The Fate of Monsters

Face Engine wrote:The strike of a fist.
The tie of a rope.
The wail of fear.
The bang of a gun.
And the aftermath is red.

These verbs are poorly thrown together just for the sake of poetic repetition. You cannot hear a rope "tie" as much as you can hear the rest of these actions, and so the poem starts falling apart at its attempt to formulate solid literary devices right there. A gun does not simply "Bang"; that is too simple of a word to describe something I'm assuming is important, because it causes blood to be spilt.

Justice fell upon the victim's house,
the victim was slain, but the criminal's bound.

What about the criminal's bound? Do you mean "the criminal's leap" did something?

Opposites unite against the devil,
red and blue, white and black.

The meaning just falls through here badly; this poem seems to not make up its mind as to whether it is going to be a lecture, an inspirational speech, or an actual piece of literature. These lines are a good example of such confusion.

But they make no compromise.
Victory belongs not to all, but to one.

Cliche. Three Musketeers, much?

The gentle nudge of a hand.
The safe bondage of cuffs.
The fierce debate of ideals.
The bang of a hammer.
And the aftermath is black.

Again, the verbs are put into the poem without any thought as to how they will actually impact the reader and the reader's vision of poetic imagery. Nudging and banging are actual sounds while "bonding" someone in handcuffs is not a singular and repeatable noise. "The fierce debate of ideals" seems to have been stuck there for no reason at all, because it is a pseudo-philosophical statement wedged in between brute forces and sounds.

Justice fell upon the judge's court,
the verdict determined, the murderer doomed.
Civilisation unites against the monster,
left and right, free and slave.
But they make no agreements.
Victory is gained not by friendship, but force.

The push of a palm.
The tie of a rope.
The sigh of regret.
The bang of a gun.
And the aftermath is red.

These two stanzas have all the mistakes that the two above did, because you apparently just copied the first two and rephrased some things. It's the exact same meaning and I didn't catch anything new. Repetition is only good if it has something to add.

And the company of the victim did rejoice,
with death they defeated death,

Simplistic irony. "Death defeating death" is a phrase/term/idea I've heard all too often and you do not have that much depth in this poem in the first place to defend such a shallow statement. Take it out.

and with blood they avenged their friend,
a sacrifice to the dead,
a rapture to our senses!

This is predictable, I would imagine that because of all the injustice in the first half of the poem, there would have to be some kind of reunion; I didn't expect it to be so blatant and rushed, however.

The press of a button.
The flight of heaven's arrow.
The gasp of horror.
The light of a star.
And the aftermath is black.

See above. This misuse of verbs is really bringing this poem down, and the first thing you should do when revising it is to completely alter the first, third, fifth, and seventh stanzas.

In addition, the poem was overly repetitive. Repetition is acceptable in some cases and only in some parts of the poem - centering your piece solely on recursiveness, however, makes it seem contrived and as if you were attempting to sound as poetic as possible without considering the implications. I have no idea why repetition is becoming so popular nowadays on this website, it's strange. Don't abuse it.