I'm confused as to why reviewers believe Broderick should have not been sentenced to hang for premeditated murder!
There was no information given about the gambler or the incident that led to his son's killing, and we see by the behavior of his remaining two sons, that they believe themselves to be above the love and capable of unprovoked brutality, with the shooting and burying of the hangman, then tarred and feather him. There behavior makes me believe the son that was murdered may have been the one that provoked the gambler.
Seems that previous reviewer is making an assumption to the Gambler's guilt based on the Father's friends and neighborhoods -- all who feel beholding to him, since he owns half the town. Then the father kills the gambler only further substantiates that he and his sons believe the law doesn't apply to them, so yes he should have been hanged by the neck until dead.
There was no information given about the gambler or the incident that led to his son's killing, and we see by the behavior of his remaining two sons, that they believe themselves to be above the love and capable of unprovoked brutality, with the shooting and burying of the hangman, then tarred and feather him. There behavior makes me believe the son that was murdered may have been the one that provoked the gambler.
Seems that previous reviewer is making an assumption to the Gambler's guilt based on the Father's friends and neighborhoods -- all who feel beholding to him, since he owns half the town. Then the father kills the gambler only further substantiates that he and his sons believe the law doesn't apply to them, so yes he should have been hanged by the neck until dead.