Introduction
In Agatha Christie's classic murder mystery novel, Murder on the Orient Express, the concept of justice takes center stage. When detective Hercule Poirot is faced with solving the murder of the nefarious Ratchett aboard the famous train, he is confronted with a moral dilemma between upholding the law and ensuring true justice is served. Through Poirot's methodical investigation, Christie raises profound questions about the meaning of justice, challenging readers to examine their own definitions. Is upholding the law always the same as securing justice? Can taking the law into one's own hands ever be justified? What sacrifices must be made in the pursuit of real justice? In this essay, I will explore the complex themes of morality, vengeance, and justice that emerge through the characters' responses to Ratchett's murder. Examining the perspective of Poirot and the suspects on the Orient Express will provide insight into the subjective nature of justice and its limitations within a legal system. By analyzing the tension between law and justice within Murder on the Orient Express, I aim to demonstrate that true justice requires nuanced personal examination of one's morals.
Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on Justice
The concept of justice has been contemplated since the ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. They debated questions of morality, ethics, and the role of justice in creating an ideal society. These questions remained foundational through the Enlightenment era as thinkers like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes wrote extensively on social contracts and natural rights. In the modern justice system, justice is often defined by the outcome of the legal process. Laws are assumed to be intrinsically just. However, literature has long explored the complexities and moral ambiguities in seeking true justice.
Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, published in 1934, provides a fascinating examination of justice. As Poirot investigates the murder of the shady American businessman Ratchett, he discovers that Ratchett was actually a criminal who kidnapped and murdered a little girl. A group of the suspects on the train turn out to be directly impacted by this crime, seeking their own form of vigilante justice for Ratchett's misdeeds. Through this dramatic mystery, Christie wrestles with the question of whether taking justice into one's own hands can ever be reasonable when the legal system fails.
The Dilemma of Legal Justice vs. Vigilante Justice
While Poirot represents the perspective of justice through lawful means, many characters on the Orient Express have lost faith in the legal system to provide fair justice. After interviewing the suspects, Poirot learns that a group of them secretly coordinated to kill Ratchett. Although they readily admit to the murder, they show no remorse. As one character insists, "To kill a rat like that! It is not murder as I see it - it is executing justice" (Christie 74). The murder victim himself was a known criminal who had avoided punishment for his crimes through legal loopholes and corruption. The deficiencies of the legal system to secure justice for Ratchett's innocent victims is offered as a justification for taking vengeance through vigilante murder. While Poirot acknowledges their moral position, he maintains, "justice must take its course" through the proper legal channels (Christie 102). However, the suspects challenge Poirot's notion that true justice can be achieved solely through the court system.
The Moral Weight of Vigilante Justice
Additionally, Poirot realizes that there are times when upholding the moral good may outweigh obeying the letter of the law. Despite his role as a detective to catch criminals, in the end, Poirot decides not to turn in the suspects for Ratchett's murder. He concedes that their act of vigilantism was not a simple crime of passion, but a coordinated plan to seek justice that the legal system failed to provide. As one character pleads to Poirot, "You are human...not a machine. You have understanding" (Christie 300). Poirot comprehends that the murder, while technically illegal, came from a place of moral conscience. Christie suggests then that true justice requires evaluating each situation empathetically on a case by case basis. .
Balancing the Crimes of Ratchett and the Suspects
When making an argument, it is critical to anticipate potential counterclaims and logically refute them. For this essay on justice in Murder on the Orient Express, a possible counterclaim is that the vigilante murder of Ratchett was not morally justified. One could argue that despite Ratchett evading legal punishment, killing him was taking the law too far. To address this, I would acknowledge that vigilante justice does pose moral hazards. However, I would respond that the cold-blooded kidnapping and killing of a child is an arguably far greater crime. Without a fair justice system, some crimes may require exceptional responses. I would use textual examples to demonstrate the suspects' moral positions and the failure of lawful institutions to explain why many see their actions as regrettable but necessary. By thoughtfully considering counterarguments, I can strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of my essay.
Conclusion
In Murder on the Orient Express, Agatha Christie uses the mysterious murder of Ratchett to thoughtfully examine wider questions of morality and justice. By juxtaposing Poirot's commitment to lawful justice and the suspects' vigilantism, Christie reveals the complexities of conscience and morality. When the legal system fails to provide fair justice, can taking the law into one's own hands ever be justified? Through her story, Christie argues that true justice requires careful pondering of each unique situation. While upholding the law provides order in society, justice ultimately must come through compassion and understanding. As this essay demonstrates, Christie challenges readers to go beyond the letter of the law to examine the deeper human questions of morality in our pursuit of justice.
