Because there is no complete theoretical system to support, Yashenyue's justice has become distorted under the long-term superpower of "manipulating other people's lives and deaths". He killed his father and killed people who were not at fault. It is contrary to insist on killing the guilty; and his excuse for his own is simply that "a part of the necessary people must be sacrificed in order to establish a new order."
Today I watched a case in the British drama "The Great Detective Poirot", Murder on the Orient Express. The reasoning color in the play is not strong, and the highlight is at the end - it faces the conflict between justice and law again. I am not familiar with Catholicism in the West, and I have only read a few short stories about it in a superficial range, and even once made me misunderstand that Jesus is actually a magician. Let’s talk about the whole story first: the murderer created a kidnapping case in the United States, directly killing a little girl, and triggering a chain reaction that led to the death of four people in this family, including the housekeeper. The murderer later forced the jury to acquit him through bribes and threats. Five years later, people connected to the family united to trick the killer into the same carriage and kill him.
Poirot is a complete defender of the law. His principles are the bottom line of the law. No one can control the law, regardless of his beliefs, status and experience. There are parts of the movie that mention Catholic doctrine, which is roughly that killing a child is a sin that God cannot tolerate. At the end of last year, I saw an old German film "M is the Murderer", in which the underworld even set up a private court to punish a murderer of a child! However, such a "crime that even God cannot forgive" has been identified as innocent by the law. This is the conflict between moral justice and legal justice, religious justice and legal justice, and it is even more difficult for the parties concerned. The deceased in the carriage was once a vicious murderer and also a victim; the other 12 people, who claimed to be law enforcement officers of justice, are outright murderers at this moment. At this time, it is often no longer a question of right and wrong, but which side should be used as the basis to judge the case.
Sadly, Poirot also appears to be a Catholic, as can be inferred from the tearful image of him clutching the cross at the end. The film does not explain Poirot's choice at the end, his words can show his firmness as a legal defender: The rule of law, it must be held high! And if it falls, you pick it up and hold it even higher! For all society all civillized people will have nothing to shelter them if it is destroyed Place)! But such a contradiction is still too cruel to him. When the law can no longer protect them, why ask them to uphold the law? Poirot's tears are not only helpless, but also a choice for the conflict of justice.
View more about Murder on the Orient Express reviews
