MovieChat Forums > Hard Candy (2006) Discussion > Hard Candy? This movie should have been ...

Hard Candy? This movie should have been called Sick Little Lunatic!


Hard Candy is a deeply disturbing movie on so many levels. It’s very hard to watch. One thing it does extremely well and the reason people should see it is because it shows the inner workings and the thought process of a sick, psychotic mind.

Ellen Page plays this role chillingly well. She’s completely believable as this full-blown insane, cold-hearted, self-righteous, man-fearing, man-loathing, sociopath. Patrick Wilson is equally good in his role as the victim. What’s really sad is there may be a few people who see this film and side with her. They too were probably raised with ultra-Liberal, ultra-Feminist views and taught early on to hate men. In their sick, twisted minds, all things male are evil and anything women do to men is completely justified and acceptable. Let's be clear, I am a woman; just not one of these types.

The sad truth is the little depraved maniac had no problem playing with the guys genitals and torturing him. What does that say about her? If we condone her actions because she may have been at some point victimized then what about Jeff? Many child abusing, pedophile creeps had been abused themselves. Wait, before some of you cry foul and say this sounds like he had it coming so who cares, remember, he's not her only victim. Yes, he seems to confess but under duress some people will do and say anything. Consider how many people confess to crimes they didn’t commit. Anyway, my point is whatever Jeff may or may not have done, the little twit pulled other people into this too - both Janelle and Judy even Hayley herself (along with who knows who else) are also her victims. There’s no indication Janelle and Judy did anything wrong or were in cahoots with Jeff so there’s no justification possible there for pulling in innocent victims. In her case, everything Jeff says about this haunting her later would be true if she had a conscience or any compassion for anyone else but it will stay with her in other ways.

It’s likely Janelle and Judy will both be traumatized though by what Hayley’s done: Janelle will likely find Jeff's body. She may blame herself for having been at one time in love with or, at least, close to him; and for whatever the ‘evidence’ left strewn around his house may reveal. She’ll wonder why she didn’t see it and wonder if she might have been able to stop him or get him help because chances are she'll believe it all.

Judy, will ask herself what she might have done to prevent this murder. She lives a couple of doors down and has small female children who had at least enough contact with Jeff to have at one point taken his order for GS cookies. She’ll always wonder if he had taken advantage of her child(ren). Though, in her case, she also needs to do a little soul-searching and wonder why she’s so willing to put her children in the care of someone she just met, doesn’t know and, by the way, as we know, is a psycho, lunatic, killer. Presumably the police will investigate and figure out it was not some creep who suddenly decides to repent and kill himself. Someone else was there and has now gone missing - red flag.

Yes, I’ll say it again, murder! Like it or not, Hayley is a cold-blooded killer. Whatever did or did not happen to her; whatever Jeff did or did not do to anyone, she does not have the right to cause someone else’s death. This was NOT suicide and it was NOT self-defense on her part; it was first degree, pre-meditated, calculated murder. Period! That would make her eligible for the death penalty in states that have it.

In case anyone is feeling sorry for her, forget it. Whatever Jeff did or did not do, he should have his day in court. The story about his aunt and niece is a good way of showing how someone can be victimized, traumatized, and scarred for something that may not have happened. Mothers should protect their children but her overreaction may have been the very thing that caused him to become a pedophile; if that’s what he was. The kid was ten for crying out loud and her nephew. Keep him away from the daughter(s), sure, but get him help and don’t make the problem worse.

It’s obvious this movie angers and upsets me big time but what really bothers me most is the slightest possibility Hayley will get away with what she’s done. I despise pedophiles as much as the next person but if that’s what he was, all his possible victims deserved their day in court as well. Hayley deprived them of that for her own sick satisfaction and pleasure. Maybe this is how she gets her kicks; wouldn’t that make her a sex offender too? I say yes! For all her the venom she spews, she’s no different than and as vile as what she’s accusing him of being. It's a pathetic double standard.

In civilized society, we have laws and ways of dealing with criminals for a reason. Taking the law into our own hands in a situation like this is problematic. Mistakes can be made, chaos can ensue, and if we all were to act this way, we'd become no better than the criminals ourselves; the very thing we claim to hate. Don’t get me wrong, I say good-riddance to all criminals but what’s the benefit to society when we get rid of one criminal by creating another?

Sick, sick, sick!!!!

By the way, Jeff could have avoided the final outcome had he made different choices each time he broke free of Hayley. He did play right into her hands falling perfectly into her trap (which works for the plot of the movie) but I accept this as reasonable because the rage that built up in him while being tortured dictated his behavior. I do not feel his actions or the fact he did not call the police as ‘proof’ of his guilt either.

Had he called them and Hayley was caught, she’d have denied everything. Society would tend to side with her making it difficult, if not, impossible for him to prove his version of events is what had occurred that day. As humans, we all have that same ‘fight or flight’ instinct. We don't always know which way we'll go; some would have made one choice (to fight); others, the opposite choice (to flee). I do, on the other hand, have a hard time understanding why Judy failed to pick up on the signs that something was wrong. The girl had blood across her forehead and a lot of things seemed out of place yet all she could think of was snagging a babysitter? Come on!

reply

Don't write a thousand words defending a self-admitted pedophilic sexual predator. It doesn't make you look good...

reply

^^Legit.

reply

totally.

reply

[deleted]

Hahaha you cute.

reply

You said it West Saxon. Maybe they couldn't think of any thing to say to make an argument. Of course if they're high functioning autistic I think they need to be cut some slack. (B/t/w West Saxon, I wish I'd seen your handle first, 'cause my ancestors are!)

reply

you need and english course, buddie.

reply

Oh the irony.

reply

oh the humanity.

reply

Don't write a thousand words defending a self-admitted pedophilic sexual predator. It doesn't make you look good...
You should be ashamed for even saying that!

My point is, based on what's in the movie we have NO idea what he is or what he's done. However, we most definitely know what she is. At best, there are suggestions that he might have done something to someone but all of that information happens to come from the person who is abusing him. How reliable is that?

I don't care how it makes me look because this is the very point I keep trying to make. It shocks and offends me how easy it seems to be for people to be swayed by questionable sources; how easy it is for some to judge others based solely on appearances. What about proof and evidence; do they not matter?

In this movie we see with our own eyes what one teenage girl is capable of doing to another person yet we are willing to discount all that and choose to believe what we have absolutely no idea happened. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

I suspect some people understand full well what I'm saying but they're hesitant to agree with me because of exactly what you said, how it will make them look. How sad that is for all of society!

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

She wasn't defending him at all COGHLAN. You read what you wanted to read.

reply

You're about six months late to this discussion, kid. Move along.

reply

I don't think he was a sex predator.

reply

then you slept through the film.

reply

A pedophile perhaps, but not a sex predator.

reply

he was present during the rape and murder of an underage teen and wanted to make pictures.

reply

Was it really proven though? It could be a mistake.

reply

nope, no mistake. rewatch the movie and/or read through my comments. it has been proven, that he was present during the rape and murder of an underage teenage girl and that he wanted to take at least nude pictures. also, he was one of only two people present. all facts. also we know about the pics on his computer and in his VAULT.

reply

also, for the predator part:

1. he meets up for a date with an obviously not legal teen.
as it turns out later in the film, unbeknnownst to him, she was active in multiple chat rooms he visited and met him online under different accounts, but as soon as one account claimed to be over 14, he immediately dropped the contact. it was only the account, where she claimed to be 14, that he stayed in contact with
2. he willingly lied about having the same interests (goldfrapp ...etc)
3. he then lured her to his home. a guy in his 30s, taking a supposedly 14 year old home!!!
4. he trid to make her drunk

reply

He was ... just looking for willing victims, so he was possibly not a rapist.
And by the way, a pedophile is defined as some who likes children, not
just anyone who is attracted to a minor person. So many people get this
wrong, so it's no surprising a lot of people do not know what they are talking
about.

reply

Anyone who uses "feminist" and "liberal" in a generally negative connotation, without citation of a specific example or specific situation, gets the big fail. Also, these are general concepts, not to be capitalized by English language abusers who take pride in their stupidity, yet yell about their "country pride".

I rather make a pedophile kill himself than attack a 14 year-old girl in a fictional story for her mental state.

reply

jadegreengirl says > Anyone who uses "feminist" and "liberal" in a generally negative connotation, without citation of a specific example or specific situation, gets the big fail.
Well, it is how she's portrayed in the movie. She kept making generalizations and referencing concepts that relate to those terms. I cited the movie.

abusers who take pride in their stupidity
If what I am is stupid, great! I own it and take pride in it. What boggles my mind though is how a capitalization error or misuse of the English language, as you put it, can be a bigger offense than abuse and murder of a fellow human being. How very strange!

I rather make a pedophile kill himself than attack a 14 year-old girl in a fictional story for her mental state.
The so-called 'pedophile' you're referring to is also a fictionalized character in the same movie; which happens to be what's being discussed here. I, on the other hand, am not fictionalized; I'm real but you don't seem to have any problem hurling attacks at me.

By the way, you say I abuse the English language yet you don't seem to know that the proper start to your sentence is 'I'd rather...'. Let's not throw stones.

I actually don't blame you or anyone else who has felt it necessary to attack me personally. I think it stems from the discomfort people feel discussing difficult issues.

reply

[deleted]

You're just a frustrated pedophile.

reply

Nobody-M says > You're just a frustrated pedophile.
Wow! You do know what that makes you then, right? You're Hayley, that disturbed person who is somehow willing and very comfortable throwing around such a vile accusation. And based on what?

Nothing; you don't need any proof. You have whatever twisted ideas that are floating around in your own mind. That's all it takes really. You don't like what I have to say so that has to mean something, doesn't it? What's really scary is that you're okay with that.

Ironically, you're proving my point so perfectly you probably don't even see it yourself. If this doesn't help you and others understand what I've been saying all along, perhaps nothing ever will.

==
By the way, I saw an interesting movie recently that has similar themes. It's called Fury; the 1936 version with Spencer Tracy. You can rent it on Amazon. Definitely check it out, maybe you'll recognize yourself in the crowd.

reply

a) you come off pretty creepy
b) your OP which is 90% about how terrible haily is for doing this to a dude that not only sat there watching while a minor was gang raped and killed, but also wanted to take pictures, does not neccessarily speak in your favor.
c) what "point" of yours do you think the other poster proves by calling you out?

" If this doesn't help you and others understand what I've been saying all along, perhaps nothing ever will. "

most likely the most pathetic thing i have ever read around here. maybe anywhere.

reply

therefdotcom says > you come off pretty creepy
I can assure you I'm far from creepy. It’s definitely the subject matter that gets people all worked up and uncomfortable. If Hayley had accused Jeff of murder and everything else proceeded as it did in the movie, I’m pretty sure no one would have a problem with me saying she needed to have proof. I also doubt anyone would be saying I’m a ‘frustrated murderer’. I think it’s easier for people to attack me than to acknowledge it's a difficult topic and it makes them uneasy.

your OP which is 90% about how terrible haily is for doing this to a dude that not only sat there watching while a minor was gang raped and killed, but also wanted to take pictures, does not neccessarily speak in your favor.
I think what you need to understand is this is not about Jeff; it’s about Hayley. Since it’s the two of them in the movie people seem to think they have to pick sides. If they disagree with Hayley’s actions that must mean they’re siding with Jeff or vice versa. That’s not the case but it's why people are uncomfortable with me saying Hayley’s behavior is wrong.

It’s not about siding with one person or the other. It's possible for both to be wrong. You've even done it here in the quote above; you talk about what Jeff supposedly did and how awful it was. It helps people justify Hayley's behavior in their minds. It’s also the reason they’re willing to believe Jeff’s guilty of something even though there’s nothing in the movie that proves that. In Psychology this is called Cognitive Dissonance. That’s what I suspect is going on here. It’s difficult for people to see that Hayley behavior, on its own, is wrong.

There are many examples in real life that show how dangerous it is to jump to conclusions. Look at the Rolling Stones magazine case. They publish a scathing story about a brutal gang rape all based on one person’s accusations. There were ripple effects. A lot of people’s lives were impacted. UVA closed that fraternity and took immediate actions against some people only to find out, after an investigation that the story could not have been true. Without any proof a lot of people had already come out in support of the so-called victim and were demonizing the people who turned out to be innocent of the charges. None of that had to happen but someone screams 'rape' and people can't think straight. They don't want to seem to condone so they react even before any gets a chance to investigate the claims.

what "point" of yours do you think the other poster proves by calling you out?
All along I've been saying there's no proof. In the movie, everything we know about Jeff and his supposed guilt comes from Hayley. We see that she’s not exactly very stable so she's not a reliable source yet people are willing to trust that what she says is true. Even if she hadn’t done any of what we see her doing, we’d still have to question the authenticity of her ‘evidence’. It could all be a figment of her imagination. She reads things into his behavior that, for her, is proof enough. He's done things, like talking to her, that may show poor judgment but it’s not exactly proof of anything else. There’s nothing independent that point to his guilt. It’s all her interpretations.

Well, sure enough, we have some nut here making wild, ridiculous accusations about me. Any sane person reading his comments should see this is exactly what Hayley did in the movie. This person doesn’t like or agree with what I’ve written on a message board so they make a leap and can call me a heinous criminal. How sad! Does anyone in their right mind believe that? The word 'pedophile’ has a specific meaning. How on earth could someone even think to say something like that so randomly about a person? It doesn't seem possible but I believe this is proof it does happen and more often than people might think. What it means is just because someone says something that does NOT make it true. This is a good example that anyone can accuse anyone else of anything at any time. If normal people can’t see that, I have to wonder what’s really going on inside their heads.

That said, I don’t even think that poster really even believes what he’s saying. He knows it's absurd but he also knows that word, like rape and many other words these days, has become a trigger. When people hear it, they have an immediate, intense, and visceral reaction. I think this person's real goal is to get a reaction out of me and probably everyone else too. He probably thinks he can upset me so I'll shut up. That’s just goes to show this person doesn’t know the first thing about me! It also means he's not too bright because I've been saying all along we shouldn't believe mere accusations. I know myself so why would I care about some foolish accusation that makes absolutely no sense?

reply

mdonln , Its easy to figure out your brain chemistry by just reading the frustration in your post. You and every other man who are offended by this movie ARE SECRETLY ( probably unregistered) PEDOPHILES!

reply

--
What you're reading into my words is likely a reflection of what's going on inside your own mind. In regards to what you’ve said about me, that’s your cross to bear, not mine. You have to ask yourself why it’s so easy for you to throw such a sick label on someone. I'm hesitant to slap it on a fictional character without proof but you're willing to toss it around like it's nothing.

I've also never once defended any crime yet some rather horrible things keep being said about me. By contrast, I haven’t once called you, or anyone else here, a sociopath even though you seem to have no problem defending sociopathic behavior like torture and murder. Go figure!

--
My issue is, and has always been, with Hayley. Her behavior is heinous and wrong. There’s also absolutely no proof or independent evidence that supports her claims about her victim. Had she accused Jeff of any other crime, I would be saying the exact same thing: there's no proof and her behavior is wrong. Can you say the same? I doubt it!

For me, the movie is about the twisted thinking and subsequent behavior of a troubled girl not so much her victims (hence the title of the post). Hayley carries out a crime she has meticulously planned and is executing it upon someone she 'thinks' is guilty of another horrible, heinous crime. She takes pleasure in first torturing then, presumably, killing him. Assuming everything she says about him is true, what's the difference? She's still a very disturbed individual. What we see on screen shows what SHE's capable of; the depth of HER depravity. His guilt is unknown and, as far as the movie goes, completely irrelevant; it changes nothing. There has to be a person there upon whom she can project her thoughts and actions. That's the extent of it. That's why he's even there.

Ultimately, I feel, it's about Hayley and the viewer. Given what we see, how far will we go to justify something so vile. Obviously some of you feel this is acceptable behavior. I don't. I found the whole thing very hard to watch. My frustration came from the fact there were no consequences for her actions. The filmmakers were careful not to take a stand. Instead they left it to the viewer. I don't condone vigilante justice so I had a very strong negative reaction to it. Others, apparently, had no reaction or were completely fine with what they saw; choosing, for whatever reason, to focus on the unknown guilt of a random victim rather than what's right in front of them; the specific actions of a psychopath. Perhaps your reaction reveals who you really are. Call it a litmus test.

--
By the way, I said in my original post that I’m a woman. I see you missed that just as you missed the point of everything else I said. To be fair, I did lash out against a few groups; the ones known for ignoring, even defending, acts of violence against men committed by women. Maybe that confused you.

==

reply

Frustrated pedophile who calls himself a 'she'.

reply

Nobody-M says > Frustrated pedophile
Psychological projection - look it up!

calls himself a 'she'
It was predetermined before birth. I've never had any complaints. If you have a problem with it, take it up with God!

reply

I'm betting you're a guy, right? Only a guy would defend another guy who is a fu***** depraved pedophile child killer! Ass****.

reply

gobboling says > I'm betting you're a guy, right?
Wrong! I hope you didn't make that bet.

Only a guy would defend another guy who is a fu***** depraved pedophile child killer!
I don't know who those guys are you know, but I don't know a single person, man or woman, who would defend such a person. If you're suggesting that's what I said, you're wrong! I said a lot of things, mostly about Hayley (which was my focus), but apparently you only read or understood parts of it. What I said in regards to Jeff is…

> we don't know whether or not he's guilty because there was no proof

> he should have his day in court (if he's not guilty, he should have a chance to defend himself)

> if he is guilty, it still doesn't give her the right to do what she did (I don't agree with people taking the law into their own hands; aka vigilantism)

> if he is guilty, she deprived his victims of their day in court (I'm sure they would have liked to see him pay and get closure of their own)

> his childhood incident with the aunt should have been handled differently (if he is a perv now, it might have been prevented; if he isn't, the child was traumatized)

> he could have made different choices when he broke free of her; thereby avoiding the final outcome; however,

> I can see why he may not have called the police. Had they gotten there and caught her she would've denied everything and probably said he was the aggressor; and

> not calling them isn't proof of guilt because he knows they likely wouldn't have believed him. Stereotypically, she's the little victim, he's the perp. Based on the reaction of almost everyone on this message board, I was right. All of you actually saw the movie, saw Hayley in action, but are STILL defending her actions.

Ass****
Wrong again, but you are entitled to your opinion.

reply

Stop replying with such a long post, no amount of word can hide your true nature.

You are a MALE pedophile.

reply

Well, you don't need to worry about that anymore. You are free; no long responses; no more responses at all. Congrats!

I like discussing movies with interesting, intelligent people. Despite yourself I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's pointless. You have nothing worthwhile to say and I've gotten bored with your immaturity and childishness.

reply

LMAO!!!!!! You hit the nail on the head, Nobody-M!!!

reply

You actually can't believe a woman can possibly have op's views? That's a really sad little world you live in. By the way, women can be pedophiles and rapists too.

Not that op's opinion even remotely indicates to her being one. It's funny to read how op addresses all the points carefully and is willing to explain her view and elaborate on them, but you guys here just mock her for actually offering substance and as your counterargument simply insist that she is a male pedophile.

Beautiful, what's happening here is an amazing reflection of the movie and really proves op's point.

reply

Well, after I reported nobody-m for her libelous rant, all her posts are in limbo. I guess imdb does listen. Be careful who you call a pedophile. Be careful who you make false, insane accusations to.

reply

dealey52 says > Well, after I reported nobody-m for her libelous rant, all her posts are in limbo. I guess imdb does listen. Be careful who you call a pedophile. Be careful who you make false, insane accusations to.
Good for you! I always wonder how people like that manage to function in real life. Those posts are all still there but thanks for trying.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Only a guy would defend another guy who is a fu***** depraved pedophile child killer! Ass****.


Exactly!

reply

nobody-m, Mdonin is clearly a woman. I can tell because her posts are well thought out, well articulated and clearly proof read for grammar, spelling, and content. This is something I've noticed that males simply refuse to do.

Here's the deal, dude: if you can read and comprehend words of more than one syllable and get past the first three sentences of any of her posts without being distracted by small noises or the need to masturbate, you can pretty easily see that Mdonin is in no way defending Jeff or his actions. She is calling Hayley out as the *beep* lunatic sociopath that SHE is. Hayley was going to find SOMEONE to torture and kill for being a pedophile eventually; her friends disappearance was just the catalyst that put Jeff in the spotlight. I just finished watching the movie on Showtime right now and the end of the movie left me with the feeling that Hayley was already planning her next torture-fest.




Oh, and before you start flaming ME, you should be aware that your thoughts, opinions and actions mean absolutely NOTHING to me, (actually, far less than nothing, but how does one go about measuring something like that?) so you just have yourself a wonderful day stewing in your own idiot sauce... 'K? 'K.








"A naked American man stole my balloons!"
"Whaaa-aaat?"

reply

i still enjoyed it


Rob Zombie is one of the greatest directors today

reply

Both characters are sick people. End of story.

reply

[deleted]

On a base level i kind of get your argument. The thing is it's hard to sympathize in any way with someone like that. Is Hayley batsh!t crazy? Most definitely. But as far as Jeff goes, can't say I feel sorry for him in the least. I feel sorry for the dead girl.

It's kind of like why people can enjoy a show like Dexter guilt free. Or not care about the low survival rate of the killers in Criminal Minds. No one cares about the rights of the depraved. We want justice for the victim. I'm just not objective enough to feel sympathy or rally for justice for a such terrible person. *beep* your awful childhood.

Tbh, it's kind of odd that you have no understanding of why someone wouldn't feel sorry because a gross pedo didn't get his day in court because he was murdered, particularly when it was a potential victim. May not make me the most moral or righteous person in the world, but I know I wouldn't be losing any sleep over the death of a Jeff.

reply

no, that's not comparable.

people like dexter, because what he does is vengeance. he does not act differently than what the law says. the people he kills, except for those he kills to stay free, would have gotten the electric chair anyways. he just does not have the authority to do what he does. plus he desperately want to become human.

jeff on the other hand does evil, but has the illusion that he is not a monster to begin with.

so actually it is the complete opposite.


reply


people like dexter, because what he does is vengeance. he does not act differently than what the law says. the people he kills, except for those he kills to stay free, would have gotten the electric chair anyways.



And raping and murdering, to say nothing of PHOTOGRAPHING the rape and murder of a 14 year old girl wouldn't get you the electric chair?

reply

we don't know for sure that he was the one murdering her. my guess would be something between 5-20 years. white dude, possibly no record.

reply

We don't know at ALL that he raped, murdered, or was going to take pics of such actions. We only know what eh SAID to a psycho when she didn't believe him that he didn't murder.

reply

it's pretty clear that he was one of two people involved. the movie leaves no doubt about that.

reply

That's kind of what I said though. No one cares when bad people get hurt. I'm sure of the 134+ people Dexter killed, some of them wouldn't have gotten the death penalty. And there isn't a city in America where torture and dismemberment is prison status quo.

Besides, Dexter isn't just killing people because their bad, he's doing it because he enjoys it. A lot. His code just keeps him from getting caught, and was hard wired into him growing up. Without Harry, Dexter would have been just like the people he hunts. Dexter got a morality pass because to the viewer, the people that are being killed are guilty of awful crimes, and so we can justify whatever happens as something they had coming anyway. Something both the show and this movie have in common. The only difference really is that we know Dexter won't kill anyone who is not without a doubt guilty, and because Haley isn't bound by any code we don't get that confirmation, and so you kind of have to decide for yourself whether or not you think he's guilty over the course of the film.

Just a more drawn out process than Dexter. Crazy person killing other crazy people.

reply

hard candy is much more grey area though. with dexter the "victims" are all evil thugs.

hard candy has more layers. if you want it or not, there are moments when you feel sorry for jeff, despite his charme and good look only being part of masking what kind of monster he is.

reply

[deleted]

bstokelnig91 says > On a base level i kind of get your argument.
Actually, based on what you've said I'm not sure you do understand my argument. I'm NOT defending a criminal; least of all a pedophile. My initial point is we only have crazy Hayley's point of view. We only know what she thinks and what she did. We saw her in action. In regards to Jeff, we only have what she has accused him of doing. We don't really know if Jeff did anything, what he did, or to whom. People who side with her and are against him are, for some reason, willing to accept what she says. I think that's a little, no, very gullible.

My second point, and maybe this is the one people have trouble understanding, is this: even if Jeff is guilty of something how do we know that? He should have his day in court. I say that because that's the only way we would know that he's guilty. He obviously knows whether or not he did something but we do not. Since we live under a system of laws, we cannot condemn a person without proof. If we start judging, convicting, and executing people because we 'think' they're guilty, or the 'must' be guilty, that's dangerous and none of us are safe. By none of us, I mean the innocent because any lunatic could accuse anyone of anything and that would be enough. It's not!

There are other reasons for going to court. It's not all about the accused. If there are other victims, they get their chance to have closure too by seeing the person tried and punished; even if it is not related to their particular case. Also, going to court makes it a collective us against the accused. When one person or a group goes after someone it's vigilantism. They only represent themselves, not the state. If they pass judgment and carry out a punishment on someone they become what they hate. They're now just as guilty as the person on whom they meted out 'justice'. The problem with that is they feel great that they 'got' someone and someone has 'paid' but what if it's the wrong person? The truly guilty person is still out there walking free but the vigilantes are content. That means they just want to satisfy a need in themselves like crazy Hayley. They didn't do anything to help anyone else to be safe just their sick need to act.

It's kind of shocking and sad that so many people have said a lot of really horrible things about me; even attacked what I've said because what I'm talking about is our current system of justice. Our system isn't perfect but it's scary that so few people seem to get it. I support the death penalty and believe in personal responsibility. That means we don't get to blame our past for what we choose to do in our lives; especially criminal behavior. Still, I will never jump to conclusions about someone's guilt; or innocence for that matter. I think it's way to easy to be mistaken and get public opinion going over the flimsiest of 'proof'.

By the way, I've seen the shows to which you referred. I never liked Dexter so I may have only seen it once; if that. I may have only seen parts of it. From what I recall he was a vigilante and I'm against that. Criminal Minds, on the other hand is different. I did used to watch it and enjoyed it. They're very different shows. In Criminal Minds there was a whole team of people and more behind the scenes investigating and using that evidence to track down and arrest the guilty party. If that person/people got killed in the process, oh well. There was plenty of evidence and, as the viewer, we knew they got the right person. If you're equating that show with the story in Hard Candy, something is wrong.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply