for those girls or the parents. In order to be a good parent you must first be a good human being, someone who tortures mentally disabled people doesn't have anything to teach a kid anyway. The daughter would have been better off dead.

No, knowing (or infact assuming) Alex Jones "knew more" is certainly not an "obvious argument in favor". He could've lied/fantasized. Heard the girls playing outside his van, etc Anything was possible. It's up to the police/prosecutor to interpret information coming in.

[–] chilone 10 years ago

The daughter would have been better off dead.

I'll bet you wouldn't say that if it was YOUR daughter!! SMH!!

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] EtherealElements 9 years ago

Well no because the father would be following his own moral code and so in his eyes he is doing nothing wrong. When in actuality he is doing a disgusting and horrific act. So I have to agree with OP on this one.

[–] chilone 9 years ago

So I have to agree with OP on this one.

The OP didn't give his/her stance.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] mel-holden 9 years ago

Excellently put well made points. Thank you.

[–] HalBanksy 10 years ago

Id rather go to jail and save my child, than to be "morally right" and never know what happened.

You would still never know what happened - because people who are being tortured will say anything that they think the person in control wants to hear. Even if Keller had been torturing an evil criminal that had previously chopped peoples heads off - torturing him was sill pointless because information gained through it is irrelevant.

Now when we factor in the issue of Keller's victim being a mentally disturbed person,
Basically a child himself - was it justified? Absolutely not.

Your comment is actually pretty troubling... Your tone suggests that any real father (any real man) should be able to do the same thing at a drop of a hat. Keller was not a hero - he was a sadistic head-case.

I loved the character of Keller - he was captivating, chilling. I loved Hugh Jackman's acting in the film. But anyone who tries to seriously defend what he did is morally disgusting.

[–] cyguration 9 years ago

Your comment is actually pretty troubling... Your tone suggests that any real father (any real man) should be able to do the same thing at a drop of a hat. Keller was not a hero - he was a sadistic head-case.

So what you're saying is: if you had a lead and only one way to pursue it, you would forfeit that lead and let your kid die?

[–] EtherealElements 9 years ago

But you're missing the point. That lead led nowhere. Alex did nothing and Keller tortured an innocent person who was himself a victim.
All I can take from your comment is that you approve the brutal torture of innocent people based on hunches and grudges.

[–] cyguration 9 years ago

But you're missing the point. That lead led nowhere.

What? No I'm not missing the point. The torture led to the impetus of recognizing that Alex was involved and that he had some knowledge of the girls' whereabouts (he did). Keller later used this to go back to the aunt's house. The only trouble was that she suspected he was figuring things out and that's when she pulled the gun on him and dropped him in the hole.

Alex did nothing and Keller tortured an innocent person who was himself a victim.

Aiding and abetting in kidnapping is not innocent. Keller was definitely pushing boundaries torturing him but remember: Alex invited the girls into his RV and took them back to his aunt's place. He kidnapped them and the aunt imprisoned them.

All I can take from your comment is that you approve the brutal torture of innocent people based on hunches and grudges.

No, it's about getting results based on reasonable and sustained suspicion, especially under the circumstance that the police weren't going to do anything else.

[–] nufsaid16 (689) a year ago

Actually, Alex had talked to the girls, but the aunt said that she took the girls, and that Alex never saw her take them. So he had nothing to do with their kidnapping to begin with.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (367) a year ago

He’s the one who coerced the little girls into the RV for a ride, and took them back to the house where his “aunt” decided to keep them.

That's an accessory to kidnapping in my book, and many would agree.

[–] EtherealElements 9 years ago

You put it absolutely perfectly, I felt exactly the same way about Keller's character. I know this by how desperately I was supporting the detective to find Alex. He was starting to sound crazy when he was still chasing his lead when another prime suspect had been found, and I'm incredibly surprised his friend went along with it and will now have to live with it for the rest of his life.

Anyone who defends what he did is indeed morally disgusting.

[–] barrin21 9 years ago

because people who are being tortured will say anything that they think the person in control wants to hear

Maybe when there's no evidence of the person having any information you want, but Keller KNEW he had that information. He was just too retarded to speak up.

If I can't smoke and swear I'm *beep*

[–] MTulliver 10 years ago

So the ends justify the means, huh?
You're no better than the kidnapper, then. Perhaps worse.
We have rule of law for a reason. All you people saying you would brutality torture someone to get your way scare the s*it out of me.

"Is it considered morally wrong to torture another human? WHO THE HELL CARES?! "

Wow. Just wow.

Please. Lock yourself away from humanity.

[–] triachgul3 9 years ago

Not all of us are low-T and live in fantasy land. Maybe someday youll have to make a man's decision. I hope for your children's sake, youll have the guts to do whats necessary.

[–] EtherealElements 9 years ago

I would rather not torture innocent people. What gives you the right to decide you are better than the police and to just grab someone off the street and start torturing them for your own desperate gratification?

[–] chilone 9 years ago

I would rather not torture innocent people too but he was NOT innocent AND the clock was ticking AND the police weren't getting anywhere AND he was doing NOTHING for his "desperate gratification".

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] triachgul3 9 years ago

Well I guess natural selection does have a tendency to get rid of the weak. If you wouldnt torture someone to save your child, then you really are a genetic dead-end.

[–] danimal09752 9 years ago

Say that after YOUR kid is taken.

[–] bixler45 9 years ago

REALLY hoping these commenters are just trying to sound brave. People must realize crimes happen all the time and people can't just feel entitled to start doing their own torture detective work.

[–] bixler45 9 years ago

If everyone went after who ever they suspected of wrong doing this world would be even more gruesome. Torturing someone the way Keller did? Are you serious? I'm hoping push come to shove more people would have compassion especially for a challenged boy.

[–] nufsaid16 (689) a year ago

Uh, sorry----no, what the father did was not justified. All he had to do was tell the police to question Alex again, instead of kidnapping and beating the hell out of him for days. The fact that he did all that, and still didn't get any answers out of him, should have told him that maybe he was barking up the wrong damn tree, and assumed the wrong person as a suspect to begin with. What he did was horrific, and he deserved what he got in the end, period.

[–] jase-prasad 10 years ago

I am in favour though I am not lifting the moral gravity surrounding torture. I am merely saying if Alex had said the same things to me if my daughter went missing, I would have done a lot more thean punching him.mhe would've definitely lost a couple of fingers and toes

[–] jase-prasad 10 years ago

[–] metzler-bgl 10 years ago

Against! Torture leads to nothing. Why don't people ever learn from history? It is just cruel and a revenge-thing. Pointless.

Sopranos - Breaking Bad - The Wire

[–] RbDeraj 10 years ago

It did lead to something, that was the ironic point. If Keller wouldn't have held Alex hostage, Loki wouldn't have found him and then gone to tell his aunt of the news and in turn found Anna. Keller also wouldn't have suspected the aunt if he didn't hear clues from Alex after a week of torture.

[–] EtherealElements 9 years ago

I suppose in the exact case of this film that is what happened. But saying it's okay to torture an innocent person on the basis that it *may* cause an unrelated chain reaction of clues is horrific and definitely doesn't make it justified.

[–] chilone 9 years ago

But saying it's okay to torture an innocent person

You're the only one talking about torturing an innocent person.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] dakowill11 10 years ago

I'm totally against torture.
The end never justifies the means.
And there's a reason why evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible in a court of law.

Looking at the two leading men, Dover and Loki, they represent two opposing choices; a lawful, moral path and a lawless, immoral path, although there are crossovers between the two. And the consequences that follow highlight the merits or shortcomings of each path. In the end, both men are "prisoners" to the choices they have made. In fact, we all are...

[–] RbDeraj 10 years ago

This is definitely a gray area. Keller did have reasonable cause from the suspicious things he said to him and in the end it worked in his favor. If they found Keller in the end he would still have to face charges, but didn't it save his daughter? which is all he cared about anyway.

[–] nufsaid16 (689) a year ago

No, it didn't. It wasn't even Keller who found his daughter, so everything he did to Alex turned out to have been all for nothing, and a damn waste of time----plus he damn near could have killed him, and for nothing, too.