If I read the characters right, (and the flashback) the reason Duncan was willing to protect the guy is that at the beginning there was no proof of his guilt, even though WE know he did it (Dramatic Irony and all that). It's a thorny issue to take a side in a situation with people you don't know... where it's one person's word against another's, but people tend to let their biases dictate who they believe.
IMO Duncan believed that he needed to give him a chance to be proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. AKA Innocent until proven guilty. But the guy is a scumbag who deserved to go to prison for life.
I think maybe the writers we're trying to put a message of the importance of the rule of law over vigilantism, but I can agree they went about it in a ham-fisted, non-sensical way, ridiculously over the top with all the traps and whatnot.
BJ Stephens
2022-09-18 16:23:41 +0000 UTC
Yep, this was trash back in the 90’s. Today it wouldn’t get made. Not often I agree with Richie over Duncan.