Hazle Thunes

The cadential sequence of the film M (Fritz Lang, 1931) brings into question the right of

a habitual killer to the same considerations given to common criminals. As a laborious chase

comes to a close, the child murderer Beckert’s captors are left with a final decision; what to do

with him. Prompted by the question “what do you have to say for yourself?”, he states he cannot

stop from killing, he has no power over the forces that compel him to take the lives of innocent

children. He lives in torment, forever followed by himself, with no choice but to continue on the

same path, the only respite from which comes in the moments he is committing murder,

moments he cannot even remember. This “shadow” he senses leaves him no choice but to keep

killing, and the sitting jurist “Safecracker” notes that he has to kill; he says so himself. In the

eyes of the Safecracker, a self-admitted, uncontrollable killer cannot be allowed to live or even

be put on the path to rehabilitation, therefore Hans Beckert’s verdict must be death.

The ending provides no such definitive verdict, allowing the viewer only the opening of

an official court session and a bench of weeping mothers with no comfort or resolution in their

faces. We see no immovable sign of justice served, and are only able to question whether

Beckert is deserving of the second chance that imprisonment or institutionalization might bring.

What we are left with is our own chance to ask what Beckert deserves. Does a troubled murderer

deserve death? And when at the hands of an unofficial court, how does one decide what is right

over what feels just?

The Safecracker claims that Beckert’s admission of uncontrollable murderous tendencies

not only incriminates him, but proves that he is irredeemable. In this pseudo-courtroom,

complete with self-righteous judge, level-headed defense “lawyer” (the presence of any

qualifications is in question), and audience frothing at the mouth, there seems to be little recourse
available for Hans Beckert. To escape from the crimes he has committed is impossible, yet he

clings to the hope that he may still avoid immediate death at the hands of his “underworld”

captors.

In a man who says he must kill, the Safecracker and his court members see no humanity.

“A man who claims that he’s compelled to destroy the lives of others - such a man must be

extinguished like a bonfire!” They see a man who kills and states that this is some inextricable

force within him, that compels him completely yet is without his conscious mind, is beyond

redemption. This is the opinion of a room full of much passion and very little expertise in the

field of incarceration and rehabilitation.

The thieves, beggars, pickpockets, and common criminals of this German town have

banded together in the noble and tireless pursuit of catching an active killer. Their motivation,

though tinged with a desire to clear their own names, is honest and rooted in good intentions.

After the capture of Beckert, only the question of what to do with him remains. And, with a

known and notorious child murderer sitting right in front of them, admitting to his crimes and his

inability to cease killing, how could this group of criminals hand him over to the police when the

threat of his imminent freedom looms heavy over their heads? The encampment of underworld

criminals led by the Safecracker and the above-ground police force seem to represent two

distinct forces of justice. We hope the latter examines with fairness and reason each criminal

case and delivers verdicts that follow the laws in place. The former is fueled by emotion, another

factor in justice that more often takes the form of retribution, or ‘eye for an eye’ mentality.

The Safecracker does not believe in the value of Beckert’s life, nor does he want to

believe in it. In his eyes, and the eyes of the congregation behind him, there is no redemption for

a man who cannot find a way to stop himself from killing children. This emotional lense sees the
pain and heartache of the mothers who lost their children, and the city gripped by the fear that

any boy or girl could be the next victim. Beckert begs to be turned over to the police: “So you

can plead insanity and spend the rest of your life being cared for by the state?” the Safecracker

asks, almost mockingly. But his point is sound, and here takes a more reasonable stance, perhaps

not so driven by raw emotion, and speaking more to a genuine concern for what he has just

heard.

When the appointed defense, the singular refuting party of the Safecracker’s decision, is

given his hard-fought opportunity to speak, the audience is volatile, on the edge of their seats,

eager to see their vision of justice served swiftly, and his words are met with aggravation, yells,

and blatant dissent. He states, “...the very nature of compulsion warrants an acquittal. It is

precisely the nature of compulsion that relieves him of responsibility for his actions! And a man

cannot be punished for that which he is not responsible.” A human not in control of their own

actions must be removed as a threat for future victims, but this does not warrant punishment to

the degree the Safecracker suggests and insists upon. This decision is for those with a true

understanding of the law and those with a firm comprehension of altered mental states to make.

Here, their reaction is driven by emotion, immediate responses spurred by their desire to watch

the man that has caused their community so much pain be extinguished. In a court of law, one

not of the ‘kangaroo’ variety, a panel of peers is presented with evidence, testimony, statements,

and is then given time to discuss and weigh options before returning to deliver their verdict, then

corroborated by the decision of the sitting judge. Very little of this process can be seen in the

environment below ground, where heat and passion are at the helm and justice must be served in

a succinct manner.
 Though the job of the defense lawyer is not an enviable one, in the case of a child

murderer, it is one that perhaps can only be done when one steps back to look at the broad

strokes of the circumstance. Beckert, as detestable and close to animalistic as he may be, carries

a human life and, if he is to be believed, is possessed by a need to kill that he cannot control or

even stanch. Perhaps one cannot feel sympathy for Beckert’s situation, even if a judge were to

take him at his word, it hardly absolves him of the heinous crimes he has committed, but when

Beckert asks, pleadingly, “Who knows what it’s like inside me?”, though not rhetorical, the

question is unanswerable for the men and women who sit before him.

In the first place, to punish murder with murder in the name protecting future victims

does not absolve the Safecracker and his accomplices of a new death. In the second, if we

suppose Beckert is truly a man out of control, pleading insanity, to sentence him to death would

be without cause (though in line with the practices of the time and many subsequent decades).

“This man is sick, and you turn a sick man over to a doctor, not an executioner.”, states the

defense. Those who have lost control of their own minds are placed in institutions or prisons, but

do they deserve death? Even the defense lawyer does not push for a complete acquittal, there is

no arguing that Beckert is guilty of the crimes he has been charged with, they maintain their

adjudicative discretion still, it is the point at which we can show humanity even to those who

seem capable of only the most inhuman actions.

This is just one reason for which our underworld jury cannot reasonably decide Beckert’s

punishment. Though there is no denying his wrongdoing, it is at this juncture that wrongs can be

righted. In the very last moments of the film, we look to the mothers of the taken and murdered

children, those most painfully burdened with the result of the crimes we have watched unfold.

Though their statement is vague and devoid of a great deal of context, there is much we can
glean from their sentiment. “This will not bring our children back. One has to keep closer watch

over the children.” One might presume that Beckert has in fact been taken in to the police, tried

before a court, and ultimately been found guilty and condemned to death through the most law-

abiding avenues. But even this brings no comfort to the grief-stricken mothers. There is no

comfort in more death, more loss, more killing, for “If everyone fought fire with fire, the whole

world would go up in smoke.” - Lemony Snicket

The Safecracker’s claim that Beckert should be punished for his crimes with death is not

foreign with respect to the way many cases of the same sort have been considered throughout

history. He has a group of personally injured and justice-seeking townspeople at his back, urging

him on in the interest of retribution, and their emotions and desires are certainly founded. The

crimes committed here are undeniable, and we as viewers have been witness to the agonizing

process of Beckert’s murderous ways, nearly seeing it first hand more than once, and it is easy to

feel the tension, the anger, and the hatred towards this grotesque killer. However, reason must

prevail, and there is a reason why those personally affected by the actions of a criminal do not sit

on their jury or act as their judge. Emotion is too influential a force to be allowed to lead the

charge towards justice. If the mother of a murdered child were to be the deciding voice, there is

no way Beckert would be given a fair trial, let alone walk out of the courtroom.

This is what breaks the Safecracker’s argument and undermines his claim. Therefore,

when held side by side, the argument against the immediate killing of Beckert is a more just

response to the question of his punishment. To the Safecracker, Beckert is a kindling ground for

a potentially untenable anarchy, and though the heat of the moment may lead most to extinguish

the dangerous flame they see before them, in the case of a human life, insanity does not warrant

death.