Humans are vengeful in nature. It is natural, instinctive, something that simply comes naturally for us. From small conflicts to great wars that ultimately cause harm or lead to the death of people, it can be rooted from different reasons but in most cases, it is for revenge or vengeance. But there’s always a reason, a catalyst that will instigate this desire for vengeance. There is even a saying “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” which simply means giving back what was given to you or getting even. But at present times where the society is ruled by a justice system, this kind of thinking simply won’t do. In the movie “Law Abiding Citizen,” two prominent forms of justice were shown. One being the legal process the suspects, namely Clarence James Darby and Rupert Ames had undergone after the crime they committed and the second one, Clyde Shelton exacting revenge to the suspects and to those who were involved in the case, may it be directly or indirectly. The first one can be labeled under legalized revenge. It is a form of retribution permitted by the law and the laws limit the powers of those who apprehend and punish criminals. The neutral party will serve as the intermediary between the victim and the transgressor. By using an impartial body and removing personal biases, appropriate punishment would be given and would exact the revenge for the victim thus preventing escalation. As it is, in the movie, it didn’t stop there. By relying on the justice system, Shelton put his belief that the suspects would be put behind the bars. Yes, it used an impartial body and punishment was given but the problem lies on the different arithmetic perceived by Shelton and the prosecutor, Nick Rice. Rice struck a deal with Darby that if he testifies against Ames he would receive a lesser charge while Ames would get the death row. For Rice, convicting at least one of them is enough while the other served his shortened sentence but S