The movie came out in October of 2009 but I just now watched “Law Abiding Citizen”. I’ll be talking about the plot a bit, so if you have managed to avoid hearing about it and don’t want it spoiled, you’d better go somewhere else for a little while.
Many interesting points came up through the movie, but I’ll focus on a few points of the story which I thought were hyper-critical. The first point is that the father, Clyde, claims that the justice system is broken and his main purpose is to tear it down; I assume he thinks something better will come in its place.
This is a common theme, found also in the French Revolution: The only way to make things better is to create chaos. By tearing everything down, we are able to build something better. The French revolution was an attempt to overthrow the current legal system, and this desire came from a belief that not only was the current system corrupt (which it was, for various reasons), but also from the belief that a better system would inevitably emerge from the chaos.
Common to this view of chaos-to-order is the belief that mankind is basically good, at the core. “Current government systems are corrupt only because they have had the power too long.” By removing the current power, the innate goodness of mankind will create a government system that is better. Certainly it would not be likely that this created government system be perfect, but at least better.
This view was shown in the character Clyde, who could see the injustice present in the legal system, and thought that by tearing it down it could be rebuilt in a more fair way. However, can this really occur? Certainly, if one assumes the human nature to be basically good, it could be reasonably argued that such a thing is possible. Of course, Clyde might be going about it the wrong way, but his basic idea of chaos leading to good would have been right.
This view is held by the Roman church in general, and by many Baptists apparently. In fact, I would say that this view is one which has become pervasive through all political parties. But it is an entirely indefensible view: Scripture is quite clear in an overwhelming way, that the nature of man is to be predisposed toward sin. This predisposition has gone by many names, but the most common is what the reformers called “total depravity”—all of mankind is naturally inclined toward sin. This view is most clear in the following passage:
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)
The second view presented in the film is the answer to the question “What is justice?”, which is presented throughout in direct question by Clyde, but also in the willingness of the lawyers and mayor to “bend” the law in order to fulfill “justice”.
Clyde’s family was killed by terrible people and, according to Exodus 21:12 (and many other verses), the murderer deserved the death penalty:
“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6) “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10) “Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:12)
But in the case of this movie, the one who murdered did not get the death penalty, while the one who did not do the murdering did get the death penalty. The question of whether Clyde had authority to carry out the death penalty on the actual murderer will show us several other hidden problems with the current legal system.
Did Clyde have the authority? Consider this: Clyde directly witnessed the murder of his family, Clyde was (obviously) the direct and nearest relative to his family, thereby satisfying the requirements to be the “Avenger of Blood” mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:11-13 and others, and allowing for Clyde to legally kill the murderer. However, the Bible also requires for there to be “cities of refuge”, as mentioned in Numbers 35:25 and others, and in the United States we don’t really have those. Clyde says that the justice system is faulty, and he is right, but his reasons are wrong: The current legal system is at fault because it does not follow God’s Law, which gives Clyde the authority to kill the murderer if the murderer has not fled to a city of refuge.
However, even the avenger of blood had to follow legal proceedings so it could be said that, after the court decided that the actual murderer was not guilty of murder, Clyde could not legally kill him. But even in this we see a fault in our legal system, namely, if the murderer was truly found guilty of murder, the death penalty would still stand.
The final error in Clyde’s thinking was that a true justice system would be one which punishes all criminals. This argument is truly impossible: It is impossible to know in every case that a person is guilty or innocent, and it is true that in any system guilty people occasionally go free and innocent people are punished. This is even true in the legal system presented in the Bible, leading to the question I have heard from an atheist: “If God’s Law is not perfect, why do you support it so much?” But I would never say that “God’s Law is not perfect”, rather David says quite clearly that it is perfect!
Humans always have imperfect knowledge, and to expect that we will always be able to correctly carry out justice is to assume that we would somehow have perfect knowledge. We could, of course, simply execute anyone who is accused of a crime (much like the French Revolution period) but we would be in danger of killing people who were innocent. Likewise, we could let people do as they choose (pure anarchy) but we would have a society which would be entirely unsafe. Where is the balance? What is the right method of law?
Was Clyde right in desiring to kill the person who murdered his family. The Bible is quite clear that the answer is yes, Clyde’s desire was right.
Was Clyde right in what he did? The Bible is also quite clear that the answer is a resounding no. Even had the death penalty been able to be carried out, Clyde’s action was not to simply carry out the death penalty, but to exact maximum pain, both physical and emotional. This is not a Biblically allowed method.