MovieChat Forums > Prisoners (2013) Discussion > Any Legal Opinion on Keller? Would this ...

Any Legal Opinion on Keller? Would this not be a form of Citizens' Arrest?

posted 9 years ago by BeanieBabyProfits
19 replies | jump to latest

When all said and done it would be revealed that yes, he did kidnap and torture another person. However, it would also be discovered that the person he tortured was in fact, at the very least, an accomplice to serial kidnappers.

His methods were clearly against the law and I don't believe he would go uncharged but to think he would do life is a bit out proportion IMO.

From my days studying political science and legislation I remember the freedom of any American citizen to apprehend a violent criminal to prevent further assault, battery, murder, etc. Witnessing an original crime or a reasonable expectation for future crime is definitely an essential component necessary before someone goes around "arresting" people so I do see where his actions were criminal.

But if there are any law experts reading, would Kelly not be given the benefit of the doubt and receive a lesser charge for committing a justified citizen arrest as opposed to a full fledged crime?

[–] hostagetaker22 9 years ago

A citizens arrest in one thing. Kidnapping, forceable confinement, torture and assault are very different.. If this happened in real life, you bet the person would be brought up on all charges. The DAs office might drop some in favor of a plea, but vigilante justice is taken seriously in the court of law and the person would spend some serious time in prison.

[–] supergirlxx110-1 9 years ago

I disagree. Keller would get off on tempeorary insanity. Half of the jurors would be parents and Keller would no doubt gain a lot of sympathy. It's not like Alex was completely innocent, he did take the girls. I think Keller would spend a couple years minimum in a psychiatric facility. He wasn't a criminal really but he had a breakdown and what he really needs is help.

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

I sympathized with the character, and I don't want to spit on him from the moral high ground, but this sounds like wishful thinking.

Keller kidnapped a man with the understanding of a child. He confined him, beat him viciously and elaborately tortured him. It occurred over the course of, what, a week?

I'm not a legal scholar, and no doubt Keller was highly agitated, but temporary insanity? A verdict like that would require a rather creative interpretation of the events, and the judge/jury would have to be aware that such a result could set a very dangerous legal precedent.

[–] EtherealElements 8 years ago

Jurors can be extremely impartial. I doubt that playing on their parental sympathies would do much otherwise it would be extremely easy to falsely accuse and convict people of things like child abuse.

[–] metsfan40 8 years ago

They'd also be sympathetic to Alex for being a kidnap victim himself who was held and abused for decades.

[–] Little_Tyke 8 years ago

This is nonsense. He was a very angry person by nature. One could see that by the way he behaved in general. And as for jurors letting someone off because of sympathy for the perp, well, that only goes to show how flawed the jury system is. Criminal behaviour is supposed to be judged unemotively. The only help he needed was at least five years in the pokey.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (352) 2 years ago

He was a very angry person by nature.

No, he was completely believable as a father who will do anything to get his daughter back. He had reason to believe that Alex was her kidnapper, as everything pointed towards Alex (you'd be pretty angry too if put in his situation).

And he shows sense of humour too, at the Thanksgiving dinner. All in all, a sympathetic character.

[–] benman46 8 years ago

Locking up and torturing someone is not a citizens arrest, and he never informed the police as you should when making such an arrest. If he had simply apprehended the man and then turned him over to the police that would have been different. He's going to prison for imprisoning and torturing an innocent man, that is what is legally known as justice.

[–] crissttigaldames 8 years ago

Alex was not innocent.

[–] Little_Tyke 8 years ago

That doesn't matter in respect of the torture Keller meted out on him. Doesn't matter how guilty someone might appear, you cannot take the law into your own hands.

[–] mrpops238 8 years ago

Torture is one of the worst crimes anyone can commit in the states. That's easily 20 years+. It's just as bad as murder. There is no way he is not going to jail for a long time.

The lawyer against him would convince the jury that Dover tortured a mentally disabled man with an IQ of a 6 year old who already suffered years of trauma and abuse.

The jury would be sickened at what he did to that man. Lawyers would spin the story to make Dover sound worse than Hitler.

If that

[–] Little_Tyke 8 years ago

IF the authorities found him in the pit before his luck ran out, he'd be convicted of attempted murder, which even in the UK would warrant a significant jail term.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (352) 2 years ago

he'd be convicted of attempted murder

Sorry, but no.

Attempted murder requires a higher degree of specificity when it comes to intent. So unless Alex died, in order for Keller to be found guilty of attempted murder, the prosecution would have to prove that Keller specifically had the intent to kill Alex. So it's very unlikely that a jury would convict him of such.

Also, Keller explicitly stated that he doesn't want to have to hurt Alex. He begged him to tell of the whereabouts of Anna and promised to stop torturing him if he did. During their last encounter, there are tears in Dover's eyes and he begs him and finally, he gives Dover important information and Keller stops torturing him. Dover's mind was not on killing. It was only on his daughter.

Once rescued, Dover would more likely get charged with Kidnapping and Aggravated Battery rather than Attempted Murder.
And while said charges would land him some jail time, the mitigating circumstances would likely have a sizable impact on his sentence so he wouldn't serve nearly as much time as someone who committed the same crime out of malevolence.

[–] KingCobra686 8 years ago

I think Citizen's Arrest really only applies to very specific scenarios like if you were standing outside a bank and a robber busted out and you tackled them and restrained them for the police. Private citizens do not have the authority to go around detaining people normally, but if it helps stop an active crime it might be allowed.

I really doubt this applies to this situation. Citizen's Arrest doesnt mean that you can play detective and go around investigating and detaining people who arent actively committing a crime. He certainly does not have any authority to kidnap and torture Alex.

The law does not have sympathy for vigilantes who try and bypass the justice system, which is what exactly Keller was doing. There are legal channels that he should have gone through if he was upset with the police. The police were handling the situation professionally and by the book. He was angered by the lack of success and took matters into his own hands. That is a form of Vigilantism, not a Citizen's Arrest.

[–] Boricanator (1376) 2 years ago

This wasn’t a Citizens Arrest. A Citizen’s Arrest is when you have evidence of a crime and bring the perpetrator to law enforcement.

What he did here was trap young man with a very low IQ and torture him. He had no evidence of a crime.

I don’t think he would do life as he didn’t commit murder. But he would probably do several years in jail.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (352) 2 years ago

What he did here was trap young man with a very low IQ and torture him. He had no evidence of a crime.

No evidence of a crime? Yeah sorry, but Keller DID actually have plenty reasons to believe Alex was involved in the kidnappings - something he even proved right to some extent.

Not sure what I mean? I'll explain:

1). He (Keller) knew that Alex' RV was in the neighbourhood at the time of the girls’ disappearance.

2). He knew that Alex attempted to run from Police - innocent people don't run.

3). He knew that DESPITE the claim that Alex was mentally handicapped, he (Alex) still had a legal driver's licence - a possible implication that his disability was a façade.

4). He heard Alex say to him directly, "They didn't cry until I left them."

5). He saw Alex strangle an animal.

6). He heard Alex sing the EXACT SAME SONG the two girls sang before they disappeared.

That's all some pretty irrefutable 'evidence'.

But even though he may not have been the mastermind Alex DID play a crucial role in the girls' abduction, as an accomplice of Mrs. Jones. So we can't simply claim he was completely innocent just because he's slow. As far as I'm concerned, if Alex can legally drive a motorhome, he’s sure as hell functioning enough to comprehend his involvement, answer basic questions AND be truthful with his responses. If he cooperated properly and gave the correct information from the beginning, he would’ve saved him, the girls, the families, and the police a lot of trouble.

But no, instead he withheld important information from both Keller and authorities, brazenly lied, played dumb, and glibly antagonised Keller on multiple occasions. Alex was even willing to slash Keller, Franklin AND Nancy (who actually showed him compassion) in order to escape rather than do the right thing and reveal the location to the girls - something that diminished a large amount of sympathy I would otherwise have for him.

[–] Boricanator (1376) 2 years ago

Literally none of that is evidence that he took the girls. That is just conjecture.

He was not just slow, he was very handicapped and could not reason.

Either way, Keller had no right to kidnap and torture him.

[–] SisterSuzy101 (352) 2 years ago

Literally none of that is evidence that he took the girls. That is just conjecture.

Individually maybe. But altogether? Not a chance!
And realistically speaking, what is the probability of "They didn't cry until I left them." meaning anything different to how Keller interpreted it?
Literally everything was pointing towards Alex.

He was not just slow, he was very handicapped and could not reason.

Oh c'mon. It's not like he's wheelchair bound with his head to one side and drooling.
And as I said above, if he can legally drive an RV unsupervised, it's safe to assume he's capable of many other things. But never mind his mental illness, he knew and did something.

Either way, Keller had no right to kidnap and torture him.

Well, in Kellers' eyes, police weren't doing their job as his claims weren't being taken seriously. His daughter and her friends' life was on the line, so he was willing to do what was necessary to save them. One could argue that Keller abducting Alex is what saved the girls in the end. After all, Mrs. Jones admitted she would've left them in the pit if it had not been for the loneliness she felt when Alex went missing. Joy would therefore not have escaped, and the following events that led to ultimate resolution would arguably never have happened.

Believe or not, many would probably agree that torture is justifiable if engaging in such an act could very well save lives.
I mean, would you prefer to see a guilty terrorist to have the right to remain silent rather than give up details of a plot that could kill hundreds, if not thousands of people?

[–] OnanTheBarbarian (10671) 2 years ago

The law does look favorably on vigilante justice. No, there would be no sympathy for him from a legal perspective in regards to kidnapping and torture. That runs counter to all legal theory.