text: This is the episode that probably most closely relates to it's partner law, "Thou Shalt Not Kill," in that it directly brings up the ever controversial issue, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?" This issue is presented in two parts within the episode: before the killing, when the film shows the dichotomy between the idealistic up-and-coming lawyer and the street thug so caught up in his ways that his life is merely a representation of what he's supposed to do, followed by the period after the trial and before the execution, when both are made to suffer for the deaths they feel responsible for and thus share.<br /><br />One of the great things about the way these episodes work are in the both small and big ways the story is fully developed, so that we understand both the motivations and histories of characters we're only able to spend slightly less than an hour with. For all his criminal intentions and mockery, the killer is still very sympathetic, revolving the most important part of his actions around a history of accidental death. His way of killing is more a desire to control death than it is any desire to actually destroy. Similarly, the lawyer's idealistic naivety shows one unwilling to allow death to happen in a world where he can't control it. Their meeting is, indeed, important; they both have to give in to it while not propagating it.<br /><br />As an aside, it's interesting how much this episode affects viewing of Rouge, Kieslowski's later completion of the Trois Colours trilogy. One of Kieslowski's biggest influences seems to be the idea of justice, and considering that the Decalogue is a meditation on something that represents Divine Justice, this one seems almost the most self-conscious.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB