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.

From the Associated Press comes the report that the CIA’s harsh interrogation techniques likely damaged the brain of terrorist suspects. Generally, the response by professor of neuroscience Shane O’Mara seems to be only that the techniques used were primitive and relied on older understandings of neurology.

In London, a secret agent apparently reported that torture was being used within Britain, prompting William Hague, the foreign affairs spokesman of the opposition Conservative Party, to speak out: “Torture or complicity in torture is unacceptable, immoral, and counterproductive.”

And last, the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes at then-president George Bush, was finally released after being in jail for nine months. The reporter, al-Zeidi, claims to have been tortured during his stay in prison.

Proponents of waterboarding have argued that the information gathered from it makes it an acceptable thing. In fact, torture in general is arguably an effective tool for gathering information. Despite the arguments contrary, torture does actually produce useable results, especially when done carefully by experts who have advanced understanding of neuroscience.

Of course, we can’t just say “It’s effective, therefore acceptable.” In an extreme case, we might argue that burning down an entire village is an acceptable cost, since a terrorist is hiding inside and no one knows where he is. Of course, in any thing we must view the Bible and attempt to apply it, so let us do so with torture:

There are two times, in general, where torture is used: Before and after a trial. In the case of pre-trial, which is where almost all cases of torture occur, the Bible is quite clear on the issue: Physical torture of any kind is simply not allowed. In Deuteronomy 25, the law is being recited regarding what to do in cases of disputes. In verse 1-3 it says:

“If there is a dispute between men, and they come to court … then it shall be, if the wicked man deserves to be beaten, that the judge will cause him … to be beaten in his presence, according to his guilt, with a certain number of blows. Forty blows he may give him and no more… lest … your brother be humiliated in your sight.” Deuteronomy 25:1-3

From this passage we can understand three principles which should guide our view of torture:
1: Any beating (in this discussion, torture) is to be done after the judge finds the person guilty. In general, torture is carried out on people who are being held under suspicion, but who haven’t been convicted of crime. This is not allowed.
2: The beating must occur within the rpesence of the judge. Even if a person were to be condemned by the judge, the beating must be applied on location. Again, general torture is taken place in rooms far seperated from any judge who may have delivered judgement. This also is not allowed.
3: The guilty person can only be beaten according to his guilt, with a maximum set number of blows. The goal of the beatings is punishment, the restriction is that the criminal is not humiliated. This would preclude almost any general form of torture immediately, even if the person was found guilty.

An argument in response might say that this law applied only to Israelites, therefore it isn’t applicable to those outside one’s nation, however, Leviticus 19:34 says that “The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you”, that is, the Jew and Gentile are to be treated the same. Even more direct is Leviticus 24:22 “You shall have the same law for the stranger and for the one from your own country.”

Additional arguments can obviously be made by either side, but I think the basic premise of the Law stands: A person cannot be beaten (tortured) unless duly convicted, and even then the beatings cannot be too excessive. This Law stands for citizens or non-citizens both. This alone will remove the legality of most uses of torture.