Redemption: Book And Movie Comparison

People will sometimes think which would be the most effective method to use to right wrongs redemption or revenge? When righting a wrong, redemption is a more effective method than revenge. Redemption will usually result in less violence and there will be less problems to deal with. Revenge on the other hand, will usually result in more violence and it occasionally bites back on whoever was getting revenge on someone else or a group of people for some specific reason and sometimes things will tend to not go as planned.

imagination by the hand. There are not that many things that are different in the

During this time the only thing predictable about politics in Reconstruction was its unpredictability. Colfax massacre being one of the bloodiest encounters of Reconstruction, serves as the base to Nicholas Lemann's book. Redemption is a story that shows the violent overthrow of Reconstruction in Louisiana and Mississippi in the 1870s. Brief knowledge is known to historian, but very little is known by the general public. In Lemann’s demonstration of the Civil War and Reconstruction, "redemption" is a very ironic term, and a huge play on words. Redemption was a term white supremacists used to commemorate the destruction of what they thought to be the vile imposition. Lemann’s way of embracing the white supremacist nomenclature, he made the paradoxes and the contradictions much more vivid.

Do you think revenge is always misguided, or is it justified in some cases? In some cases I feel that revenge can be justified, but is usually caused by misguided care from the past. Although there are many instances where revenge is misguided, it can also be justified in some cases. The right or wrong opinion is always blind sides someone else’s side of the story which can sometime make it impossible to tell if the actions of revenge were justified or if they were a result of being misguided.

The book Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson, and the film “Shawshank Redemption” both contain similarities and differences in reference to the justice system. Both the book and the film have characters in them which go through certain situations. Some of the similarities and differences being shown have to do with hope, industrialization, and how people are being treated by guards.

A child hits someone; they hit them back. An individual deceives someone; they seek retaliation. While growing up as individuals in society, the phrase “Two wrongs do not make a right” is well known. The phrase is a lesson. It means because someone does something wrong towards another individual it is not justified to do something retaliate. As human-beings, the motive behind retaliation is revenge, which is the reaction behind every negative outcome towards another person. In life, behind every action that is made, a consequence follows. People in society must take the negativity that is thrown towards them, and turn it into positivity. The novel Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption shows many instances why two wrongs do not make a right. For instance, all heinous crimes in the novel are committed for the sake of retaliation. In general, every action that is made can often be justified; however, a positive outcome is not always guaranteed.

Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,

Louis P. Pojman provides an argument for retribution as he states, “The moral justification of punishment is not vengeance, but desert. Vengeance signifies inflicting harm on the offender out of anger because of what he has done. Retribution is the rationally supported theory that the criminal deserves a punishment fitting the gravity of his crime” (p. 57). Therefore, retribution is not based on hatred for the criminal, but is the belief that the criminal deserves to be punished in proportion to his crime, whether or not the victim or anyone else desires it. Retribution, as explained by Louis Pojman, supports the death penalty as it proposes that those who have taken a life deserve to lose their own life.

Revenge will make people not like you and will not be a good person only if they change and forgive. Another example is in the movie “Count Of Monte Cirsto”. Monte Cirsto showed forgiveness to the men that stole his kingdom and locked him up in a dungeon. No matter what people do to you, you should always show that you are a better person if u forgive and forget. Justice will always defeat vengeance.

The major key difference between revenge and justice is that when an individual takes revenge it is fueled by anger. The individual taking the revenge only cares about bringing harm to the other individual. Justice on the other hand is socially and legally acceptable. When someone gets justice, they think practically and usually involve a third party such as lawyers, police, and the judicial system. In my opinion, taking revenge and getting justice both have their pros and cons and taking revenge and getting justice depends exclusively on the situation on hand.

In today's society, the media often portrays revenge as an acceptable option. This is not outright stated, but rather implied. Characters often seem to think that revenge is the only way to get closure from a bad experience, and when this is acted on, negative consequences are not shown. Rarely is the fact that vengeance is hypocritical and wrong brought up. People need to wake up and realize that revenge is always hypocritical and illogical. As Christ said, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7)

The book Shawshank Redemption was a book I didn’t expect much from. Shawshank Redemption went way over my expectations, and I would recommend this book 100 percent to a friend because of its storyline, characters, and the lessons you learn. Firstly, I recommend this book because of the storyline. I like how the book convicted an innocent guy for murder and took him to prison. I feel like a lot of people would find that super interesting because that is a situation no one would want to be in in the real world. Secondly, the characters in the book were very different from other books. I liked how Andy was cool, calm and collected even though he got sentenced for something he didn’t do. Thirdly, the movie taught good lessons like get busy living or get busy dying and living with hope. This is shown when Andy decides to try to escape and thinking where he wants to go once he is out of prison. In conclusion, Shawshank Redemption is a book that I would recommend to my friend because of the interesting situation that appears in the book that you wouldn’t want to encounter.

During my research, I found in a novel “On Redemption, the Value of Putting Bad Things to Good Use” on http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/9082842 that redemption is a way for people to recover themselves from their bad actions. Committing murder in particular regardless will always be considered a wrong action whether it be motivated from previous encounters. Redemption can also be considered a good thing, especially if positives have come from negative problems where it replaces whatever emotions people were feeling and concluding to a fresh start moving forward. Positive interpretations of redemption can be defined as something that has affected a person with certain torment and pain.

Revenge: Justification | Peanut Butter: Jelly Revenge is defined as to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of oneself. Whether it be as extensive as death or something as small as your sibling steals a candy bar from oneself. In society, Revenge plays a prominent role. Often times one can recognize that revenge is the driving force behind large amounts of action.

Some argue that vengeance educates people on what they shouldn’t do. In the play “The Tempest” written by William Shakespeare, he talks about Prospero trying to get revenge on everyone who did him wrong by the end