Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Question – ‘Oz’ And Ethics

In the episode of Oz that screened on SBS last night Keller confessed to ‘ordering the hit’ on Schillinger’s son. The order was made by Beecher, in retaliation for Schillinger’s son, Hank, kidnapping and murdering Beecher’s son, whom Schillinger suspected when Hank’s body was discovered. Schillinger’s suspicion led him to order the murder of all of Beecher’s family, which commenced with the stabbing of Beecher’s brother, and was only averted by Keller’s confession to a crime that he did not commit.

Was it noble for Keller to confess to a crime, that he did not commit, to prevent the retaliatory murder of innocents? Or should Beecher have been made to pay for his crime?

1 comment:

Pete said...

The real question here is, did Schillinger really forgive Beecher? or was he just going along with it untill Keller was shipped off? This way nothing stands in the way of his killing Beecher now.....

Anyway if Keller's ploy works and the hatchet is finally buried between Schillinger and Beecher then I'm going to vote that it was a noble act. (Who can argue with Sister Pete?) In terms of paying for their crimes both Beecher and Schillinger have paid plenty but on a more analytical note I think that there are 3 things that can be considered here:
1) society's judgement of Beecher, as far as any court would be concerned, Beecher is guilty of a conspiracy to murder and should be punished
2) Beecher and Schillinger's personal interactions with eachother, it is considering the problem at this level that led me to the above comments, they have both commited crimes against eachother and both paid heavily but it will be good if they can stop fighting and leave eachother alone and
3) Beecher's opinion of himself, he is now living with himself as a murderer. Will he be made to pay for his crime in his own mind?