Thought, causing questions related to the movie "Time to kill"

Justice. Can it be considered in your hands under any circumstances?

In Canton, Mississippi, 10-year-old African-American Tonya Haley is viciously mistreated and raped by two drunken white racist coarse hair. While Tonya remains barely alive and can no longer have children, her rapists are brought to justice, where justice should serve what they did. Just one year earlier, another young African-American girl had been raped by four men, and they were all released for free.

Was the sentence rejected because of the ethnicity of the participants or was the rape perhaps less serious?

Do you think Tony's rape cruelty would be enough to get a harsher sentence for his rapists than the previous case?

Do you think that if Tonya were not so cruel that if her father did not kill the rapists, the sentence would be the same?

Is this justice or is it racism? If this little girl were white, would the result be different?

If her rapists were black, would that change the verdict?

With this in mind, her devastated father Karl decides that the only justice equal to the devastation inflicted on his little daughter is the death of the rapists. Then he is persecuted for murder.

What offer should Carl get? Did the fact that he was a black man, and he killed two whites, changed something?

Carl took action too soon - should he at least wait until the verdict is announced or does it not matter?

Is it morally correct for an innocent young girl to be beaten by her dignity and ability for mothers, while the grown men who deprived her could be released without any punishment?

What should be the punishment / cost for men who are responsible for depriving a young innocent girl of her dignity and ability to bear children?

Is death an adequate punishment, or is there a better solution, where will they have to suffer guilt for what they have done?

What if they have no guilt - what if they only have pride?

Can death ever be justice?

Racism. White men think they are more dominant than African Americans, treating them as unholy, unclean, useless people.

How justified is the desire for an African-American man to be killed for killing two white people who tried to kill after abusive, raped, constantly intimidating and desecrating young African Americans?

Is it not like a white man sided with an African American man who avenged what was done to his daughter or for white people to terrorize white people who stand behind

An African American man who avenged what was done to his daughter?

If two African-Americans were raped, mistreated and attempted to kill after the humiliation of a young white girl, and her father would kill two white men, if he had the same ordeal?

Who describes to die of these two groups of people - an African-American man whose daughter was disturbed and killed people who violated his daughter or white men who violated his young girlfriend?

Does anyone deserve to die? Who should be the determinant of death?

With racial circumstances — seeing how the rapists of a young girl were not punished because men were white and African-American girls were Karl’s actions justified and possibly tiger-like, so that the eyes of justice would stop seeing racial differences?

------------------
My opinion

Given the prevalence of racism during this film, it is likely to assume that the case of a previous African American girl was biased racist. I would like to know about all the listed rape cases in the date range from 01/01/1990 to 12/31/1996, in order to compare the number of cases of rape of a little white girl and sentences compared to the number of cases of a little black girl who was raped and sentence. It will also help find out which rape cases also include assault and degradation and what the sentence is for those in particular, as well as compare the ethics of the victims.

In addition, although this does not necessarily apply to this circumstance, monitoring the ethnic identity of the perpetrators will probably help to correlate the effect of ethnicity on the verdict of rape / assault cases.

However, without knowing this information, but having general knowledge of the prevalence of racism in the 1990s, I would say that if Tony’s rapists had not been killed, they probably would have received a pledge and that John’s actions were necessary to ensure that that the case be considered in the light of not only rape, but also the expulsion and persistent abuse of Tonya, which otherwise might have been lost. For the timing of action, John would probably be louder if he waited until the verdict decision was made, but only if they were released, because then his actions would be more against the judicial system than personally.

Therefore, I believe that, although this is a stunning film and still proves the point of view about racism at that time not only in America, but also in the courts, and how it needs to be reconsidered, it would probably be stronger if if Tonya’s perpetrators were admitted to the hearing and were spotted innocent, then filled with John, who may still have been in the court house and still wounded the sheriff’s leg. Thus, John’s actions would be directed not only at the people who had hurt his little girl, but even more so in the judicial system.

However, if, perhaps, Tony’s attack was taken into account, and they were found guilty, their criminal process was still insufficient for their crime, and if John decided to shoot them at that time, he heard the punishment for failure, which can also be difficult plot. But also, if there had been a case between Tonya and her rapists, it could have been a strong case if Jake and Lucien worked on it, and I feel that only the harshest punishment would be justified, so either the death sentence or life century.

In general, I liked the plot of the film and I think that he still spoke very strongly about the judicial system in America, but if I changed something, the only thing that could be changed and still allow a strong film with the same the result would be John killing them after they were found innocent.

I like the role in which a group of African-American men, including the pastor of the family of Karl and a high-class lawyer, tries to convince Karl to allow them to represent him. They want to charge him 7 thousand dollars in fees for a lawyer, which they conveniently bring from organizations and the church. Karl wanted to use the money to help his family pay bills and there is that the pastor told the sacrament that it is that the money goes, but instead it will be used for their attorney fees. So I like it when they tell them thanks for the money, give some to my wife and the rest to my lawyer Jake, whom he prefers to stick with as his lawyer.

This demonstrates how they believed that they should think of the case as a positive view and movement for the African American community, and not a moral struggle with the justice system for individuals who can act if justice does not act.