The Ends Justify the Means: Vigilante Justice in The Boondock Saints

The benefits of vigilante justice overshadow the hypocrisy of utilizing violence to eliminate violence. In The Boondock Saints (1999), the ends justify the means used by the MacManus brothers. The movie portrays vigilantism as a heroic attribute, but in the end leaves the final question regarding the ethics of the Saints' actions to be answered by the viewer.

As the film begins, many important points are established by the Priest's (John Ferus) sermon regarding ignorance in the face of evil. One important line summarizes the speech delivered by the Priest: "We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." The Priest's sermon establishes a hierarchy of evil acts, with ignorance and indifference at its peak. According to this spectrum of evil, idly standing by while evil acts are being committed in your presence is basically equivalent to partaking in the acts yourself.

This is a key claim for the movie's heroic depiction of vigilantism, because it encourages characters to do something, anything to put a stop to malevolence. The ordering of this ladder becomes a central focus and question throughout the movie in the minds of almost every character. As they propagate their crusade, they must first decide if their actions can be justified by this hierarchy. Tip-toeing on the boundary of good and evil becomes a prominent theme. This scene also provides religious justification for vigilantism.

It is taking the action of vigilantism and placing it in the context of God's law versus natural law. Sometimes the law that is established by man falls short of its intended purpose. In these circumstances, it is God's basic laws which must oversee the situation. This includes helping your fellow man and ensuring the prevalence of peace at all costs.
Throughout the film, many attempts are made to create a deeper contrast between the vigilantes and the evil they face. Often the film resorts to one-sided tactics in order to make a vigilante act seem necessary or called for. The first example of these tactics takes place in the bar fight scene. In this scene, Conor MacManus (Sean Patrick Flannery) and his brother Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) are celebrating St. Patrick's Day at a pub. Before long, they are graced by the company of a few Russian mobsters who announce the pub is closed in a rather direct manner.

Words are exchanged and a fight breaks out, in which the MacManus brothers and their friends emerge the clear victors. The exaggerated Russian mobsters, with their thick accents and menacing builds make the viewer feel the intimidation that is being forced upon the innocent brothers. This helps to depict them as vulnerable and peaceful men who would rather avoid violence by buying their opponents a few pints, unless they are provoked to the point of no return. Obviously the exaggeration of the characters and the situation help to make the case for this minor incident of vigilantism.

The next day, the brothers' apartment is intruded by bruised mobsters looking for revenge. The situation spirals wildly out of control as the mobsters attempt to execute them in an alleyway outside their home. Once again, the brothers are portrayed as the unarmed and vulnerable victims of overpowering bullies. When the tables (and pistols) are turned and the mobsters are left dead in the alleyway, the viewer can see this was a matter of necessity. Vigilante justice is once again justified, this time within the context of self-defense.

If your life is in immediate danger, the law should not interfere with the actions you must take in order to defend yourself. The following day, the brothers turn themselves in to Boston Police. This bold move reiterates the fact that they are not proud of what they have done and are willing to face the consequences although they were merely protecting their own lives.

They are interrogated by FBI Agent Paul Smecker (Willem DaFoe) in a scene which continues to reinforce their images as pure and good men. In the interrogation room, the conversation is more focused on the brothers' multilingual abilities and respect for other cultures rather than the double homicide they have committed the night before. This is an obvious attempt to wash the brothers of their guilt, self-defense or not. This is apparent considering not a single matter regarding or referencing the murder is even mentioned. The brothers are not charged and spend the night in the jail just to avoid the media. When they awake the next day, their crusade to exterminate the evil scum from Boston begins.

The brothers' discover that a meeting of high-ranking mobsters is taking place at a local hotel after receiving a phone call on one of the Russian mobster's cell phones. "The Fat Man" becomes their first premeditated target. This course of action pushes the brothers closer to the boundary of what is acceptable vigilantism and what is not. This plan is no longer a matter of immediate self-defense; it is a premeditated assassination of a crime syndicate leader with no direct ties to the brothers. In an amazing spectacle of action and amateur vigilantism, the brothers exploit their luck and manage to pull off the killings without a single problem. This scene is a great example of how the movie intertwines its social commentary with entertainment.

Amidst all the action and gunfire, the movie makes allusions to religion and Christ. For example, the brothers recite a family prayer before assassinating the last man standing, "The Fat Man". This prayer is heard several times throughout the movie and implies that the brothers both believe they are on a mission from God and have his divine encouragement for their murderous actions. The prayer assures the Lord that they will send a constant stream of souls to him for as long as it takes to remove evil from the world.

This prayer puts an infinite scope on the brothers' mission, which raises some doubts about the war they are fighting and whether or not it can even be won at all. Pennies are placed over the eyes of the other dead men, a sign that the brothers forgive the mobsters for their evil acts, and are making sure they receive proper and fair judgment in the afterlife. This is a subtle testament to the good intentions of the MacManus brothers.

The next scene is vital to the social commentary of the movie. In Rocco's (David Della Rocco) apartment, a friend of the brothers, the reason for the crusade is discussed. The MacManus brothers discuss their motivation to be vigilantes and the reason why they are doing it in a very important speech:

"Decent men with loving families, they go home every day after work. They turn on the news, you know what they see? Rapists, murders, and child molesters walking out of prison. Mafiosos, getting caught with twenty kilos, getting out on bail on the same fucking day. And everywhere, everyone thinks the same thing. That someone should just go kill those motherfuckers. Kill them all. Admit it, even you've thought about it."

This extraordinarily simple rationalization is easy for viewers to be able to understand and identify with. In this example, the ends justify the means. People would rather see big-time criminals dead even if someone has to break the law to ensure it. The scene offers no alternative viewpoint and therefore crushes any doubt of the hypocrisy of the situation. This is another example of a one-sided spin tactic used by the movie to glorify the benefits of vigilantism, when in fact the MacManus brothers themselves could technically fit in the same category as the criminals they are targeting. Rocco himself is working for the Yakavetta family, although his position is insignificant. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the Saints' are eager to overlook this fact during their explanation. It seems as if a fair bit of ignorance and naivety are required to justify vigilantism.

It is at this stage of the brothers' plan where problems begin to surface. Rocco, realizing that the mob he is working for actually tried to kill him, shoots two small-time mob members and an on-duty bartender in broad daylight out of frustration. The line between vigilantism and senseless killing is blurred in this bar. A question of whether or not any of the three men needed to die is immediately raised.

An important and controversial aspect of vigilantism is the specific standards and qualifications that must be met before someone can be considered a viable candidate for "justice." Even more important are the qualifications that the vigilantes themselves possess that allow them to play God and enforce such important decisions. The movie does not address these facets outwardly, but instead relies on the Saints' fate to offer an understated opinion. The fact that they are not caught by the authorities implies that vigilante justice has succeeded.

That night, The Saints' enter an adult entertainment parlor and kill a mob boss and two regular men who are frequenting the club at the time. While the killing of the mob boss seems justified according to the standards they had originally set, the two other men are questionable. The men in the booths were not on the same level of evil as the mob bosses that the Saints' had previously targeted. The movie includes these men to present the ambiguity of vigilante justice. In certain situations, vigilantism is inappropriate.

Basic immorality is not a sin warranting death. In order for vigilantism to be considered a suitable resolution for an incident, the question of whether the ends will justify the means must be addressed. If the act is more evil than what it seeks to destroy, then hypocrisy removes any beneficial outcome. Killing two men is far too excessive for a common lapse in morality. Shortly after they escape, a TV news reporter arrives on the scene. The reporter speaks of no "public outcry to have the killings stopped," claiming there is "no doubt" all of the victims have been criminals. This news report offers an interesting view on society's feelings. If only criminals are targeted, there should be no reason for anyone to want the string of assassinations to end.

The Saints' move on to their next victim, a man described by Rocco as the most brutal human he'd ever met. After killing the intended target, another problem presents itself for the Saints. A man recruited by the Yakavetta family known as "Il Duce" (Billy Connolly) manages to wound all three of the men before escaping. The outcome of the situation has proven a bold reminder that they are simply citizen vigilantes with no training, and any one of these missions could result in their deaths. This is yet another setback for the argument in favor of vigilantism. Most vigilantes are amateur, at best. This means that there is tremendous risk included with every mission. Not only does it endanger the Saints', but it potentially endangers innocent people who could easily become caught in the crossfire.

Vigilantes are not only in control of their own well-being, but the well-being of the people they are trying to protect. Collateral damage tends to negate the benefits of vigilantism; this adds yet another precaution that must be taken in order to ensure the ends justify the means. Back in the apartment, the brothers see Smecker on TV discussing the possible identity of the Saints. Rocco suggests that Smecker is getting too close to them, and that he is a "liability" that must be taken out. The brothers respond passionately, calling Smecker a "good man who isn't to be touched." This shows that the brothers are unwilling to step outside the boundaries of justified killing, even if it means that their crusade may be compromised. They are doing everything they can to operate within reasonable boundaries, and make many conscious decisions such as this one to stay in touch with some rudimentary sense of morals and ethics.

Throughout the movie, Paul Smecker has been one step behind the Saints. During the next scene he comes to know their identities. He is now stuck in a confusing moral dilemma. Smecker decides to seek advice from a Priest. This choice is interesting, hinting at the fact that vigilantism defies natural law, and can only be justified in the context of a higher power or purpose. The conversation between the Smecker and the Priest is insightful, and continues to support the claims in favor of vigilantism. Smecker describes the circumstances from his vantage point as an FBI Agent: "I put bad men behind bars. But the law has miles of red tape and loopholes for these cocksuckers to slip through."

The frustration that Smecker deals with is depicted well in this quote as tears stream from his eyes. Once again it is simple and easy to understand so the viewer can strongly relate to it. Relating with the audience is important to creating agreement and understanding. If viewers can relate to and understand what Smecker is telling the Priest, they are obligated to agree with him. The movie makes many efforts to oversimplify things such as "loopholes and red tape" so that the audience can more easily relate to the pro-vigilantism arguments. When the Priest directly asks Smecker if he feels what the Saints are doing is right, he responds without hesitation: "In this day and age, what they do is necessary, it is correct." The Priest tells Smecker that his feelings are communications from God, and therefore, always right. Religion now becomes one of the justifications for Smecker. Divine intervention has already caused the brothers' to take action, and now communications from God are encouraging Smecker to assist the Saints.

The Saints plan their next hit, choosing the Don of the Yakavetta family as their target. Their plan goes awry as they are captured and Rocco is executed on the spot. This scene is useful in showing the tremendous risks and dangers of vigilantism. The implications of the scene demonstrate that vigilantism is not a panacea for all situations. Sometimes, an incident requires more organization and professionalism to be dealt with properly. This trend is an ongoing problem for the Saints' in their last two attempts, and their crusade begins to deteriorate as they try and deal with bigger and more hostile criminals. Vigilantism is effective for weeding out the little guys, but it does not appear to be a suitable method in every attempt to exterminate evil.

This scene includes an unexpected plot twist, as the brothers are reunited with their estranged father, Il Duce, the man who has been attempting to kill them. With the aid of undercover Smecker and their father, the brothers escape captivity and devise a new plan to get Yakavetta off the streets. This time, the Saints have the assistance of an FBI Agent, and several Boston Police Department officers. This authoritative backing reinforces the argument for vigilantism, showing that even those who seek to end crime every day are willing to let the ends justify the means in this situation. In the next scene we see Yakavetta on trial in the courtroom. Two reporters discuss their predictions for the outcome of the trial, both agreeing that he will easily be acquitted for the third time.

This foreshadowing conversation goes back to the Saints' original justification for their battle. This man, clearly a criminal capable of vicious and brutal crimes, is about to walk out of the courtroom a free man, despite the substantial evidence available for conviction. This shows that even the judicial system has inadequacies which easily allow those who violate the law to work around the system and remain on the streets. Vigilantism must come into play when the system fails to do its job. Just before Yakavetta is acquitted, the Saints and Il Duce enter the courtroom heavily armed. They are determined not to let Yakavetta slip through the cracks, and the only way this can be accomplished is by executing him before he evades justice. Before the execution of Yakavetta, the brothers recite a very intimidating and informative speech:

"Now you will receive us. We do not ask for your poor, or your hungry. We do not want your tired and sick. It is your corrupt we claim. It is your evil that will be sought by us. With every breath, we shall hunt them down. Each day we will spill their blood, 'til it rains down from the skies. Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace. These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth, not to push the bounds and cross over, in to true corruption, into our domain. For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three, and on that day you will reap it. And we will send you to whatever god you wish."

This lecture summarizes the purpose of the Saints: to remove the people who are corrupt, who cannot follow basic codes of behavior which make the world a suitable and safe place to live in. This motive is acceptable for the continuation of vigilantism.

In the final scene of the movie, we are presented a set of interviews by a reporter who is gathering the opinions of the "citizens" of Boston regarding the Saints. Many people express support for the actions of the men, saying they should be in every major city. Some go as far as saying they would join in the efforts if they were given a chance. This common opinion shows that it easy for many people to see the benefits of the situation and believe that the ends justify the means. Others offer a contrasting opinion, explaining that the Saints' are no different than ordinary criminals, and they have no right to be delineating between good and evil. They cannot continue to play God and exterminate only those they feel are worthy of their wrath. Yet another group of people decline to comment, and avoid the camera. This whole series of interviews displays the possible opinions one can have towards vigilantism. Each side offers strong arguments both for and against the practice, but in the end, it all boils down to a matter of context and relativity. Depending upon several variables, vigilante justice can either be acceptable or unnecessary. The vigilante's motives, the offenses of the criminal, and the means used by the vigilantes must all balance each other out. If the means are too excessive, the crime is insignificant, or the motives of the vigilantes are unclear or ambiguous, the ends do not justify the means.

This movie is an important work of social commentary. It raises profound and controversial questions which challenge the viewer to deeply examine and inspect their own sets of morals and beliefs. It is easy to make an argument against vigilantes by saying that they do not have the right to transcend natural law, even if it is for the benefit of society. However, many are firm believers in the fact that the ends justify the means no matter what the context or situation is. These people believe in infinite degrees of extremity when dealing with evil, as long as it is eradicated. The movie depicts vigilantes acting within a boundary of reason. They are organized and cautious about their actions, only targeting those who they can determine are evil men.

Although the movie supports vigilante action, vaguely justified murders such as the the bartender and the sex parlor patrons are included to show that vigilantism is still heavily dependant upon the framework of the situation. There are too many shortcomings in our law enforcement policies and judicial system not to support vigilantism in at least some cases. The occupation of criminals is to locate and exploit these loopholes to extend their criminal careers, and they are very good at it. What's worse is that our understanding of these flaws evolves much slower than the methods designed to uncover and utilize new ones.

For this reason, vigilante justice is necessary. We are in desperate need of men with unlimited resources who can transcend the law to make sure justice is enforced when systems and policies fall short of doing so. I think the movie clearly supports vigilantism. By using character development the movie first creates a strong bond between the viewer and the brothers. Once this bond is established, any actions the Saints take already have the benefit of the viewer's doubt, since they are such likeable characters. By establishing framework and setting variables so that each killing is justified by circumstance, the movie offers constant support for vigilantism, even though the argument is prevailingly one-sided. The means used by the MacManus brothers are justified by the end.