Pages

Friday, April 8, 2016

Thou shall not be a victim, thou shall not be a perpetrator, but above all else, though shall never be a bystander.

This video was very interesting to me. In my high school, we had a saying posted on the wall in the front hallway that read " Thou shall not be a victim, thou shall not be a perpetrator, but above all else, though shall never be a bystander". The reason I say this is during our class discussion, someone pointed out that even though she didn't commit the murder, she was being punished on the lines that seemed even crueler than the way our criminal justice system punishes murderers. Upon hearing that comment, that quote immediately came to mind. I began to wonder if watching someone else commit a murder is just as bad as committing the crime yourself; If anything, there is little difference between the two. If you're watching this terribly inhuman action and encourage it the same way the girl in the film did, it's just as despicable. The murderer's accomplice should be punished the same way the actual perpetrator is punished. Since the actual murderer in the film committed suicide before he could stand trial, we as an audience have no way of knowing if he would've been subjected to the same form of torment this girl has to undergo day after day for the foreseeable future. But this type of punishment makes the viewer question this form of punishment. Is it moral? Is it just? To some extent possibly, seeing that by definition it follows Hammurabi's code of an eye for an eye. But since the criminal is having her memory wiped after finding out she did these terrible things, she has no way of possibly being reformed and the people inflicting this punishment soon begin to enter the wrong side of morality. So who's the real criminal here? I refuse to believe that this solution is reasonable punishment that our society would come up with to punish criminals; however, the media today does a horrible thing by glorifying our greatest criminals to some extent. Their faces are plastered on our TV screens for weeks, they often come up as a main topic in everyday conversations, and often times encourages others to do similar acts knowing that the end result will give them this sick and deluded type of stardom. The film was excellently made by allowing the audience to follow its proposed protagonist and feel sympathy for her up until the very last moment when the veil was lifted and brought together the reasons for why all these strange events were happening.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

I agree completely with they idea of a direct, able bodied bystander being held at equal fault for a despicable act. Your reminds me of one of my favorite quotes " Your opinion may not be taken into account, and you may not win, but always go on record as opposing evil." Never let yourself be taken by the crowd or someone who says they are your "friend."Which is a huge parallel between the people who attend white bear park and Victoria, neither of them has followed any moral compass but indulge in activities that they are being lead into.

Anonymous said...

I like how you approach the subject, it makes you wonder if by standing is actually worse than committing the crime. Normally, I would say no, but what if there was a society where bystanders are always punished more severely than those who commit the crime themselves. Would crime rates go down or up? Would individuals finally grow a moral ballsack, or would they decide to follow the wrong route? Im here for these questions.

Anonymous said...

Your quote of "The murderer's accomplice should be punished the same way the actual perpetrator is punished" is definitely true. Therefore this leads to the question of how does non-violent crimes get punished? Well, Kant would say that those who do drugs are nonviolent, but they violate the law which is set before them. They neglect their duty and reverence of the law. So, they should be punished by the laws. However, in our justice system, sometimes the law can be unclear because the laws are controlled by the people and the people control the laws. In the end, everyone gets hurt from justice and the law. Going back to the comment, you stated that Victoria is a protagonist, but as for the audience, they believe she is the antagonist. In end, I think the comment I inserted is correctly defined, that is, people only gets punishment from justice without gaining any moral values.

Anonymous said...

Your quote of "The murderer's accomplice should be punished the same way the actual perpetrator is punished" is definitely true. Therefore this leads to the question of how does non-violent crimes get punished? Well, Kant would say that those who do drugs are nonviolent, but they violate the law which is set before them. They neglect their duty and reverence of the law. So, they should be punished by the laws. However, in our justice system, sometimes the law can be unclear because the laws are controlled by the people and the people control the laws. In the end, everyone gets hurt from justice and the law. Going back to the comment, you stated that Victoria is a protagonist, but as for the audience, they believe she is the antagonist. In end, I think the comment I inserted is correctly defined, that is, people only gets punishment from justice without gaining any moral values.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you in that the crimes committed by the woman were just as despicable as the murder committed by her fiance, but I disagree with you in that they should receive the same punishment. Although it might be fair to do so in this case, sometimes the bystander is forced to watch as the murder happens.
I also agree with your opinion that her punishment would be fair were it not for her memory being wiped everyday.