MovieChat Forums > Fury (1936) Discussion > So in the end (spoiler)

So in the end (spoiler)

posted 17 years ago by puzzow
7 replies | jump to latest

The implication is that Spencer Tracy's character is to pay for not coming forward sooner, whereas...the mob gets off because they didn't succeed in killing him? Because that would be a pretty wonky miscarriage of justice. All those people would be guilty of arson and attempted murder. Why should they get off? The fact that the murder didn't actually occur seems like a mere technicality when there was a premeditated intent to kill. Their sentencing shouldn't be lighter just because they didn't succeed. They may not deserve hanging, but they all deserve lengthy prison sentences. Whether Spencer Tracy comes forward at the end seems almost immaterial, except for the fact that it would have destroyed who he was as a person if he hadn't. It's not like these were innocent people. There would be nothing injust about them being convicted as murderers, because this is essentially what they are.

[–] Altho73 16 years ago

The fact that they did not succeed in the murder of the Spencer Tracy character does not make them innocent. There is no way that they should get off with it, they should face charges for -

1. Attempted murder
2. Causing serious damage to Government property
3. Threatening behaviour towards officers of the law
4. Acutal assault of officers of the law
5. Arson
6. Preventing officers of the law from carrying out their duties
7. Preventing firemen from carrying out their duties
8. Assault with a deadly weapon - dynamite
9. Causing the death of an animal
10. Perjury
11. Causing anarchy

They should be sentenced to a MINIMUM of twenty years in a hard line penitentiary.

All the town's people, including the women who lied under oath in court should face charges for -
1. Perjury
2. Obstruction of justice

and should be sentenced to a MINIMUM of five years in a hard line penitentiary.

[–] pmiano100 16 years ago

And what would happen to the children and the town itself while all the adults were in jail? Of course you're right from a legal and moral point of view. However, when it comes to mob violence, in the real world (at least in the U.S.) practicality wins out. At most, just a few who led or incited the violence, or committed the most horrific acts, would be prosecuted.

[–] Bob_Brooker 9 years ago

they should face charges for -
9. Causing the death of an animal

We might get there some day, but this certainly wasn't a crime back in the 30s.

__________
Last movie watched: The Banishment (8/10)

[–] RRozsa 16 years ago

I don't think we are to assume that the mob gets off entirely -- they just won't be hanged for murder. That's why Joe felt justified in putting those people through all that he did by not revealing sooner that he was still alive -- because the mere fact that they thought they had killed an innocent man and had to go through the whole trial, believing they would eventually be hanged for murder was a type of punishment in itself. But I think we are left to assume that all of those who have been found guilty will have to do some jail time, for attempted murder, destruction of property, and all the other charges that the DA can come up with. But the next time some guy is arrested and put in their jail, they will probably at least think twice before attempting to lynch him.....

[–] thehudsonyang 9 years ago

The Hayes Code of 1934 to the very late 1950s dictates you MUST be punished for "bad" behaviour. So technically, Wilson should pay for faking his death somewhat, yes... but attempted murder is far, far worse & should have been punished. IDIOTIC Movie Code!!

www.Circumstitions.com "HIS Body, HIS Choice!"

[–] JohninVegas 8 years ago

They left us in the dark to what happened to the "CONVICTED" mob.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]