in allowing the rapes and beatings to occur when he had the power from day one to stop it? I get what the character was trying to accomplish while undercover but it seems both legally and morally wrong to watch when you have the power to stop it.
shareHe wanted to remain unidentified longer to gather more data on what needed to be fixed. Had he come forth during or before the first strapping, anything after that he wouldn't have known as much about as an actual witness and therefor defeated the purpose of going in undercover.
shareAs far as furthering the point of the movie (which was, to get all the info possible on wrongdoing), no he wasn't wrong. But, as far as the inmate (or, any other inmate) being raped ... h*ll yeah, he was wrong !!! One rape, ANY rape ... is too many, and wrong!
"I'm gonna hunt for U, I WILL find U, and I will KILL U"! L.Neeson - TAKENshare
I get the sense that because absolutely no one in the prison was aware of who he was, revealing himself at that point would have only put himself in danger without doing anything to stop the assaults. Remember, this is a prison with no civilian employees (all the "guards" are inmates), and he was only able to reveal his identity once he figured out a way to get into the warden's office and reveal what he had memorized about some of the inmates who worked closely with the warden. Presumably, a new inmate who demands to see the warden for an unspecified reason would be ignored (or worse).
Gary Krause
At least one of those guys was a state employee. The guy with glasses (Willets, maybe?) wasn't an inmate.
---
I'm just expressing my opinion.
You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas.
Probably the biggest flaw in the film! Starting off with the escapee who was shot and put on the bus.
Watching raped and beatings is something that can be overlooked without being considered gross negligence. But men dying? No