I would like to have given this movie a higher score, but right from the outset its creators made clear their political agenda.
As a well-acted drama there was much to admire. The script was good, the directing precise and the details of the period very well observed. All of the players gave a very plausible representation of prevailing nuances, which can't have been easy as non of them had even been born then.
Unfortunately, one couldn't help thinking of it as a piece of left-wing propaganda. And that's where I take off a point or two.
Back in the 1950's the almost ironically named 'criminal justice system' was anything but. It was about finding culprits and punishing them, rather than promoting justice. The courts very much represented the establishment, and the establishment perspective towards the working class. And it was never wrong. Issues like emotional delinquency, or educational and mental sub-normality were almost never taken into account. Basically; if you were equal to the crime, you were equal to the punishment.
However dim-witted this duo really were; they were not too dim to plan a burglary. neither were they too dim to obtain a firearm, knuckle-duster and a knife. To this extent, they at least knew what they were doing and why.
In the third millennium, we can take a more enlightened view of what would otherwise constitute 'mitigating circumstances'. And it may well be that these youths were not ultimately guilty of murder, insofar as there was no premeditation to kill. The shooting was a 'moment of madness' so to speak, by a couple of neglected, under-achieving, inadequately-parented boys in the guise of men. Heaven knows, there's no shortage of their kind today.
In the USA, such a spontaneous shooting might have been considered 2nd degree murder. Whereas in Britain, in 1952, no such latitude existed in law. As another commentator has observed, if you carried a gun (very rare at that time) and you engaged in crimes, and killed someone in the process - then, rightly or wrongly - you hanged. And this would certainly have been true when the victim was a copper.
Because of the bungling, clumsy juggernaut that was the legal system in the 1950's, abolishing the death penalty was perhaps a good thing back then. The system, quite simply, couldn't be trusted. It was imprecise and lacked subtlety.
But now things are different. The system is much more open and accountable. Pleas of mitigation are far more likely to receive a fair hearing. Whilst, on the other hand, murder - and I mean sadistic, indiscriminate murder - has never been so rife. Today, carrying a gun is almost a fashion-statement of criminality. For these two reasons alone, there is now a sound case for the death penalty's re-introduction.
Left-wing moralists who cry-up capital punishment as 'state murder' are actually the most sanctimonious hypocrites. They are perfectly willing to allow our police almost routinely to carry firearms, in the full knowledge that those officers are trained specifically to kill. Which they do - often. Mostly, such killing has been mitigated as self defence. But this is not always true. Sometimes the police fire first. How can we claim, then, not to have a death penalty under these circumstances?
Surely execution after a fair hearing and conviction is far more just and humane than summary assassination by the police on the basis of official suspicion. Those who deny a death penalty to the courts simply lack the moral courage to accept any personal responsibility themselves, and quickly turn the page when they read about police officers assassinating suspects, to all intents and purposes at the discretion of Parliament, and therefore implicitly on their own hypocritical behalf.
As Bob Dylan once observed 'the executioner's face is always well hidden'.
By the way; the dead policeman was called Sidney Miles. Not many people seem to remember that during all the soul-searching over these thugs.
As a well-acted drama there was much to admire. The script was good, the directing precise and the details of the period very well observed. All of the players gave a very plausible representation of prevailing nuances, which can't have been easy as non of them had even been born then.
Unfortunately, one couldn't help thinking of it as a piece of left-wing propaganda. And that's where I take off a point or two.
Back in the 1950's the almost ironically named 'criminal justice system' was anything but. It was about finding culprits and punishing them, rather than promoting justice. The courts very much represented the establishment, and the establishment perspective towards the working class. And it was never wrong. Issues like emotional delinquency, or educational and mental sub-normality were almost never taken into account. Basically; if you were equal to the crime, you were equal to the punishment.
However dim-witted this duo really were; they were not too dim to plan a burglary. neither were they too dim to obtain a firearm, knuckle-duster and a knife. To this extent, they at least knew what they were doing and why.
In the third millennium, we can take a more enlightened view of what would otherwise constitute 'mitigating circumstances'. And it may well be that these youths were not ultimately guilty of murder, insofar as there was no premeditation to kill. The shooting was a 'moment of madness' so to speak, by a couple of neglected, under-achieving, inadequately-parented boys in the guise of men. Heaven knows, there's no shortage of their kind today.
In the USA, such a spontaneous shooting might have been considered 2nd degree murder. Whereas in Britain, in 1952, no such latitude existed in law. As another commentator has observed, if you carried a gun (very rare at that time) and you engaged in crimes, and killed someone in the process - then, rightly or wrongly - you hanged. And this would certainly have been true when the victim was a copper.
Because of the bungling, clumsy juggernaut that was the legal system in the 1950's, abolishing the death penalty was perhaps a good thing back then. The system, quite simply, couldn't be trusted. It was imprecise and lacked subtlety.
But now things are different. The system is much more open and accountable. Pleas of mitigation are far more likely to receive a fair hearing. Whilst, on the other hand, murder - and I mean sadistic, indiscriminate murder - has never been so rife. Today, carrying a gun is almost a fashion-statement of criminality. For these two reasons alone, there is now a sound case for the death penalty's re-introduction.
Left-wing moralists who cry-up capital punishment as 'state murder' are actually the most sanctimonious hypocrites. They are perfectly willing to allow our police almost routinely to carry firearms, in the full knowledge that those officers are trained specifically to kill. Which they do - often. Mostly, such killing has been mitigated as self defence. But this is not always true. Sometimes the police fire first. How can we claim, then, not to have a death penalty under these circumstances?
Surely execution after a fair hearing and conviction is far more just and humane than summary assassination by the police on the basis of official suspicion. Those who deny a death penalty to the courts simply lack the moral courage to accept any personal responsibility themselves, and quickly turn the page when they read about police officers assassinating suspects, to all intents and purposes at the discretion of Parliament, and therefore implicitly on their own hypocritical behalf.
As Bob Dylan once observed 'the executioner's face is always well hidden'.
By the way; the dead policeman was called Sidney Miles. Not many people seem to remember that during all the soul-searching over these thugs.