I've been pretty Batman heavy, so let me move to another trilogy I enjoy: The Lord of the Rings.
One important question underlying the rehab v retribution debate is whether or not a bad person CAN be rehabilitated. Those sentenced for alcohol-related crimes may have the alcoholic gene. More violent criminals may be sociopaths, incapable of reform. And the issue of whether or not child molesters can be truly reformed is a debate for another time and with someone more knowledgeable. But in Tolkien's fictional character of Gollum, we see a real conflict between the desire to reform and the desire to treat people as means to an end.
A little back story on Gollum for those unfamiliar with the character...
He was once a regular person named Smeagol who had a friend who by chance found the ring. Smeagol saw it and was captivated by it immediately. His friend refuses to give it to him and a fight ensues, where Smeagol ends up strangling his friend to death and obtaining the ring. The film doesn't offer specifics but what's clear is that Smeagol's life is changed forever. As the ring has corrupted his soul, his body and appearance reflect that evil and gives him his almost-demonic-like appearance. He also suffers from a sort of split personality. On one side there is Smeagol, the innocent soul who just wanted a day of fishing with his good buddy. On the other side is Gollum - who embodies the same avarice as the Dark Lord Sauron and seeks the ring at all costs, poisoning everything that is good in Smeagol.
When Frodo and his friend Sam are on their trek to take the ring to Mount Doom to destroy it, they are met by Gollum. Frodo has the opportunity to kill him, just as Bilbo did nearly 60 years earlier, but he relents and bargains with Gollum. He spares his life in return for Gollum's guidance through Mordor. Sam immediately protests this decision and we see that Frodo and Sam have two distinct philosophies on crime. Frodo believes in Gollum's rehabilitation. He even begins to refer to him as Smeagol to help him free himself from the desire for the ring. Sam never gives him a chance. In Sam's mind, Gollum will ALWAYS be Gollum, nothing more than a greedy, deceitful murderer. Reform is not possible in Sam's mind.
For the most part, Smeagol's rehabilitation is successful and he jumps around in glee once he realizes he's free from the influence of the ring and Gollum. But this victory is short-lived for circumstances cause Frodo to betray Smeagol and all the progress is undone. By the end of the second film, Gollum has returned and devises a plan to kill Sam and Frodo. He also learns to manipulate Frodo's trust of him in order to drive a wedge between him and Sam's friendship.
All this leads back to the question of whether or not your average convict has this struggle. What about someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter because they were driving drunk and killed a family of five? What about someone who broke into someone's car to steal something to feed a drug habit? What about someone who is convicted of assault after beating his spouse? Do these persons need more exposure to the "Frodos" of the criminal justice system - people who believe in their ability to reform? Or is it just a waste of time and we're better off adopting Sam's attitude that people who do horrible things like this are beyond help?
Here are a couple of websites to help you through this:
There's this one
and this one
No comments:
Post a Comment