(SPOILERS) The moral questions that the movie raises... just... wow!

I'm glad to hear you liked the film. That has been one of my very favorite stories for a long time. I've read the book and also watched three separate film adaptations.

While as a society we tend to hold a negative opinion of vigilante justice--and rightfully so--in this case I can't bring myself to have a problem with the choices our self-appointed jury made. Ratchett obviously had it coming, and if conventional justice was out of reach, then vigilante justice would have to do.

I suppose out of fear that everyone will just start taking the law into their own hands, people in modern first-world nations tend to think the only violence that is acceptable is state-sanctioned violence. But I think we all should have the ability to recognize the special circumstances here.

So in short, I don't think their choice was immoral, and I would've thought badly of Poirot if he had insisted on their prosecution at the end.

By the way, since you mentioned "leaving that business up to God," if you want to see a version of the story that delves more directly into that question with more overt religious elements, then seek out the 2010 British television version that was part of the long-running Poirot ITV series.

It doesn't have the lavish, big-budget production values of Branagh's version, but it's still pretty good.

Here's a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKPrq5dhkts

If there is a God, then He isn't doing much to punish evildoers here on Earth. Of course I can't speak for the afterlife, no human can, but here on this planet if humans don't intervene then the evildoers will keep doing evil until they die of natural causes.

Which is why I believe very strongly in The Rule Of Law, it's the only thing that humans have able to come up with that brings any degree of justice to the world. Of course it's not perfect, but there is a necessity to bring a reasonable standard of proof to bear before administering punishment, because without that then the vigilantes just go around killing anyone they think is guilty or who just looks at them funny. The power of vigilanteism is incredibly easy to abuse, and in areas where it's widespread, it's notorious for getting out of control, for some guy being lynched just because he was insufficiently respectful to the wrong person.

Which brings up the one question that's never asked about this story... WHAT PROOF WAS THERE? [spoiler] How did the 12 bringers of justice know that Ratchet actually was responsible for the death of Daisy Armstrong, what if they'd come together to kill the wrong man? [/spoiler] Poirot never asked that, he just assumed that was the way it had happened, years earlier.

We need to follow the law of man, or be prepared to face the consequences when we don't. A society needs laws, and the role of the citizen is to change laws, not break them as they see fit.